Lots of people say that BSD is a server OS/not an appropriate desktop OS but I just don't see it: it's quite possible that the things people regard as required for a desktop OS are those that I'm indifferent to, but I'd like to ask: what specifically am I missing out on? Yes, Mesa updates and KMS are being slower to arrive (as one would expect with fewer devs) but is there anything else?
drag:
Most BSD people don't even use BSD for a desktop OS. They use Windows or OS X and scoff at Linux people for trying to make a desktop.
drag:
The technology has progressed to such a point that running something like OpenBSD on your system actually works better if you do it in a Linux-KVM container.
drag: "You have to wait until BSDs have the same functionality as Linux to implement improvements in order to improve the desktop if you focus entirely on portability." The suggestion wasn't to stop focussing entirely on portability (was the focus ever entirely on portability?), but to refuse to abandon the idea of portability altogether.
monraaf:
The *BSD people simply do not have the resources to keep up. When the time comes that they stand in the way of progress and become a burden, it's time to say goodbye.
BSD won't disappear, it ... will remain a slow moving hobby for a few people, who want to get hired by Apple.
It's interesting to see some Linux user's view of BSD: it seems similar to many Windows users' view of Linux: "That's a niche OS: slow to move on, good for servers, but don't try to run a desktop on it."
Leave a comment: