Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 17:17 UTC, submitted by Oliver
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "In this article, I'll compare Ubuntu 7.04 with the upcoming release of PC-BSD 1.4. Having used both operating systems extensively, PC-BSD is the one I recommend and the one I install in desktop environments. If you've used Ubuntu before, but haven't tried PC-BSD, give it a try. The increase in responsiveness (i.e., everything seems to just run faster) and ease-of-use will surprise you."
Order by: Score:
Absolutely off-topic
by merkoth on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 17:42 UTC
merkoth
Member since:
2006-09-22

Ubuntu says it's Feisty, but I keep seeing Fiesty all over the web. Now, is that another example of USA/GB differences like centre/center, color/colour?

This is not sarcasm, I'm asking honestly ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Absolutely off-topic
by islander on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 18:07 UTC in reply to "Absolutely off-topic"
islander Member since:
2007-04-11

Was taught under the british system,'i' before 'e' except after 'c'.Dont know if that helps.

Edited 2007-08-23 18:09

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Absolutely off-topic
by rcsteiner on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Absolutely off-topic"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

So the number "ieght" follows "seven" in Great Britain? :-)

Reply Score: 16

RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic
by jakesdad on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Absolutely off-topic"
jakesdad Member since:
2005-12-28

In america it went.... "i" before "e" except after "c" unless its an "aye" and as in neighbors and weigh.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic
by anda_skoa on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Absolutely off-topic"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

So the number "ieght" follows "seven" in Great Britain? :-)


Probably at the "hieght" of the British Empire ;)

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic
by islander on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Absolutely off-topic"
islander Member since:
2007-04-11

LoL.Had to mod you up one.Never thought of that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic
by burnttoy on Fri 24th Aug 2007 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic"
burnttoy Member since:
2006-07-28

Weird is it... ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Absolutely off-topic
by Manik on Sat 25th Aug 2007 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic"
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

Not bad. I wish I could give you more than one point.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic
by Iturbide on Fri 24th Aug 2007 10:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Absolutely off-topic"
Iturbide Member since:
2006-05-22

It's like on Discovery, where you see the thugs of the Liebstandarte running round firing their Schmiessers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Absolutely off-topic
by netpython on Fri 24th Aug 2007 11:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Damn you, i just spilled some of my coffee:-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Absolutely off-topic
by vimh on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Absolutely off-topic"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

That "rule" seems to be disregarded an awful lot. There are a large number of words in the English (US/British/whatever) language that do not follow the "I before E" rule.

"Feisty" is the correct spelling for that Ubuntu release.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic
by siride on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Absolutely off-topic"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

It's at best a sometime rule of thumb. There's no historical basis for it, really and the number of exceptions make it almost useless.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic
by wirespot on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Absolutely off-topic"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

But are Fiesty and Feisty even pronounced the same? I'm not a native English speaker but it seems to me there's a difference, albeit maybe subtle.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic
by Michael on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 22:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic"
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

Yes, they are the same word. One of them is spelt wrong, but no-one knows which ;)

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic
by gavin.mccord on Fri 24th Aug 2007 11:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic"
gavin.mccord Member since:
2005-09-07

Uh, fiesty isn't a word; not even in a Joss Whedon manner of speaking.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Absolutely off-topic
by ACarlow on Fri 24th Aug 2007 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic"
ACarlow Member since:
2005-10-18

In English some words (and especially names) that are spelled with 'ie' or 'ei' use the same 'aye' or 'eye' sound for that vowel combination. The reason is most likely due to the fact that Fiesty can be pronounced "F-eye-eh-stee" which is shortened to just "F-eye-stee". On the other hand words that come from Germanic roots will be pronounced the same way since in German, 'ei' is always pronounced "eye". So, depending on the origin of the word and a particular regions historical use of dialect either spelling can result in the same pronunciation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic
by mkone on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Absolutely off-topic"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

Well, apparently it's i before e, except after c, unless it's weird. (or a number of other words spelt like that). English is unfortunately a difficult language to spell properly.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic
by berzerko on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic"
berzerko Member since:
2005-11-11

yoo spelt "spelled" rawng.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic
by islander on Fri 24th Aug 2007 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic"
islander Member since:
2007-04-11

"English is unfortunately a difficult language to spell properly."

