Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reasons Why You Should Not Use FreeBSD

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
    If someone wants to base something on code I wrote and then make that proprietary, I want a cut. You want to use my work for proprietary software? Pay me and I'll grant you a proprietary license.
    It's certainly a viable opportunity if your code is of interest for commercial proprietary ventures. The x264 devs are making good money this way, it's open sourced under GPL which means anyone can use it and also incorporate it into their open source projects, however if you want to use it in a proprietary project you can purchase a special licence from the x264 devs which allows this.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
      I generally agree with you but it's not as clear cut as you make it out to be. If a company (or individual) picks up BSD licenced code, fixes or enhances that code and doesn't return these changes then you will again have to 'solve the problem over and over' if other people would want to have those fixes/enhancements (i.e duplication of effort).
      I don't disagree with you but it really is as clear cut as I made it out to be. It's the ramifications that aren't necessarily obvious.

      What you describe is a non-open project adding a great new feature to solve some problem. They solved it for their commercial product but since it's such a great feature that everybody wants, its functionality eventually appears in a open project and the problem has been 'solved.' This is true whether you are talking about BSD or GPL (with the former fixing the problem for everybody and the latter fixing the problem for anyone who complies with the GPL.) So while the problem is solved more than once, the number of solutions is minimal and, once it is in the open, it doesn't need to be solved again. Unless it is only available under GPL and you are allergic to GPL for whatever reason.

      Originally posted by XorEaxEax
      Bottom line, there is no perfect licence (which in turn is why we have so many licences out there), I will agree though that if you release a piece of 'perfect' code that no one will have any reason to fix/enhance and/or you have no interest in any enhancements made to it by others then it makes perfect sense to release it under as permissive conditions as possible.
      Again, no real disagreement here, though I don't think it's so much about the code being 'perfect,' it's about it successfully solving a problem, which means it gets used. If there is desire for improvement, the community will improve it. Companies may hire someone to improve it then keep those improvements to themselves but that doesn't prevent the community from improving it as well. That's a duplication of effort, sure, but a company will do what a company will do. It would make sense for that company to switch to the community-driven version once it is suitable for their purposes so they don't have to keep paying this developer to maintain their out-of-tree hackery.

      Now one might say GPL avoids this by forcing the issue, but such companies wouldn't touch GPL software anyway so it's kind of a moot point. Also, just because a company is using BSD code doesn't mean they aren't giving back.

      Anyway, we can get all esoteric and stuff but my main point was summed up in my previous post. That is to say, the BSD license and the GPL license are trying to achieve different goals. There's room for both. On that (and on most other things) I think we can agree

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by RealNC View Post
        My reason for disliking the BSD license is more selfish. If someone wants to base something on code I wrote and then make that proprietary, I want a cut. You want to use my work for proprietary software? Pay me and I'll grant you a proprietary license. If not, make your work fully open or gtfo.

        People who work for IT companies and are already getting paid to write BSD code obviously don't care about this. Individuals who aren't getting paid to begin with should care.
        You went from talking about yourself to talking about 'individuals.' Sounds like you wanna restrict my freedoms!!!!111!!1!

        PS in case it isn't abundantly clear, i'm joking. but i do think that if an individual wants to release under BSD, there's nothing wrong with that.
        Last edited by Korla Plankton; 06-04-2012, 07:54 PM. Reason: ps

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by vertexSymphony View Post
          @0xBADCODE → Well, you're just yet another troll™ ... I'm just going to do leave some "notes" not because of you (you just basically trimmed my message and answered what came out of your ass), but for the casual reader that may read your misinformation
          And you're just another fanboy who tells that black is white because it makes their fetish to look better. Smells like double standards. And btw I have to trim things, else message would be uncontrollably huge.

          This is where you show your lack of knowledge about the AT&T litigation that damaged the credibility of the BSDs for a long time,
          Ahh, all fanboys are same. They prefer to see only one side of coin. You see, you've completely ignored that SCO has filed ton of lawsits against Linux, don't you? So according to your theory, Linux has been in disadvantage for a while too. Which hasn't prevented it from outrunning BSDs. And for being arrogant fanboy I would backstab you with your own weapon. You see, your theory assumes one fatal flaw: in real world nobody needs weaklings. So if some lawsuit could seriously harm some OS I simply would not use it anywhere in more or less critical places. Do you seriously want to tell us *BSDs are toy OSes which can be knocked off by single lawsuit so we're better not to use them for serious things? Or you've just admit you haven't noticed your logic is flawed? Please explain: why the heck just a single lawsuit should ruin the party for whole years? And what I'm expected to to next time some nut would file another lawsuit? You see, I cant afford to shut down all servers, abandon desktop and wait for year or two to see how it's resolved.

          also it's a little bit of what XorEaxEax and blacknova said.Now, just to repeat: No, a license that allows privative forks and someoe exercises that, that's not an abuse ... a GPL'ed software like the ffmpeg case I mentioned, well ... that's proper abuse
          Formally that's right. But as you see, in real world these "proper abuses" had their costs. Every time someone (ab)uses their right to keep things closed, mainline project loses to its competitors.

          Now, you can jump to google and pretend that you already knew it.
          That's a way too fat trolling and will not work: you see, I wrote "(ab)use" in the way which clearly indicates I knew this at the time of writing. Try harder next time and don't make stupid logic flaws

          WTF? have you ever writed something like specfiles AAND a port? because I can ASSURE you, that this is plain fucking simple (it's a meta port example, but it's an example of syntax): http://www.freebsddiary.org/meta-ports.php and with that, not only the port, the port system can generate the package for you.
          Can't you FBSD guys understand that for me OS isn't a fetish? And even if some technical operations are simple, they usually not related to my goals, targets and tasks. So it's just a SYSTEM MAINTENANCE OVERHEAD. Which takes my (limited) resources away from more useful goals. Which is bad. So I want to avoid it as much as possible. I'm not inherently against of doing something useful for opensource projects, but it have to lead to my goals rather than be some stupid technical overhead. The less overhead the easier my life.

          I know distros with horrible repos that can't hold a candle to what FreeBSD offers (and I'm not thinking about *indie* distros)
          You're right that some Linux distros could be even worse than FBSD. The "only" problem is that in no way I'm not forced to use them and I can choose what matches best with my goals and preferences. Sure, it's not easy for FBSD fans to understand that due to lack of distros. They have only one true way of doing things, everyone who disagree is hereic and should be trolled and fried. That's what I dislike in FBSD community, BTW.

          So when it's linux it's ok, and when it's FreeBSD it's not?
          You see, in no way I'm forced to stick to worst, least convenient Linux distros (that's where your logic meets EPIC FAIL). So I can just choose another distro and rock'n'roll. In FBSD you do not even have this option as there is no virtually "other distros". No, seriously, how you could even get idea I would use worst distros? I would use those which fit me best.

          As for indies, Debian or Centos do not really report to corporations. They are running on their own, powered by their communities. So I guess they qualify as "indies", aren't they?

          well, surely you are a popular person among the users of distros like Slackware or Arch. lol
          I don't really like those distros. Mostly for the same reasons, BTW. They seems to offer relatively high amount of administrative overhead. Fortunately it's not like FBSD where you have to eat the sh*t at any cost. In Linux world I can just go away and select another distro which fits better. Simple.

          Then you have pkg_add to install the binary packages that the FreeBSD offers to you, of course, you'll loose some customization, but you don't seem to care about that ... in any case, you can mix binary packages AND ports
          As for me I like when all parts of system are declared as some packages and package manager undertakes package management hassle "by default". Something that FBSD fails to do for some poiltical or historic reasons. Btw, while this benefit haves huge advantages there are some disadvantages as well buy you seems to be completely unaware of them. This indicates you've never attempted to compare various approaches at all, sticking to your FBSD oldschool/barbarian approach.

          And this is where your lack of knowledge shines.
          Possibly. FBSD has been one of 1st system I used. It has been ages ago. I could forget something. I was not eager to learn too much about FBSD after figuring out Linux performs better for me as well. So I rather invested time and efforts in learning Linux and now I'm properly rewarded for my efforts.

