Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Non-Linux OSes Still Playing In An Intel UMS World

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Non-Linux OSes Still Playing In An Intel UMS World

    Phoronix: Non-Linux OSes Still Playing In An Intel UMS World

    While Intel has a lot of interesting work going on right now within their Linux kernel DRM driver and elsewhere within their open-source graphics stack, operating systems like OpenIndiana/Illumos and FreeBSD are still catching up, but they're still a ways off...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA4MjQ

  • #2
    Is there anybody who uses OpenIndiana that cares about Intel graphics support?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by johnc View Post
      Is there anybody who uses OpenIndiana that cares about Intel graphics support?
      Is there anybody who uses OpenIndiana? ;>

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        Is there anybody who uses OpenIndiana? ;>
        Only those who prefer ZFS to BTRFS.

        Comment


        • #5
          Why that'd be everyone then.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by curaga View Post
            Why that'd be everyone then.
            No, because most prefer Ext4.

            Comment


            • #7
              The question was only btrfs vs zfs. Of those, one is stable and well-tested.

              I too prefer ext4, but it's unrelated to that use.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by johnc View Post
                Only those who prefer ZFS to BTRFS.
                Don't they use FreeBSD then?!?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Since when is a filesystem an argument to use an operating system? The OS is much more than its filesystem: it's the applications it supports, it's the hardware drivers, it's the design and efficiency of its core kernel, it's the licensing models and release cycles used...

                  Still, I hope that FreeBSD and OpenIndiana become as good as they can possibly be, and someday evolve to being viable competitors to desktop Linux. We need another platform where we can "leap" to should it ever occur that desktop Linux becomes intractably adulterated by closed source software. In fact, I'm counting on that eventually happening.

                  No, Steve (Ballmer), Linux is not a cancer. Proprietary software is. Every free project I've seen to date either (a) dies of lack of interest, or (b) becomes insanely popular and eventually gets taken over by predominantly proprietary software, to the point that any open code left is not at all useful on its own. Reference: Android. Reference: OS X (whose open core is Darwin, and NEXT before that, and BSD before that, if you remember). Linux is definitely not trending toward (a), so it's very likely trending toward (b) instead. We need an alternative that's at least usable when Linux reaches its terminus. We (those who value Free/Open Source software on the very principal of it) are bound to spend our entire lives jumping ship from one sinking ship to another. Every free platform eventually sinks into the ocean, and you have to find another to jump to that's (for the moment) free as in freedom. It's a cycle.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
                    Since when is a filesystem an argument to use an operating system?
                    People use an OS that best suits the needs for the system it's running on. For OI users, 3D acceleration and the latest graphics drivers updates aren't really important. Most people who install OI are doing it for ZFS and running it on (headless) file servers. Yes, the filesystem is the selling point.

                    That was my only point... because the article seemed to heap shame on OI where it doesn't really make sense.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      freebsd sucks horribly as a desktop OS, it CAN arguably be better on the server. i've actually used freebsd live cd on a desktop with a kernel bug that would render it unbootable.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        freebsd sucks horribly as a desktop OS, it CAN arguably be better on the server. i've actually used freebsd live cd on a desktop with a kernel bug that would render it unbootable.
                        What version of FreeBSD did you try out? I've not seen a live CD (at least for version 9.0) available on their website.

                        FreeBSD works fine as a desktop OS for me (Desktop PC with Athlon II X4, Radeon 4850 (R600c)). It meets all of my requirements:
                        • solid as a rock
                        • plays music and videos
                        • has regularly updated software
                        • can create and burn video DVDs
                        • can rip video DVDs
                        • runs firefox and LibreOffice
                        • reads PDF documents
                        • has several email clients
                        What are your requirements for a desktop OS?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by archibald View Post
                          What version of FreeBSD did you try out? I've not seen a live CD (at least for version 9.0) available on their website.

                          FreeBSD works fine as a desktop OS for me (Desktop PC with Athlon II X4, Radeon 4850 (R600c)). It meets all of my requirements:
                          • solid as a rock
                          • plays music and videos
                          • has regularly updated software
                          • can create and burn video DVDs
                          • can rip video DVDs
                          • runs firefox and LibreOffice
                          • reads PDF documents
                          • has several email clients
                          What are your requirements for a desktop OS?
                          You can drive an old Dodge, but why to choose it instead of Ferrari? BSD's re mess when comes to hardware support, audio and graphic stack, package management, availability of software, performance etc. For me an only interesting BSD is Dragonfly BSD, because of it hammer file system and its devs who are ok.
                          Last edited by kraftman; 04-05-2012, 06:04 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well if the hardware is fully supported then it is no less a 'ferrari' than Linux would be for him when using the same applications. Personally I would recommend Linux over BSD for the desktop if someone asked me, but if someone is running BSD and all their hardware is supported then obviously it's only a question of which OS/distro one prefers.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by archibald View Post
                              What version of FreeBSD did you try out? I've not seen a live CD (at least for version 9.0) available on their website.

                              FreeBSD works fine as a desktop OS for me (Desktop PC with Athlon II X4, Radeon 4850 (R600c)). It meets all of my requirements:
                              • solid as a rock
                              • plays music and videos
                              • has regularly updated software
                              • can create and burn video DVDs
                              • can rip video DVDs
                              • runs firefox and LibreOffice
                              • reads PDF documents
                              • has several email clients
                              What are your requirements for a desktop OS?
                              Ok, I'll bite and add to the list:
                              • Support for running 3d applications in wine
                              • Hardware-accelerated composited desktop (sorry, "eye candy" is mandatory for me, as much as having > 0MB of RAM is mandatory for you)
                              • Ability to play native Linux games and run native 3d applications (long list)
                              • OpenCL for scientific computing, GPU encoding, and software development
                              • Runs Skype, DropBox
                              • Acts as a VMware Workstation host OS with full hypervisor hardware acceleration (EPT, etc)

                              Obviously we have different needs -- doesn't make yours right or wrong, but my definition of a "desktop OS" is definitely different than yours if you think your list is sufficient to be considered a desktop. Nothing in your list even mentions 3d acceleration, and I refuse to use an operating system that is going to turn my Radeon HD7970 into the equivalent of a VGA adapter.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X