Ditto.English can be so awfully inconsistent.For example "jail" and "gaol" are prounounced the same way having the same meaning but "cave" and "have" are pronounced totally different.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic
by Soulbender on Fri 24th Aug 2007 03:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"English is unfortunately a difficult language to spell properly."

My favourite inconsistency:
Mouse -> mice
but not
House -> hice

And people say swedish is hard to learn...

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Absolutely off-topic
by rtfa on Fri 24th Aug 2007 07:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic"
rtfa Member since:
2006-02-27

aahhhh but....
"My favourite inconsistency:
Mouse -> mice
but not
House -> hice"

If you have a certain "toff" accent in the UK then "hice" is correct :o) e.g.

"I live in a nice hice but also have 3 other hices"

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Absolutely off-topic
by biteydog on Fri 24th Aug 2007 09:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic"
biteydog Member since:
2005-10-06

through - "threw"
tough - "tuff"
plough - "plow" (o as in "owl")
trough - "troff" (except in the country district I live in where it's "trow")
enough - "enuff" (but didn't Shakespeare spell it "enow" - somebody used to)

Anyway, that's enuff of that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Absolutely off-topic
by gavin.mccord on Fri 24th Aug 2007 11:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Absolutely off-topic"
gavin.mccord Member since:
2005-09-07

You missed out dough - d'oh!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Absolutely off-topic
by biteydog on Fri 24th Aug 2007 09:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic"
biteydog Member since:
2005-10-06

tough - "tuff"
trough - "troff"
through - "threw"

that's enuff folks!

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Absolutely off-topic
by biteydog on Fri 24th Aug 2007 09:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Absolutely off-topic"
biteydog Member since:
2005-10-06

Sorry - I seem to have posted twice and can't see either of them (opera on W2000, not my usual OS).
If you can see these comments please let me know (if not, then don't :-) because I'm puzzled.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Absolutely off-topic
by biteydog on Fri 24th Aug 2007 09:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Absolutely off-topic"
biteydog Member since:
2005-10-06

It's OK, one of them has appeared at last, sorry folks!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Absolutely off-topic
by __xodam__ on Sun 26th Aug 2007 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic"
__xodam__ Member since:
2007-04-06

Swedish (likewise) _is_:

Mus (Mouse) -> Möss
but not
Hus (House) -> Höss

^_^

Hey, anyone seeing weird characters in the above words dont blame me blame Swedish muhahaha

Edited 2007-08-26 13:12

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Absolutely off-topic
by Sabu on Fri 24th Aug 2007 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Absolutely off-topic"
Sabu Member since:
2007-08-24

The exception sentence that I remember for the ie rule is:
Neither financier seized either weird species of leisure.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Absolutely off-topic
by tilt on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Absolutely off-topic"
tilt Member since:
2005-08-09

I was educated under the British system too, but there are exceptions to this rule of "e" after "i" except after "c". Examples are: "foreign", "eight"

Cheers

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Absolutely off-topic
by protagonist on Fri 24th Aug 2007 01:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Absolutely off-topic"
protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

Having been taught the rule more years ago than i care to mention I can say it is "i before e except after c, and sometimes"...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Absolutely off-topic
by yorthen on Fri 24th Aug 2007 18:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Absolutely off-topic"
yorthen Member since:
2005-07-06

You mean that there's a rule for this? Perhaps I can finally begin to spell receive and believe correctly then!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Absolutely off-topic
by Clinton on Fri 24th Aug 2007 07:43 UTC in reply to "Absolutely off-topic"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

Fiesty isn't a word. It is misspelled.

Reply Score: 1

Not too useful
by jdrake on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 17:48 UTC
jdrake
Member since:
2005-07-07

I personally did not find this 'comparison' very useful. It speaks not of flash or ati drivers, both of which are *mandatory* for myself and surely many more.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Not too useful
by Oliver on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 17:52 UTC in reply to "Not too useful"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

The crap you call "ATI-drivers" isn't available in BSD, but no one with a sane mind would use these in Linux too.