          Corrupt packages, package manager database and I assure you that you'll be S.O.L in a heatbeat mostly because linux puts everything in /usr (and with the merge, now even more) compared to base system of FreeBSD being in that folder and *everything else* being STRICTLY on /usr/local ...
          You see, your theory is cool but in real world I only had 3 serious failures of package management systems in 8 years. That's per dozens of servers, etc. And package managers even told be how to recover. So it could be fixed in a matter of minutes. In fact, package manager is a very good tool to check and recover system most of times. It could validate file hashes to detect corrupt files (how you're doing that on FBSD?). It can be requested to reinstall packages to replace damaged files. However it system is very seriously damaged or suspected in security breach it could be faster and smarter just reinstall it or recover from backup rather than anything else.

          so you can just purge package database, rm -rf that and have a virgin OS.
          And who told you that your "virgin OS" is anyhow useful for me at all? On the other hand it is easy to instruct package manager to adjust selections to what I want, so I would have what I want in a matter of minutes. You see, I can have somewhat different view on what I consider "core part of my system" than FBSD guys do. In Linux it's not that hard to tweak package manager to do this for you, and all things are done in unified and universal way.

          I wanna see you trying to fix that in linux WITHOUT leftovers. because yes, I CAN ASSURE YOU that what I mentioned leaves ... NO LEFTOVERS
          If I would continue this strange logic a bit further, power facility could fail as well. Let's ignore electricity all together? Sure, you can even intentionally short circuit some wires to cause outage! Does this counds as electricity disadvantage?

          [QUOTE]1) You can install any gcc version you like, by now, that is[QUOTE]
          I can but it's utter stupidity to offer ancient stuff by default. I consider this as absolutely dumbest way to do license politics and get own leg shot as the result. Good luck with this approach.

          You don't (you don't have to do WHAT I like to do).So don't blame your ignorance on others.
          In theory FBSD is good OS. But when it comes to the practice it's either inconvenient as a h*ll or half-working or whatever else instead of "just works". You see, it lacks universal mechanics to do all this for all parts of system and installed software in uniform ways. So from my standpoint, dealing with all these quirk takes far more management hassle than it's desirable. I don't see a valid reason why some "core" part of system should be considered "more important" than things I installed. I never install OS just to exists and do nothing. Why this "base system" should exist? I don't need half of things inside and need dozen of things outside. Why I should be unable to manage all this in uniform way? Just because of some odd politics/relics? Nope, thanks.

          and the system was of a comparable quality to what GCC4.2 produced.
          The "only" problem is that rest of world uses GCC 4.6/4.7 which are superior to ancient 4.2. For some reason FBSD guys fail to understand that world haven't frozen when they decide to stick with 4.2. So I don't really care about comparison with 4.2. If you want a comparison, come on. Let's beat 4.6/4.7, okay? Not to mention GCC supports far more architectures I need and it's convenient to use the same set of compilers for different targets (less administrative/technical hassles again).

          Ports and binary packages DOES have dependency information. And you have "metapackages".
          And again, in theory you're 100% right. On practice all this just awkward, feature incomplete and isn't anyhow uniform for system and software. Does not stands comparison with more decent approaches.

          Well, shame on your lazy you !!! you could have installed gcc on a newer version, lol.
          You see, basically I want to have working system with minilal efforts. Having free BSDM session where I'm in passive role and system in active role isn't what I really wanted. It's so fortunate there are many OSes and distros. So I can just choose most convenient for certain task rather than fix all idiocies in the world myself.

          It's on a port (x11/nvidia-driver) that downloads and install the privative driver ... as entertaining as any linux distribution.
          The only "little" trouble on this way is that I have Intel graphics at notebook and AMD card on desktop. "Entertaining", eh?

          As virtualization is not my area, I'll avoid that topic as much as I can ... when it comes to package management, well, it depends on your needs, it can do some really cute stuff that linux package managers can't (at least without some problems), but it also MAY add moar complexity to maintenance on certain cases. it depends on the scenario, and again : the right tool for the right job.
          Okay, so Linux is a better tool for my jobs. And better for my hardware. Granted that my tasks are more or less common real world things, that's why I dare to share my views here.

          I'll just ignore the unbearable and uninformed comments about ZFS and UFS2. I just can't find the patience to repeat myself and answer to what is clearly an uninformed aggression :S
          Then maybe you could inform me what exactly "groups of cylinders" supposed to mean on SSD? Or even on modern LBA-based HDDs? And don't you think that ext4 with it's extent allocator beats UFS in speed any time of the day?

