Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenBSD 5.1 Released

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by soupbowl View Post
    I like that my BSDs let me do system upgrades without really worrying about all my shit not working anymore. Linux is total shit for this, BSD I might not have many choices for wifi, but when I update I can expect them to work. Linux every few kernel updates my wifi might fail to work correctly.

    BSD sucks for being behind? I had better working wifi on windows 2000, then modern linux. I also had a better graphics stack in windows 98 then your living in the past shitty linux.
    That's why they have distros like Debian and CentOS - they're maintained to be stable.

    As for your other comment, do you get better wifi in any BSD distro than linux or windows? Do you get better graphics support in BSD than linux or windows? How about audio? Not such a smart idea to bring up that point when, AFAIK, BSD is actually worse at those things than both linux and windows.

    Comment


    • #12
      All that matters is windows has 10x better wifi and video support. Linux will always be years and years behind.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by McDuck View Post
        OpenBSD is probably the best at what they do - Security.
        Sure they are. Until you look at what they don't count as security vulnerabilities.

        This is like the line the Linux community uses about how Linux is immune to malware, even though Greg Kroah-Hartman urges people to scan their Linux installations for malware.

        http://lwn.net/Articles/461237/

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by soupbowl View Post
          I like that my BSDs let me do system upgrades without really worrying about all my shit not working anymore. Linux is total shit for this, BSD I might not have many choices for wifi, but when I update I can expect them to work. Linux every few kernel updates my wifi might fail to work correctly.

          BSD sucks for being behind? I had better working wifi on windows 2000, then modern linux. I also had a better graphics stack in windows 98 then your living in the past shitty linux.
          IMHO, "Security" and "Stability" comes from ➀ active testing(large user base), ➁ openness , ➂ careful scrutinization, ➃ active patching
          FreeBSD prevails in ➂ and Windows in ➀. Linux scores high on average in all aspects.

          We like Linux for what it is. EOS.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by asdx
            Windows has so much better hardware/driver support than Linux that Windows will BSOD every single time I change my hardware, while Linux will still boot perfectly and recognize all my new hardware out of the box without my intervention.
            I wonder why that happens. Win NT is a microkernel. It should not panic just because you change the hardware. Linux should.

            I guess:
            Blue Shit Of Death happens.

            Comment


            • #16
              Windows NT is not really a microkernel. It is hybrid. Linux could also be called hybrid.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by asdx
                Yeah let's see if you say that when we get Wayland, how long it's going to get your BSD to get Wayland and KMS? another 20 years?
                If BSD has someting, it works. Linux has many things, but none of them work correctly.

                Linux development process:
                <some old unix thing> sucks, lets do a <new better thing>.
                3 years later a <new better thing> is almost working, but it sucks, lets do a <newer better thing>.
                ...

                Example:
                static /dev sucks, lets do a devfs.
                3 years later a devfs is almost working, but it sucks, lets do a udev.

                It is not all about tehnology and versions.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by soupbowl View Post
                  I like that my BSDs let me do system upgrades without really worrying about all my shit not working anymore. Linux is total shit for this, BSD I might not have many choices for wifi, but when I update I can expect them to work. Linux every few kernel updates my wifi might fail to work correctly.
                  That's funny, because I don't care about this on Linux. While there's no progress there are no regressions. Nobody forces you to upgrade your kernel. You can stick to Ubuntu LTS and be happy for 5 years.

                  BSD sucks for being behind? I had better working wifi on windows 2000, then modern linux. I also had a better graphics stack in windows 98 then your living in the past shitty linux.
                  Keep dreaming. Linux beats the crap in 90% cases. You'll have wifi working on your bsd in Linux+10 years.
                  Last edited by kraftman; 05-02-2012, 07:20 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by soupbowl View Post
                    All that matters is windows has 10x better wifi and video support. Linux will always be years and years behind.
                    And Linux has 10x better performance, file systems, security and stability. Winblows will always be years and years behind. When Linux will get Wayland it will be on pair in graphics. Blame me, but even with X Linux is faster in graphics in many cases. Keep dreaming. Btw. how windows helps bsd?

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                      If BSD has someting, it works. Linux has many things, but none of them work correctly.

                      Linux development process:
                      <some old unix thing> sucks, lets do a <new better thing>.
                      3 years later a <new better thing> is almost working, but it sucks, lets do a <newer better thing>.
                      ...

                      Example:
                      static /dev sucks, lets do a devfs.
                      3 years later a devfs is almost working, but it sucks, lets do a udev.

                      It is not all about tehnology and versions.
                      Why some fanboys compare Linux kernel to BSD distribution? Just because there's no bsd.kernel.org? Linux has many things and MOST of them works as they should. BSD has very few things and none of them work correctly. That's a difference.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X