Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trying Out The BSDs On The Intel Core i9 13900K "Raptor Lake"

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Paradigm Shifter View Post
    I'm not surprised OpenBSD booted. I'm surprised FreeBSD and NetBSD didn't, though.


    I don't understand why people invest their time in Linux, when they could use Windows... or DOS?

    Why did Linus even bother to start working when Minix just needed some extra hands?

    Why do we need those newfangled calculators, what was wrong with log tables and slide rules?

    Or abaci?

    You even realise the point. They are free to do so.
    Everything you're talking about are improvements over the previous status quo. I don't think that's the case for BSD vs Linux.

    Comment


    • #22
      Thank You SO MUCH for testing this! You are the ONLY site to provide *BSD testing! We appreciate the work Michael!
      Kinda a surprise that FreeBSD didn't work, OpenBSD working was expected since 7.2 claimed Raptor Lake support in the release notes, NetBSD still recommends Kaby Lake or older Intel laptops so that is a no surprise it didn't work on Raptor Lake and I really don't know enough about DragonFly to say one way or the other if it was expected to work.

      Comment


      • #23
        I wonder if fw_update after an install would fix the Intel wired NIC issue, much like Debian, OpenBSD does not ship with support for "non-free" firmware out of the box and it has to be installed after install.

        Comment


        • #24
          tried freebsd on hp pavilion 20 from 2012 the ethernet was connecting disconnecting in loop each second sometime it connected cant get dhcp ip , tried different cable . devs said u got a faulty adapter . meanwhile tried openbsd and works fine with ethernet first time .

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Paradigm Shifter View Post
            Why did Linus even bother to start working when Minix just needed some extra hands?
            Minix was proprietary, and didn't accept complexity-adding patches, as it was exclusively for educative purposes.

            Only after Minix 3 released (and not even immediately) did Minix switch to an open source license.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by jorgepl View Post
              Everything you're talking about are improvements over the previous status quo. I don't think that's the case for BSD vs Linux.
              Originally posted by ayumu View Post
              Minix was proprietary, and didn't accept complexity-adding patches, as it was exclusively for educative purposes.

              Only after Minix 3 released (and not even immediately) did Minix switch to an open source license.
              You have both missed not only the point, but the irony inherent in my post.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Paradigm Shifter View Post

                You have both missed not only the point, but the irony inherent in my post.
                I wanted to address that Minix point not for you specifically, but rather, as many people might not be aware of this part of the historical context where Linux appeared.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by ayumu View Post

                  I wanted to address that Minix point not for you specifically, but rather, as many people might not be aware of this part of the historical context where Linux appeared.
                  Ah, right. Yes, the historical context should be clarified. Thanks.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by stormcrow View Post

                    No you can't assume the Linux desktop share is % of anything without reliable hard numbers, of which the best you can get are going to be situational. [...] but it's usually good enough to just say most people are still using Windows desktops, with Macs trailing along, and Linux just above a statistical blip. Once you start talking about specific industries and use cases then you can start talking about hard(er) numbers.
                    What a hypocritic bunch of text. Provide me hard numbers or put your windowsism in the trash.

                    You also have to trust your reporting source has not fudged their numbers for advertising purposes such as clickbaity numbers and headlines. In the end you really have to just go with your own research in the target audience by asking the boots on the ground what they're using and if they're satisfied with their current products, if you're looking to create a product yourself.
                    Like the m$ get the facts campaign etc? Nice shot in the foot.

                    But in any case, only a fool thinks "Windows is nothing, but a toy used by fanboys." Businesses, especially corporations, would blow you off as the kid with no practical experience you appear to be.
                    Only fools use windows which has more holes than the Swiss cheese. Serious businesses run on Linux. I don't care about outlook or m$ office kiddies. I wouldn't even think about working with such lames and most of the so called corporations are a freaking joke.

                    And one more important thing: Windows is energy waster to the point it should be banned. In businesses Windows computers run all the time, because of broken beyond repair Windows update policy. No serious person can allow Windows to update during work time. That's why they don't shut Windows computers down! This tells everything about Windows and its users. It's beyond acceptable stupidity.
                    Last edited by Volta; 02 December 2022, 06:52 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Nozo View Post

                      Actually Linux is the worst off here, why spend time on a frankenstein, fragmented OS when there are centralized and unified open source operating systems, just like Windows and macOS? Why not migrate to FreeBSD and thus reduce duplication of effort by supporting the FreeBSD team instead of reinventing the wheel with more package managers and formats? We would also remove the danger of someone wanting to impose their own walled garden on us, as Shuttleworth has been wanting to do with snaps.‚Äč
                      Actually Linux is the best here. Windows*, macOS* and FreeBSD are years behind it (*excluding desktop). Maybe just focus on single Linux distribution instead? But why would 'they' do that? Why would anyone listen to you? Esspecially with your stupid idea to focus on legacy FreeBSD.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X