GhostBSD Reaffirms To Being TrueOS+BSD Desktop OS With Official MATE Desktop

[retardxfce]

Wow what and idiot. You said it had nothing to do with FreeBSD which is clearly a lie.

It actually is a fork of FreeBSD, in that they took FreeBSD code and now develop it separately and occasionally pull in bits here and there from upstream. Its practically the definition of a fork.

You aren't worth arguing with. I'll just state the facts and let you writhe around.

its clear that you are a moron that doesnt know what he is talking about. Yeah MacOSX, Windows, Linux are all forks of FreeBSD buddy, keep up with your delusions.

[drjohnnyfever]

its clear that you are a moron that doesnt know what he is talking about. Yeah MacOSX, Windows, Linux are all forks of FreeBSD buddy, keep up with your delusions.

Your username should just be retard.

Don't address any of the provably valid points I make, just call me an idiot and say things I never claimed at all. Brilliant. You win the internet.

[drjohnnyfever]

There's also userspace from NetBSD. However, how much BSD is in macOS? 5%? Btw. Linux destroys macOS by a large margin when comes to desktop and server market share.

How much BSD is in macOS? A lot. But there are also a lot of things in macOS that aren't BSD either. Its a big system. But nobody claims Xorg and KDE are part of Linux. I don't claim Aqua and all that jazz are BSD.

[Volta]

How much BSD is in macOS? A lot. But there are also a lot of things in macOS that aren't BSD either. Its a big system. But nobody claims Xorg and KDE are part of Linux. I don't claim Aqua and all that jazz are BSD.

The point is BSD isn't game changer for them. They just want to keep it closed. The funny thing about BSD being 'open source': Sony's source model - closed source; Android - Open Source. BSD stops being BSD after someone chooses to make it closed source. Such simple transition.

[drjohnnyfever]

The point is BSD isn't game changer for them. They just want to keep it closed. The funny thing about BSD being 'open source': Sony's source model - closed source; Android - Open Source. BSD stops being BSD after someone chooses to make it closed source. Such simple transition.

If they wanted to replace it they'd have to put in significant effort to rewrite the code (they just aren't going to adopt Linux). These are all Unix substitutes we're talking about so I'm not sure how "game changing" any specific system is going to be.

[drjohnnyfever]

The point is BSD isn't game changer for them. They just want to keep it closed. The funny thing about BSD being 'open source': Sony's source model - closed source; Android - Open Source. BSD stops being BSD after someone chooses to make it closed source. Such simple transition.

For what its worth the bionic libc in Android is largely derived from OpenBSD's libc. Even Linux gets some BSD sometimes.

[skeevy420]

Try running those games and Photoshop on FreeBSD. Just because Sony and Apple took some of the BSD licensed code it doesn't mean it's a BSD system. macOS doesn't even use the FreeBSD kernel. If you want to play such game don't forget about dozens of IoT devices, TVs and so on running the Linux kernel. BSD is just a whore everyone can use and leave it in the morning.

Just like with Linux -- Wine and hope it works. Then again, use Wine on a FSF certified Linux distribution and you'll be close to FreeBSD's current state in regards to Wine and games and most other software. The difference is FreeBSD isn't hampered by a lack of proprietary blobs, just a lack of focus from Wine and FreeBSD developers.

Linux is just as much the hit it and quit it whore as BSD is. The difference is BSD is a $50,000 night with a porn slut that you and I can't afford whereas Linux is the town church girl that pretends to be all pure but has Chlamydia (proprietary drivers) and Gonorrhea (functional wifi & bluetooth blobs) and Syphilis (ZFS) and general crotch-rot (systemd) and a tatoo that says "debianxfce was here" on the inside of her right butt cheek (debianxfce) because everybody gets a turn with Linux...and then there's FSF Linux that only wants to talk about Jesus and won't even give you a handy.

This one is just too much even if you're smoking.

Use an actual FSF certified Linux distribution that does not contain any proprietary software and see how much functionality you lose. It varies by person and hardware, but anything that requires a firmware blob from a package likely won't work because that firmware blob is not FSF approved; anything in the non-free repos, nope, you don't have that anymore; if America and/or the "first world" (G7 for the most part) has patent issues with something, again, not approved.

