this place sucks ass

[Laukev7]

quote: I like FreeBSD, but it made me feel like a moron the first time I used it, and this is coming from a linux geek.

I didn't know nearly as much as you do when I started using FreeBSD, and I could still appreciate how easier it was than Linux after having played with it for a while.

 

quote:  Besides FreeBSD is x86 only,

No, it's not. It's available for Alpha and SPARC architectures as well. As for the Mac, Mac OS X is based on it (though mostly modeled after OpenStep); you might as well use Darwin. OpenBeOS will also be available for PPC when it's finished.

[psyjax]

You know what the shittiest part about this site is, PEOPLE WHO COME HERE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW SHITTY IT IS!


Either bring up topics you think are worthy, or shut the fuck up and leave. Jeezz...

[preacher]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:


No, it's not. It's available for Alpha and SPARC architectures as well. As for the Mac, Mac OS X is based on it (though mostly modeled after OpenStep); you might as well use Darwin. OpenBeOS will also be available for PPC when it's finished.

Sorry about the little incorrect info about the architectures FreeBSD supports, however it still is nowhere near as many as linux or NetBSD. The architectures that Debain supports are listed here and total 12 which is 4 times as many as FreeBSD's.

http://www.debian.org/ports/

 As for Darwin, since it is part of the Mac OS in the first place, it can not be considered an alternative. This is why linux and NetBSD are alternatives on Apple hardware.

As for OpenBeOS you had better read the fine print.

Quoted from http://www.openbeos.org

" It will be up to the community as to whether or not OpenBeOS will run on these platforms -- volunteers writing OBOS drivers will be a major factor. "

In other words if the community decides they dont want it they wont make it. And there has to be driver support. Nothing with BeOS on PPC is guaranteed yet. However linux and NetBSD are already available for PPC.

OpenBeOS isnt exactly the fastest moving project at sourceforge either.

[Laukev7]

quote: The architectures that Debain supports are listed here and total 12 which is 4 times as many as FreeBSD's.
 

Actually, it's a bit less than twice as much, since FreeBSD is being developped for 7 architectures, including PPC. And FreeBSD supports AMD64, whereas the Debian port is not finished yet.

http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/
   

quote: " It will be up to the community as to whether or not OpenBeOS will run on these platforms -- volunteers writing OBOS drivers will be a major factor. "

 

Isn't that one of the major POINTS of open source? And as far as I know, there was no specific plan to port Linux to the PPC at the time of its creation either.

Edit: By the way, Debian isn't even specific to Linux. Check the link you sent me. Debian supports GNU Hurd and yes, FreeBSD as well.

[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[insomnia]

I do like BeOS,
I do like BSD,
I don't like Hurd (it doesn't even work yet),
but I like Linux even more.

I don't understand why so many people say:
"Linux is only a kernel". A kernel is the most important piece of an OS.
Why do I like GNU/Linux more than BSD, BeOS, ...?
Cause I find the Linux kernel better than the others.

[flap]

quote:I don't understand why so many people say:
"Linux is only a kernel". A kernel is the most important piece of an OS.

Well they say that because Linux is only a kernel. Wether or not it's the "most important part of an OS" is debatable, but even if that's true it doesn't really make a difference. It's like saying that the most important part of a plane is the engine, so you should call a Boeing a Rolls Royce.

 

quote:Why do I like GNU/Linux more than BSD, BeOS, ...?
Cause I find the Linux kernel better than the others.

What about Linux do you prefer to the BSD kernel? I'm not suggesting that's not a sensible statement, I'm just wondering what it is that you find better.

[preacher]

You know what you are 100% right. We all should stop using linux and use FreeBSD, because it is superior in everyway.

Do not try and make the suggestion that linux could possibly be better than anything else. So far everyone agrees that it goes like this.

1. MacOS X The almighty God and Best OS ever made
2. Old MacOS Former king dethrowned by itself
3. BeOS
4. FreeBSD
5. Microsoft Windows 2000 I dont like it but everyone else does
6. Microsoft Windows XP
7. Windows 9x
8. Linux - All versions
9. Dos Windows 3.1

This is what you believe so there it is. By the way if anyone believes any other OS is superior to linux just tell me and ill add it.

[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]

[preacher]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:


Isn't that one of the major POINTS of open source? And as far as I know, there was no specific plan to port Linux to the PPC at the time of its creation either.

Edit: By the way, Debian isn't even specific to Linux. Check the link you sent me. Debian supports GNU Hurd and yes, FreeBSD as well.

[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

Laukev you are right and Im wrong, Ive given up on linux and Im writing this from my new operating system. Its called EROS. It kicks the ass of BeOS, FreeBSD, MAcOS, hell everything.

Check out the website. It was last updated in 2001 but they will get a version out soon.

http://www.eros-os.org/

[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]

[insomnia]

quote:Well they say that because Linux is only a kernel.

You know what I mean. (Why do people keep using that as a negative argument?)