          Comment


          • #80
            Can't you FBSD guys
            Sorry dear, just to clarify:

            Code:
            alex@Sylbit:~> uname -a
            Linux Sylbit 3.4.0-26-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun May 27 19:46:37 UTC 2012 (8353c9e) i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
            P.S → I just gave up on you, it's pointless ...

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by vertexSymphony View Post
              Sorry dear, just to clarify:
              Code:
              alex@Sylbit:~> uname -a
              Linux Sylbit 3.4.0-26-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun May 27 19:46:37 UTC 2012 (8353c9e) i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
              And what it supposed to prove? You see, I don't consider you as serious Linux user. You even failed point me some real package management issue when we clashed about package management. But in fact it exists in most of decent package managers and distros using them. But for some reason you're so unaware of that fact that you've failed to admit it while it could be fun to kick me into that weak place. So I suspect your knowledge of Linux is just as good as my knowledge of FBSD or even worse than that .

              P.S → I just gave up on you, it's pointless ...
              I'm kinda expected that. Because:
              1) You would not make my AMD/Intel GPUs running properly by just some stupid forum posts. And you know that.
              2) Some stupid forum post is not enough to resolve long standing package management idiocies.
              3) Virtualization will not appear just due to some forum clashing either.
              4) It's hard to reject that fact that FBSD guys play politics and it kicks them in their backs.
              5) You failed to provide any reasonable use cases which could actually fit my real usage patterns where FBSD would perform better. Sure, it can survive damage of packages database since it virtually lacks package management. But it's like claiming that I should not use electricity because power facility could fail. Sure, it can. But it's rare. And if I would worry about it, I would have UPS/generators/whatever else fits the task and allows to accomplish mission. If I would be worried about package manager failure, I would have snapshots/backups/whatever else fits the task. Failure to understand this simple fact is futile.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by vertexSymphony View Post
                Let me show you an example: Replay converter took ffpmeg (GPLv2) compiled and built an interface atop of it by invoking it as an executable, thus by workarounding the license ... that it's a 2cent polish and it's legally accepted.
                And the company that sells it, is getting cute ammounts of money (ffmpeg used to have a "wall of shame" for those infractors, and replay converter was there sitting a loooong time )
                Again, I invite you to read that article.
                Originally posted by ApplianTechnologies View Post
                ApplianTechnologies:
                We do - if you click the little symbol in the upper left hand corner of the user interface you will see that we FFMPEG credit.
                This is their response. Replay converter is a ready to use utility with easy interface.
                Because they made ffmpeg to much more and do support it, asking for money as in "commercial" is completely legal.
                Notice, they do not stole any code or are hurting ffmpeg.
                The sane thing they should do is - work for or donate some % ffmpeg.

                If ffmpeg would be BSD licensed, they would be capable to steal whole codebase and integrate it inside in such a way, that any further cooperation will be non-existant.
                This way, ffmpeg would really miss the improvements coming from commercial vector. And they would do that (stealing), because they would have much more control over source, as well as completely no legal resposibility. This is BSDM loose/win.

                They can do that with GPL(fork), but the source would need to stay open. Win/win.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                  My reason for disliking the BSD license is more selfish. If someone wants to base something on code I wrote and then make that proprietary, I want a cut. You want to use my work for proprietary software? Pay me and I'll grant you a proprietary license. If not, make your work fully open or gtfo.

                  People who work for IT companies and are already getting paid to write BSD code obviously don't care about this. Individuals who aren't getting paid to begin with should care.
                  :] =b

                  (char limit)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    Except that on Linux you just install OS and it works but in FBSD you should start heroic fight with dozen of technical difficulties instead.
                    By 'works' I can only assume you're talking about a functional desktop environment? If not, I can assure you, FBSD 'works' just fine after installing it. It wouldn't be any good to anyone otherwise.

                    If I wanted a linux system that I could just install and use straight away, I wouldn't install Gentoo. I'd install Fedora -- they've done the work for me.

