Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC-BSD Rolls Into A Rolling Release Distribution

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

  • 0xBADCODE
    replied
    Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
    1. You mix up Linux with some of its distributions. To be fair, you should consider comparing it with PC-BSD.
    Nope, I don't. You see, right now AMD GPUs support in FBSD appears to be real crap. So if you happen to have more or less recent AMD GPU, it's likely to be very crappy experience. Sure, you can find some ancient Linux to beat it. But why BSD guys always try to compete with some crap and weaklings? Come on, market does not needs losers and weaklings. Can't you get this simple thing?

    2. You mix up UFS with UFS2.
    Nope, I don't. I've seen in their mailing list how they developed it. They told they don't have resources for major disk structures overhaul due to lack of manpower. So UFS2 is almost the same as UFS in terms of actual on-disk structures. It even lacks extents. While EXT4 got those. Just as each and every modern design around. Sure, it required major disk structures rework and partial loss of compatibility. But at least Linux guys could afford enough resources to rework their ancient block-based allocator to extent-based allocator. This in fact dramatically speeded up EXT4 over EXT3 on modern volumes, files and most workloads. But BSD guys proven once more they're pathetic losers. Instead, they rather created very generic jornalling subsystem. Sure, idea itself it not so bad in theory. But it took awful time and effort to implement that. And at the end of day only crappy and ancient UFS could use these services. So while UFS2 does not needs fsck on every crash, it's still slow and antique design inside. And virtually every benchmark shows it's crappy nature. You can't fool laws of physics after all. And LOL, ZFS is CoW-based design and it simply does not uses or needs such services as it does journalling equivalent on it's own. Guys created cool generic solution for ... one defective and old filesystem! Bah, that's impressive!

    No, honestly, it's absolutely amazing example of how people could waste so many manpower with so little user-visible results at the end. Quite the same with clang replacement, etc. In fact it's a decent example of really poor project management.
    Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 03-13-2013, 01:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cthulhux
    replied
    1. You mix up Linux with some of its distributions. To be fair, you should consider comparing it with PC-BSD.

    2. You mix up UFS with UFS2.

    Nice try though.

    Leave a comment:


  • 0xBADCODE
    replied
    Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
    Why not PC-BSD?
    Because with BSDs you can expect...
    - No GPU drivers or ancient/defective ones. Literally, FBSD lacks support for half of GPUs around. On my GPU xorg would just lock up and leave me dumb black screen. Cool, isn't it? OTOH Linux provides full plug-n-play experience.
    - Crappy wireless. Linux usually could use .n with all features. Not something that works well in fbsd.
    - Crappy choice of filesystems. I can select between old, slow and defective UFS and huge and slow enterprise ZFS. So in FBSD I can select between old grandma's bike and AirBus. No other choices provided. But hell, I usually need a car! Ext4 is exactly like this. It can work at decent speeds while not being huge and overomplicated. And for some reason Linux guys could overhaul old disk structures to give them a speed. BSD guys can't afford that. Just as usually. So UFS still uses ancient design invented eons ago. Oh, can you please tell me, what cylinder groups are meant to do on my SSD? It completely lacks notion of cylinders, lol .
    - Package management makes sense only when there are enough of maintainers to package all those thousands of programs. Something that BSD guys can't afford. Just as usually. Package management without packages is pointless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cthulhux
    replied
    Originally posted by CthuIhux View Post
    All the BSDs struggle on fairly new hardware and for PCBSD and FreeBSD in particular, they may not even boot on a modern piece of hardware even though it's x86 which is what FreeBSD claim to focus on.
    Same applies to a couple of Linux distributions. So what do you use then? Windows? Or does Windows already overburden you? Hmm, OS X then? Oh, no, it's based on BSD...

    Leave a comment:


  • intellivision
    replied
    Originally posted by CthuIhux View Post
    Bad analogy, you use Arch cause you have more control or you want lighter weight. You use Debian cause it's lighter and aptitude satisfy your needs. You use Linux Distro A or B cause A suits you better and has advantages that you need.

    Not so PCBSD, Linux is better alternatives for everything PCBSD has to offer ie (ZFS vs BTRFS). So theres no sane reason to use PCBSD over linux.
    So you try and disprove me by proving my original point? And in exactly to the example that you have provided, as ZFS is stable and has functioning software RAID solutions, as opposed to btrfs (which I hope will be finished in a year or two) which is in heavy development and offers no software RAID functionality.

    Yes I agree. And those how choose PCBSD are mentally insane or love self harming and should be put in a mental institute.
    Well, I'd love to see some cited evidence of that claim, because it just sounded like an unfounded biased remark there for a second.

    Right under your nose, Phoronix benckmarks Linux vs BSD
    Which ones?

    Yes PBI is a step back from linux package managment. For linux you type a command and the package is installed, for PBIs you have to go to the website, download the pbi file ones it click next 100 times and wait a long time and the program may or may not be installed.

    Also it takes lots of resources cause Kris Moor(on) the insane PCBSD project leader decided to have self contained depedencies. What a dick.
    You mean the website that has been depreciated and replaced by Appcafe? Or the text commands that are outlined here? http://wiki.pcbsd.org/index.php/PBI_...pbi_add.281.29
    Or even the reasons why I outlined why self contained dependencies might be beneficial?

    BSD has always bullshitted about thier reliability over linux and now they say they are switching to rolling release. Rolling release packages break easily thus less reliability so BSD can forget about claiming stability and relability.
    Oh, you mean that they're offering a rolling release option on top of their stable option, which is what I said before. Glad we cleared that up.