And Flash, well if you like to view your youtube videos, this is possible without Flash too.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Not too useful
by Moulinneuf on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Not too useful"
RE[2]: Not too useful
by archiesteel on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Not too useful"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I disagree. I use the commercial ATI drivers, and while they may not be as easy to setup or as featureful as the Nvidia drivers (AIGLX, anyone?) they still deliver acceptable 3D performance.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not too useful
by korpenkraxar on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Not too useful"
korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

but no one with a sane mind would use these in Linux too.

Yeah, because I really enjoy using unaccelerated VESA X11 w/o support for my Thinkpad's native resolution, TV-out or dual screen configuration instead of a real driver which, while buggy (to say the least), at least provides these functions.

Not all of us are just running pine and vi in a console all day on our custom built desktop system you know. I am not happy about the ATi driver situation either, but until there is some Free and functional driver alternative I would like to be able to limp along with fglrx without these rants from some random BSD-user. It hurts anyway, mmmkay?

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Not too useful
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 24th Aug 2007 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Not too useful"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually I tried the latest Linux Ati-driver on one of my computers and I found that it has improved a lot since the previous time I tried it (shortly after the release of openSUSE 10.2).

Edited 2007-08-24 01:07

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not too useful
by ThawkTH on Fri 24th Aug 2007 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Not too useful"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Is there a way to do it? Especially embedded in the youtube page? I heard a few media players have .flv support (mplayer and xine I'm sure have some support)...

But is there a way to watch youtube vids embedded in the youtube page without flash? Or do you download them?

Sorry for being slightly OT

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not too useful
by Flatland_Spider on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 18:53 UTC in reply to "Not too useful"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

"Includes support for Flash7 in native BSD browsers. (Konq, Opera, FireFox)"

PC-BSD 1.4 change log
http://pcbsd.org/?p=changelog14

As for ATI drivers, the system will boot to a desktop, but it will be using the base VESA driver. Nvidia or Intel is the way to go for accelerated desktops for now unfortunately.

You're right though. There wasn't a whole lot of comparing going on.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Not too useful
by Moulinneuf on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Not too useful"
RE[3]: Not too useful
by dylansmrjones on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not too useful"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

BS!

Konqueror is native for all *nix platforms. The same is true for KDE, Gnome and so on. Opera is not native for cellphones but began as a browser for PC's quite a few years ago.

You have a really weird definition of pretty much everything.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Not too useful
by SReilly on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not too useful"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Well said.

I remember one article, not so long ago, that was a comparison between Linux and MacOSX. Basically, which one is the best MS alternative out there. One guy was wondering how one of the desktop BSDs would stand up and wondered why no one ever seems to include the BSDs. Moulinneuf instantly blew a gasket and started verbally abusing the parent poster. When I asked why he could not let someone ask a valid question about they're fav OS, this is what he said.

Yes , I do , when it's appropriate , If they want to say BSD is bulshit or its perfect in a BSD thread , no problem whatsoever , when they come and lie in every single GNU/Linux thread , well I pick the one I feel like opposing and offer reality , truth and accuracy.

It looks to me like this guy doesn't even follow his own, completely deluded 'rules'. Obviously, reality is not a high priority for this guy.

Here is the link to the article mentioned
http://www4.osnews.com/story/18372/Linux_vs._Mac:_Which_Is_the_Bett...

Here is the link to the flame war he started
http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?260114

I really think this guy should be banned. He consistently breaks the rules by being rude and obnoxious, not to mention that I have never seen an intelligent or even informed post on his part.

Edited 2007-08-23 20:03 UTC

Reply Score: 7

v RE[5]: Not too useful
by Moulinneuf on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not too useful"
RE[6]: Not too useful
by SReilly on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not too useful"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

That's your missrepresentation /false interpretation of :

Dude, you are reaching. You really should stop you know.

Do yourself a favor and reread this previous post I made about your behaviour.

http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?263731

Reply Score: 3

v RE[7]: Not too useful
by Moulinneuf on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not too useful"
RE[8]: Not too useful
by SReilly on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Not too useful"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I am not reaching at all , just showing that your lying.

Sure, just like you where when you stated that people could say what they wanted about BSD in a BSD thread without you jumping down they're throats? ;-)

Do yourself a favor , stop reading and replying to my post if you can't tolerate people who disagree with you.