                    If I wanted a FreeBSD system that I could just install and use straight away, I wouldn't install straight FreeBSD, I'd install PC-BSD -- they've done the work for me.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      A quick shout out

                      @Libreman: I agree with you 100%, but then again I already held those beliefs. Just want to say your not alone, and I also prioritize preserving freedom, for the users and their communities.


                      Also a comment for the LLVM "rip-off" fork guy, we GNU people only call forks a "rip-off" when they become closed sourced and proprietary. The GNU GPL prevents such "rip-offs" from happening "legally". So your really using the term inconsistently, when comparing to how it's used by the GNU supporters. On the contrary, when a GPL project forks... we would not call it a "rip-off". regardless if the fork decision had merit originally, and regardless if some original developers are upset because of the fork.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Korla Plankton View Post
                        By 'works' I can only assume you're talking about a functional desktop environment? If not, I can assure you, FBSD 'works' just fine after installing it. It wouldn't be any good to anyone otherwise.
                        Formally, you're right and I'm even somewhat agree with this point of view. However, various people tend to have different view on what "works" means. Fans have quite relaxed requirements and expect some discounts. I dont.

                        Be it a server and I would expect OS which is easy to install in common configurations, haves good hardware support, offers virtualization, decent package management system, requires as little administrative actions as possible in common setups and not terribly hard to customise if you need something uncommon.

                        Be it a desktop and I would expect good-looking pre-configured environment where it's possible to use it and not to puke due to poor look and don't fix half of system myself. Sure, I should have option to change things. But it shouldn't be a mandatory to fix half of idiocy or annoyances myself.

                        There are some more or less universal/general purpose distros who are not as polished but relatively easy to adapt for different purposes. As for me I would only use them when more specific ones prove to be less convenient for some task.

                        If I wanted a linux system that I could just install and use straight away, I wouldn't install Gentoo. I'd install Fedora -- they've done the work for me.
                        As for me, I don't see any real use for Gentoo. It's a kind of toy OS for those who just grown older and thinks Lego isn't cool enough for them. It's basically not targeted on any serious use but rather to those who want to have a playground and/or system lab. Some guys sometimes can construct something impressive from both Lego and Gentoo, but this does not implies than building machinery from Lego or servers from Gentoo is a normal way of doing things.

                        If I wanted a FreeBSD system that I could just install and use straight away, I wouldn't install straight FreeBSD, I'd install PC-BSD -- they've done the work for me.
                        You see, I don't need Lego-like OS on servers, so I have to build or fix half of things myself, fixing stupidities here and there. I want more or less assembled car when it comes to driving from town A to town B. And I don't need desktop OS who took worst from Win and MacOS X (PBI who resembles some MSI or mac stuff), haves worse hardware support, arrogant community, ignored by software authors, etc.

                        And you see, it's also convenient when you have same packagement management system and maybe even OS on both desktops and servers. This allows to learn less technical stuff (which is not a real value itself but rather some techincal details to achieve goals). It's convenient when package management tooks all software management hassle for you. It's convenient when system haves reasonable defaults for common tasks and makes them easy as these are most frequent ones. For desktop it's also neat when you do not have to build every recent program or game yourself. And the world chosen debian-based systems. So when you step on some author's page you will usually see Ubuntu packages suitable for them and derivatives. Often packages for debian as well (since building process is identical). But it would be much less frequent to see packages for Fedora/SUSe. And it's "mission impossible" to find any things for PC-BSD. And building huge program or game with ton of dependencies myself isn't a really great idea (unless I elect to be maintainer myself, if I have to, ever).

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                          Formally, you're right and I'm even somewhat agree with this point of view. However, various people tend to have different view on what "works" means. Fans have quite relaxed requirements and expect some discounts. I dont.
                          well, 'fans' are generally silly to base their requirements on some sort of emotional attachment to the OS, if that is indeed what you are implying. I like tools that work and I don't care about much else. FreeBSD does what i want it to do, which is run a heavily customized server platform on a bandwidth starved network.

                          Be it a server and I would expect OS which is easy to install in common configurations, haves good hardware support, offers virtualization, decent package management system, requires as little administrative actions as possible in common setups and not terribly hard to customise if you need something uncommon.
                          Easy to install in common configurations? For most software, you can follow the upstream instructions and not worry about distro-specific things. It doesn't get simpler than that.
                          Good hardware support? Well, my job isn't to test hardware support but all of the hardware we use is supported just fine. I don't really care if FreeBSD doesn't support hardware I don't have.
                          Virtualization? Well, options seem to be limited to virtualbox-ose which I don't really like but jails are more appropriate for our situation anyway (in fact, jails are one of the main reasons we DO use freebsd)
                          As far as a package system, we have never had any problems building things from ports. Once again, these are servers so I'm not trying to build GNOME or anything (which can be painful to build on any platform.) If I wanted GNOME on FreeBSD I'd go with one of the prebuilt alternatives, just like you would go to Fedora or Ubuntu or whatever rather than building GNOME on Gentoo.

                          Be it a desktop and I would expect good-looking pre-configured environment where it's possible to use it and not to puke due to poor look and don't fix half of system myself. Sure, I should have option to change things. But it shouldn't be a mandatory to fix half of idiocy or annoyances myself.
                          Well, looks are a matter of taste. Ubuntu's default themes consistently make me want to puke I'm also not really clear on what sort of things you think you need to 'fix.' Have you used a recent version of PC-BSD? what needed fixing?

                          There are some more or less universal/general purpose distros who are not as polished but relatively easy to adapt for different purposes. As for me I would only use them when more specific ones prove to be less convenient for some task.
                          Right! Use the right tool for the job. For some of us, those nice pre-configured distros are only going to make MORE work for us as we work around their hand-holding.

                          As for me, I don't see any real use for Gentoo. It's a kind of toy OS for those who just grown older and thinks Lego isn't cool enough for them. It's basically not targeted on any serious use but rather to those who want to have a playground and/or system lab. Some guys sometimes can construct something impressive from both Lego and Gentoo, but this does not implies than building machinery from Lego or servers from Gentoo is a normal way of doing things.
                          Just an aside here: do you realize that your choice of words has an impact on the quality of the discussion? If i didn't have such faith in the general decency of my fellow humans, i'd swear that you were baiting gentoo users Anyway, i'm not sure where you get the idea that building a server from Gentoo isn't 'normal.' Not normal for you maybe but people do it all the time.

                          You see, I don't need Lego-like OS on servers, so I have to build or fix half of things myself, fixing stupidities here and there.
                          It was a huge pain in the butt to get Jack working with my USB audio interface and Pulseaudio on an Ubuntu system. And once I did get it working, an update broke it. Is that the sort of stupidity you're talking about? Because I get where you're coming from: I'm using Windows for all of my 'creative work' now -- it's much more reliable. Pick your battles and use the right tool for the job.

                          FreeBSD is an extremely 'correct' system. It doesn't make assumptions about what you want to do with it. Because it is so 'correct,' tailoring it to your task is very easy and not at all 'stupid.' No need to ask forums for questionable advice or search out-of-date, unvetted wiki pages.

                          I want more or less assembled car when it comes to driving from town A to town B. And I don't need desktop OS who took worst from Win and MacOS X (PBI who resembles some MSI or mac stuff), haves worse hardware support, arrogant community, ignored by software authors, etc.
                          So, what's your problem with PBI? I agree that sharing libraries and other resources the way that most linux distros and straight freebsd do is nice in terms of not having duplicate code everywhere, but it does have its disadvantages. What if you want to install something that requires a library version that is more recent than what your package manager has? And what if you have some other mission-critical application that the new library breaks? Now you get to figure out whatever distro-specific tricks you need to do to have both without your package manager crapping on one of them. This isn't hard, I'm just sayin it's one area where the .PBI and OS X's application bundles make things easier. OSX's method of bundling applications seems to have worked pretty well for them, that system is renowned for easy program installs.

                          And you see, it's also convenient when you have same packagement management system and maybe even OS on both desktops and servers.
                          If it is the case that a system can meet your needs both as a desktop and a server, sure. But you shouldn't compromise just for the sake of homogeneity.

                          It's convenient when package management tooks all software management hassle for you.
                          Sure, when package management works right. I stopped using Ubuntu specifically because updates kept breaking functionality in my system.