 

quote:What about Linux do you prefer to the BSD kernel? I'm not suggesting that's not a sensible statement, I'm just wondering what it is that you find better.

*Even though they're both monolistic (I don't like microkernels.), Linux is more flexible (modules support, different LWP, ...)
*All parts of the Linux kernel are free,  making them more customizible.
*Better compatibility with other systems.
*Better hardware support.
*It runs on very old systems(I still have a lot of them).
*Linux has the best community support.

...and I just find it more fun to use...

 

 

[flap]

quote:You know what I mean. (Why do people keep using that as a negative argument?)

It's because when people continually call the system "Linux" they're both not giving proper credit to the people who wrote most of the system and came up with the idea of producing a Free OS in the first place, and also more importantly they're not publicising the ideals of the GNU project. Personally I agree that it's awkward to call it "GNU slash Linux" so I'd much rather just call it GNU.

 

quote:All parts of the Linux kernel are free

All parts of the *BSD kernels are free as well, as far as I'm aware.

 

quote:It runs on very old systems

Again, true for BSD.

 

quote:Better compatibility with other systems.

What do you mean by that?

 

quote:Better hardware support.

BSD-based systems run on as many different architectures as Linux-based ones.

I'm not really disagreeing with you here, just trying to find out what you mean. Personally I also prefer to use a Linux-based OS because it's the simplest/best-supported way I can use a GNU system.

[insomnia]

quote:It's because when people continually call the system "Linux" they're both not giving proper credit to the people who wrote most of the system and came up with the idea of producing a Free OS in the first place, and also more importantly they're not publicising the ideals of the GNU project. Personally I agree that it's awkward to call it "GNU slash Linux" so I'd much rather just call it GNU.

True.

 

quote:All parts of the *BSD kernels are free as well, as far as I'm aware.

Prabably in the future, but know their's still a mess with the old license.

 

quote:Again, true for BSD.

Some old 386 systems can only use 4MB mem.
Linux is based on this, BSD needs at least 4.4MB or more (the later 386 systems).

 

quote:What do you mean by that?

Better compatibility with an other OS. This can be important for networking.

 

quote:BSD-based systems run on as many different architectures as Linux-based ones.

I mean all HW.

[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]

[suselinux]

quote:Originally posted by ThePreacher:
You know what you are 100% right. We all should stop using linux and use FreeBSD, because it is superior in everyway.

Do not try and make the suggestion that linux could possibly be better than anything else. So far everyone agrees that it goes like this.

1. MacOS X The almighty God and Best OS ever made
2. Old MacOS Former king dethrowned by itself
3. BeOS
4. FreeBSD
5. Microsoft Windows 2000 I dont like it but everyone else does
6. Microsoft Windows XP
7. Windows 9x
8. Linux - All versions
9. Dos Windows 3.1

This is what you believe so there it is. By the way if anyone believes any other OS is superior to linux just tell me and ill add it.

[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]

Linux better than DOS, I don't think so!

BTW I hate it when people say Linux is only the Kernel not the entire OS

No it's not the entire OS but it is just a shorter way of saying GNU/Linux

We don't expect Mac users to say "Macintosh Operating System Version Ten point Three"

Geeze!

[flap]

No, but you also don't expect to hear Mac owners call the OS "Darwin".

[preacher]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


BSD-based systems run on as many different architectures as Linux-based ones.

I'm not really disagreeing with you here, just trying to find out what you mean. Personally I also prefer to use a Linux-based OS because it's the simplest/best-supported way I can use a GNU system.

Well I know that linux is GPL'd however BSD is not GPL'd, they use their own licensing system, and if I remember correctly that means they can take FreeBSD and modify its source code and not share the changes they made in it.

[hm_murdock]

k... gotta pitch in some...

1. MacOS X
2. NeXTStep/OpenStep/Rhapsody
3. BeOS
4. FreeBSD
5. Mac OS 9
6. Linux and friends
7. Microsoft Windows 2000/XP/Server 2K3 (NT 5.x)
8. Darwin (since it is distributed freely separate of OS X)
9. DOS w/ Windows 3.1

Yeah, I know NeXTStep/OpenStep became Rhapsody which became OS X, but there's important differences that make it "all new".

Linux is a perfect server OS. It *isn't* ready for desktop. UI and graphics framework are only two problems. Also, software installation, hardware support (that is, more companies need to support it openly), and general usability need to improve.

X11 is allright for server use, where network transparancy and other factors win out over graphic abilities. A server doesn't need eyecandy. X11, however is hopelessly outclassed by other desktop OS display layers.

Give it some time, guys... and... also, give a little. Support projects that push Linux distros past their UNIXy heritage. Stryker's CalyptOS, and mine and Jeffberg's CthulOS/Next Generation Desktop are prime examples. Use the Linux kernel to make a nice, user-friendly desktop OS... perfect. Linus made a good, solid, and quick kernel. Give it an OS that's worthy of what it can do instead of dragging it down with the outdated UNIXness.