FreeLinux is just as bad as FreeBSD in regards to current usable games, desktop, and the overall multimedia aspect. The difference, again, is FreeBSD's issues are more from a lack of manpower and lack of forks contributing back unlike FreeLinux which has to reverse engineer proprietary firmware blobs, potentially breaking laws in the process (Thanks, DCMA), as well as remove non-free components from software which means you can't even install core-fonts with winetricks or use x264.

So, yes, Arch and Ubuntu and even Debian with the non-free repos disabled are all Proprietary Distributions if one uses the FSF, open source advocate, spirit of Linux definition of free software that wants all software to have a FreeBase. BSD, OTOH, doesn't require any of that because it uses an even freer license that just doesn't give a fuck.

[Volta]

If they wanted to replace it they'd have to put in significant effort to rewrite the code (they just aren't going to adopt Linux). These are all Unix substitutes we're talking about so I'm not sure how "game changing" any specific system is going to be.

It was exactly my point they won't adopt Linux, because Linux would force them to release modified stuff. While BSD demands nothing. You can take BSD code and it stops being BSD when you close it.

[Volta]

For what its worth the bionic libc in Android is largely derived from OpenBSD's libc. Even Linux gets some BSD sometimes.

And this is bad, because BSD code serves proprietary software.

[Volta]

Just like with Linux -- Wine and hope it works. Then again, use Wine on a FSF certified Linux distribution and you'll be close to FreeBSD's current state in regards to Wine and games and most other software. The difference is FreeBSD isn't hampered by a lack of proprietary blobs, just a lack of focus from Wine and FreeBSD developers.

You're mixing things up. Windows isn't Linux and you said Sony uses 'proprietary' BSD. So, while Sony uses BSD you should be able to run Sony's BSD applications on your *BSD.

Linux is just as much the hit it and quit it whore as BSD is. The difference is BSD is a $50,000 night with a porn slut that you and I can't afford whereas Linux is the town church girl that pretends to be all pure but has Chlamydia (proprietary drivers) and Gonorrhea (functional wifi & bluetooth blobs) and Syphilis (ZFS) and general crotch-rot (systemd) and a tatoo that says "debianxfce was here" on the inside of her right butt cheek (debianxfce) because everybody gets a turn with Linux...and then there's FSF Linux that only wants to talk about Jesus and won't even give you a handy.

It's exactly opposite. Linux is God and proprietary whores like nVIDIA and others can't come even close to it. That's why they're being 'smuggled' into distributions.

Use an actual FSF certified Linux distribution that does not contain any proprietary software and see how much functionality you lose. It varies by person and hardware, but anything that requires a firmware blob from a package likely won't work because that firmware blob is not FSF approved; anything in the non-free repos, nope, you don't have that anymore; if America and/or the "first world" (G7 for the most part) has patent issues with something, again, not approved.

So, you're whining, because Open Source didn't conquer everything yet and recommend some closed source friendly crap same time?

FreeLinux is just as bad as FreeBSD in regards to current usable games, desktop, and the overall multimedia aspect. The difference, again, is FreeBSD's issues are more from a lack of manpower and lack of forks contributing back unlike FreeLinux which has to reverse engineer proprietary firmware blobs, potentially breaking laws in the process (Thanks, DCMA), as well as remove non-free components from software which means you can't even install core-fonts with winetricks or use x264.

I bet FreeLinux can run Steam games with similar success as Ubuntu. If you use Linux friendly hardware like AMD. FreeBSD even with proprietary blobs is far away from Ubuntu in this case. It uses Linux emulation, so without Linux it wouldn't run a thing.

So, yes, Arch and Ubuntu and even Debian with the non-free repos disabled are all Proprietary Distributions if one uses the FSF, open source advocate, spirit of Linux definition of free software that wants all software to have a FreeBase. BSD, OTOH, doesn't require any of that because it uses an even freer license that just doesn't give a fuck.

No, they just allow to run proprietary software and it's not so bad. It would be bad if they were supporting it like BSD. What's BSD? Piece of code which hasn't turned into proprietary yet.