                          It's convenient when system haves reasonable defaults for common tasks and makes them easy as these are most frequent ones.
                          FreeBSD assumes that the user wants to tailor a custom system. To make this process 'reasonable' they use upstream's defaults wherever possible, so that you don't have to figure out a bunch of FreeBSD-specific idiosyncrasies to get it working. If you don't want to tailor a custom system, that's the best reasons why you should not use freebsd.

                          Also, the distributor's idea of "reasonable defaults" may not be the same as your own. Off the top of my head, Ubuntu shipped Pulseaudio before it was ready and they shipped Intel drivers that everybody knew were broken. These 'reasonable defaults' caused real problems for many of their users. A system like FreeBSD is safer in that respect, simply by virtue of it being more minimal. Of course, it expects that you actually know how to use UNIX.

                          For desktop it's also neat when you do not have to build every recent program or game yourself.
                          I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about "Ubuntu" and "recent programs" in the same sentence If you want to run a recent version of a program on ubuntu, you either have to hope the software author has a more up-to-date package than Ubuntu's repo (and hope they haven't slipped in some malware or don't suck at packaging or whatever) or you're building it yourself. Or wait 6 months for the next release.

                          And the world chosen debian-based systems. So when you step on some author's page you will usually see Ubuntu packages suitable for them and derivatives.
                          No, YOU will usually find Ubuntu packages probably because you're looking to upgrade software that is out of date in the Ubuntu repository. If an author knows they have a bunch of Ubuntu users, it makes sense for them to distribute an Ubuntu package for more up to date versions, thus getting around the main drawback of Debian-based systems (out of date software) and potentially breaking your security (you download an unsigned binary and force your system to trust it.)

                          So you can see that people have different requirements. Personally, I require the use of Adobe CS and reliable audio recording when I'm at home so that rules out Linux or FreeBSD. At work, I require a stable platform on which to run hundreds of servers on a satellite network. That rules out Linux (which doesn't have a convenient jails system) and Windows (which is just a hog in general.) Also at work, I need a workstation. That can be Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, Mac. What I use on my workstation is the least important part of the equation. So, in summary, it's not a feature pissing contest that determines what OS one *should* use. It's about what OS is the best choice given your particular situation. I would suggest you take another look at the thread on the FreeBSD mailing list. There, people who know a lot more about FreeBSD than you or I are having a much more useful discussion about the merits and problems.

                          cheers,

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by bsfmig View Post
                            I specially register to reply this thread. In my views, it's even easier to set up OS X on (illegal) Hackintoshes (i.e. non-Apple PCs) than F*BSD.
                            OS X has a beautiful and elegant installer interface while ONLY ASCIIS are on BSDs.
                            While it may be easier to install than BSD, a Hackintosh is not some magic wand that turns any PC into a Mac. They're fairly constrained in terms of hardware compatibility, and often have annoying issues after the initial setup. I can see the point if you need to do cross platform testing without paying for a Mac. I can also see the point if your requirements simply exceed the capabilities of Apple's current hardware. I can see the point if you wish to try out OSX prior to making a purchase. Using one day-to-day is a PITA though.


                            F

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              That last line summed up why you feel the way you do, LightBit

                              Originally posted by LightBit View Post

                              That's freedom. I treat corporations the same way as users.
                              ... Bingo,
                              Now you know why we will never see eye to eye, it's why the GPL people are hostile to the permissive licences.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                                As for me, I don't see any real use for Gentoo. It's a kind of toy OS for those who just grown older and thinks Lego isn't cool enough for them. It's basically not targeted on any serious use but rather to those who want to have a playground and/or system lab. Some guys sometimes can construct something impressive from both Lego and Gentoo, but this does not implies than building machinery from Lego or servers from Gentoo is a normal way of doing things.

                                You see, I don't need Lego-like OS on servers, so I have to build or fix half of things myself, fixing stupidities here and there.
                                Gentoo has two interesting properties that most other linux distributions do not have:
                                • a continuous update path, no need for a full reinstall ever
                                • minimal (and often no) patching of upstream sources, making solving problems usually easier

                                It looks like that arch is there too, if you look for the same characteristics in a binary distribution. Not sure about their patching level though.

                                And the number of stupidities to fix is rather low nowadays. A little higher that for a binary distribution due to the somewhat extreme configurability, but not bad. Running gentoo is nowhere near as "l33t" as it was some years ago.

                                OG.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X