    Typical words from a BSD zealot. My solution, create an NDIS wrapper driver and load it up and see what happens.
    So you oppose the use of FOSS wireless drivers and would rather use the binary Windows ones? Good to know.

    Also, that information on distrowatch is old. All the BSDs struggle on fairly new hardware and for PCBSD and FreeBSD in particular, they may not even boot on a modern piece of hardware even though it's x86 which is what FreeBSD claim to focus on. What a bunch of crap.
    You mean that January 2013 is old? This one? http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?is...130107#feature
    I suggest you read the review, you might want to write to Distrowatch and call out the reviewer as a BSD Zealot for his positive review
    That article also rounds up the next few points that you've made.

    Ubuntu is modified from Debian top to bottom. But PCBSD is iterally an unmodifyied FreeBSD with KDE and loads of bloated crap wrapped around it. So they have no excuse.
    You mean unmodified except the new package manager, not being synced to FreeBSD releases, including different core software among other things?

    I reviewed the post and only found two or three errors. You just have a lack of valid arguments and so to boost your credibility, claim I make lots for spelling and grammatical errors. Come back what you can debate properly.
    I have done, now it's your turn. Also, their, unmodified, management, dependencies and reliability. Next time try and remember the correct spelling for those words

    Seriously, I don't know what the hell is wrong with you and Vim_User who things that I had was I a previous account holder who's opinions you don't like cause it speaks the truth about BSD.
    Yes, of course, just the same poor grasp on the English language and inane comments, I'm sure you're different people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vim_User
    replied
    Originally posted by CthuIhux View Post
    Seriously, I don't know what the hell is wrong with you and Vim_User who things that I had was I a previous account holder who's opinions you don't like cause it speaks the truth about BSD.
    Anyone with at least a few functioning brain cells (so obviously you are not part of that group) can see that your behavior and posting style totally resembles that of the infamous troll known under several different names that involve sexual content or are slight modifications of other users names.
    Is there a valid reason you used an already existing username, slightly modified in a way to resemble the look of the username? Other than just give bad credit to that user from unsuspecting or unalert members?
    I doubt so, your only contribution to this site is trolling and in that you aren't even good. Try to come up with some actual facts (not made up stuff, real facts) to support your claims instead of just insults and you may get some credibility. I doubt that you are able to do that, but we will see.

    Leave a comment:


  • intellivision
    replied
    Originally posted by CthuIhux View Post
    Keep dreaming, PCBSD looks like nothing more then a desperate bit by a dying project to attract more users which is clearly not working. Why?

    -Why use PCBSD when there's Linux (You can say the same for Linux and Windows but Windows is crap, proprietary and full of viruses)
    -PCBSD is FAR slower then Linux.
    -PCBSD's apps are out of date (even when compared to Debian)
    -PBI system is a headache compared to the package managment of Linux systems, literally a step back
    -PCBSD is harder to use (GUI managment tools often crash or just don't work)
    -PCBSD only works on some hardware (Only some x86s).
    -Even on the right platform, most people find that X cannot run at installation time or after installation. Sometimes, PCBSD would not even boot at all.
    -A new version of PCBSD often doesn't boot on hardware that supported an older release. (And BSD fucks claim that updating is safer on thier crap) see:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd2JwtjOohY
    -Many problems on PCBSD are due to FreeBSD but On FreeBSD fourms, they said they are not going to answer any questions on PCBSD. see: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=7290
    -And lost of other problems

    BSD fucks say that PCBSD is getting better. But from less bais sources, PCBSD has actually been getting worse.

    Bet no. of users on PCBSD has actually been declining thats why they have been trying to advertise more by conferences and stupid ads.
    1. Why use Arch Linux over Ubuntu? Why use Debian over CentOS? Why use PC-BSD over OpenSUSE?
    It's all a question of choice and what the user decides to be better for the task.

    2. Do you have any citations, comparisons or scope for this claim?

    3. I suppose why they have up to date Firefox, Midori and Openoffice releases just to name a few.

    4. In what sense? Because it rolls in the relevant libraries into the package rather than fetching them separately? I can see why you'd think this, but there are some benefits to that model, such as not having to worry about updating a library and breaking the programs that use it.

    5. They crash? Not in my experience, nor of the users on PC-BSD. Hell, even Distrowatch praised the tools for being easy to use and they didn't mention instability with the configuration tools.

    6. Explain in further detail, are you referring to hardware in general or CPU architecture?

    7 and 8. Could you find out what hardware isn't supported in relation to this? It would be better to state what didn't work rather than 'this won't work at all anywhere'.

    9. It's to do with support in relation to those distributions, in the same way should Debian respond to help requests from Ubuntu users?

    Also, numerous spelling and grammatical errors, probably written by a 13 year old or someone with a poor grasp of the English language and a confusingly similar username to another user on this website.
    Definitely another BSDshitdistrosucks account, trolling is weaker than ever before.
    2/10, better luck next time.

    Leave a comment:


  • minister
    replied
    pcbsd

    Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
    Why not PC-BSD?
    I have pcbsd on one of my machines hosting abyss web server app for my website and never had a problem

    Leave a comment:


  • Cthulhux
    replied
    Originally posted by minister View Post
    if I want a desktop, linux, hands down
    Why not PC-BSD?

    Leave a comment:


  • minister
    replied
    why bash them

    ive been using linux and bsd for 20+ years, your childish bashing of bsd pcbsd whatever is really unproductive. while I can agree linux does have ease of use in their basket, linux cannot even come close to the track record on security that bsd has. if im running a server, bsd hands down, if I want a desktop, linux, hands down. if you really hate pcbsd then grab the source, change it, release it and make it better.. just my opinion

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X