Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GhostBSD 4.0 Defaults To Clang Compiler & MATE Desktop

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

  • GhostBSD 4.0 Defaults To Clang Compiler & MATE Desktop

    Phoronix: GhostBSD 4.0 Defaults To Clang Compiler & MATE Desktop

    GhostBSD 4.0 has finally been officially released...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    I think ima give this a try since binary linux compatibility is set up by default.
    GBSD might be a great alternative.
    I wonder if I can get playdeb to work on it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by grndzro View Post
      I think ima give this a try since binary linux compatibility is set up by default.
      GBSD might be a great alternative.
      I wonder if I can get playdeb to work on it.
      I'm not sure that this release has the latest linuxulator, the one that supports 64bit apps. I doubt it will be shipped even with FreeBSD 10.1

      Comment


      • #4
        Nothing but old packages with no UEFI support. Why should I care? Just BSD for newbies.
        Arch is better anyway.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by maslascher View Post
          Nothing but old packages with no UEFI support. Why should I care? Just BSD for newbies.
          Arch is better anyway.
          Even though I like Arch more. The packages are not really old (unless you're talking about the packages that they refuse to upgrade simply because newer versions use GPLv3 or Apache v2). I do like the BSDs though despite this.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by maslascher View Post
            Nothing but old packages with no UEFI support. Why should I care? Just BSD for newbies.
            Arch is better anyway.
            How do you know that someone uses Arch?
            He will tell you!

            Anyways, comparing a stable OS aimed to deliver a desktop system out of the box with a rolling release distribution aimed at people wanting to build their system themselves, and then complaining that the first is not the same as the latter does not make sense at all.
            Thanks for pointing out your idiocy, much appreciated.

            Oh, by the way, using Arch does not qualify you as a "Pro", it merely shows that you have found the Wiki and are able to read.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post
              How do you know that someone uses Arch?
              He will tell you!

              Anyways, comparing a stable OS aimed to deliver a desktop system out of the box with a rolling release distribution aimed at people wanting to build their system themselves, and then complaining that the first is not the same as the latter does not make sense at all.
              Thanks for pointing out your idiocy, much appreciated.

              Oh, by the way, using Arch does not qualify you as a "Pro", it merely shows that you have found the Wiki and are able to read.
              As an Arch user, i agree. Take debain/ubuntu as a meassure. Not Arch.

              I lold at the "Pro" part So many people think "I use Arch, bow before Zod/me".

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post
                How do you know that someone uses Arch?
                He will tell you!

                Anyways, comparing a stable OS aimed to deliver a desktop system out of the box with a rolling release distribution aimed at people wanting to build their system themselves, and then complaining that the first is not the same as the latter does not make sense at all.
                Thanks for pointing out your idiocy, much appreciated.

                Oh, by the way, using Arch does not qualify you as a "Pro", it merely shows that you have found the Wiki and are able to read.
                I afraid you got my response wrong my friend, you're taking this to much personally. That is just my opinion what i wrote and I'm not trying to set straight to Arch anyone. I understand if someone wants to have "out of the box" os and more stability(and by the way Arch is considered stable, but sometimes not everything is tested perfectly, however i didn't find any bugs except this "upstream".
                But for me GBSD it is just unavailable, there is no UEFI support just yet and my HDD have GPT table. Also new packages are always have some improvements and repairs so everything is more comfortable(I mean user experience).
                I'm just writing that i think there's better distros for Newbies.

                And by the way, I didn't wrote that I'm pro and I didn't consider myself Pro but I'm not Newbie either. Also I didn't mean anything offensive when writing "newbies" I understand if someone is less experienced.

                Sorry for bad English, as always. This is not my native Language.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by maslascher View Post
                  (and by the way Arch is considered stable, but sometimes not everything is tested perfectly, however i didn't find any bugs except this "upstream".
                  Even if we ignore that your anecdotal evidence has no weight, that statement is contradictory in itself.
                  But for me GBSD it is just unavailable, there is no UEFI support just yet and my HDD have GPT table.
                  Linux and FreeBSD, and with that GhostBSD, are capable of using GPT without UEFI.
                  Also new packages are always have some improvements and repairs so everything is more comfortable(I mean user experience).
                  And they can introduce new bugs. That is why stable distros use older but well tested versions. You know, having well tested software is the whole point of a stable distro.
                  I'm just writing that i think there's better distros for newbies.
                  Sure, that is why you wrote:
                  Just BSD for newbies
                  Because it is not good for newbies. With the additional statement that Arch is better anyways. Arch is indeed a nice distro, I use it sometimes when I quickly want to set up minimal systems for a special purpose, but it is clearly not aimed at newbies.

                  So in short, better educate yourself before posting. Also, try to be consistent, at least with yourself.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by grndzro View Post
                    I think ima give this a try since binary linux compatibility is set up by default.
                    GBSD might be a great alternative.
                    I wonder if I can get playdeb to work on it.
                    Just don't leave any setuid Linux binaries around on a shared system, there's a security hole if they're not using a 2.4.x-era libc.


                    Newer libc versions use getauxval(AT_SECURE) to determine when to sanitize the environment so you can't use LD_* variables and the like to get elevated privileges. FreeBSD's Linux emulation sets up the auxvec, but AT_SECURE is always initialized to 0. It should be set to 1 under the same circumstances that issetugid() would return 1.
                    This has been reported to FreeBSD and Debian security teams, but has not been fixed.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X