Coming from you, that must be the most inappropriate, least self analytical, not to mention pathetic attempt at a face saving post I have ever seen.

You consistently get voted down for your comments yet, you fail to see that you are, without a doubt, the least credible commenter currently frequenting this site. In fact, the way that you go on, i.e. everybody else is either lying, deluded or both, is the most compelling reason I have ever seen for someone to start questioning they're current believes for delusions.

Think about it. :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[8]: Not too useful
by merkoth on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Not too useful"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

I am not reaching at all , just showing that your lying.

Do yourself a favor, stop reading and replying to my post if you can't tolerate people who disagree with you.


You do ourself a favor and shut up. You're just making yourself look stupid and ignorant. Just in case you didn't notice, you're behaving like an ass and making half the OSNews readers waste mod points in sinking your nonsense. Believe me, you don't need a dozen post to make us notice your presence, we can smell a troll of your size from miles away.

*points his finger towards the door* Please.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Not too useful
by Tuishimi on Fri 24th Aug 2007 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not too useful"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

A classic troll is trying to make us believe that he is a skeptic. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. Troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them.

While he tries to present himself as a skeptic looking for truth ... his messages usually sound as if it is the responsibility of other forum members to provide evidence that what forum is all about is legitimate OSNews related topics.

He (and in 90% of cases it is he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Sometimes, he is skeptical, trying to scare people, trying to plant fear in their hearts.

Sometimes, Internet troll is trying to spin conflicting information, is questioning in an insincere manner, flaming discussion, insulting people, turning people against each other, harassing forum members, ignoring warnings from forum moderators.

Trolling is a form of harassment that can take over a discussion. Well meaning defenders can create chaos by responding to trolls. The best response is to ignore it, or to report a message to a forum moderator. Negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.

Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.

When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed. Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one -- himself.

Next time you are on a message board and you see a post by somebody whom you think is a troll, and you feel you must reply, simply write a follow-up message entitled "Troll Alert" and type only this:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction and not to respond to rolling messages. It is well known that most people don't read messages that nobody responds to, while 99% of forum visitors first read the longest and the largest threads with the most answers.

[edit]

I did not write this, I stole it from someone else but I thought it would be a useful post here.

Edited 2007-08-24 16:24

Reply Score: 2

v RE[4]: Not too useful
by Moulinneuf on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not too useful"
RE[5]: Not too useful
by Core Duo on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not too useful"
Core Duo Member since:
2007-06-24

Konqueror is not native on all *NIX platform , it's ported to all *Nix platform. There is no BSD core developer on Konqueror , contributor probably.

You clearly are not a developer. "Native" means it's compiled for a specific system. Konqueror source code can be and is compiled on *BSD. It's a native application. Adode Reader is compiled on Linux and run on *BSD using a compatibility layer, it's not a native *BSD application. Understand now?

Stop posting, your reputation is done now.

Reply Score: 6

v RE[6]: Not too useful
by Moulinneuf on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not too useful"
RE[7]: Not too useful
by SReilly on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not too useful"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Native software are made for the OS or platform and have developer ( paid or volunteer ) contributing to the development and improvement of the software as core developer.

Your level of ignorance never ceases to amaze. You truly outdo yourself in the amount of rubbish you spew forth, almost every time you post.

You really should stop thinking of your opinions as fact, and you really should think before you open your mouth, you know. That way, you can save yourself from embarrassment. :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Not too useful
by anda_skoa on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not too useful"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Native software are made for the OS or platform and have developer ( paid or volunteer ) contributing to the development and improvement of the software as core developer.


While most KDE developer use and develop on Linux, quite some are actually working on other operating systems, such as BSD variants or Solaris. Heck the KDE-on-Windows people even work on Windows!

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Not too useful
by fsckit on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not too useful"
fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

"Native" in BSD-land means compiled natively on the OS and not run under binary compat, ie. linux emulation.

Reply Score: 6

v RE[5]: Not too useful
by Moulinneuf on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not too useful"
RE[4]: Not too useful
by Soulbender on Fri 24th Aug 2007 04:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not too useful"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"You have a really weird definition of pretty much everything."

He likes to redefine things to support his irrational anti-bsd crusade.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not too useful
by protagonist on Fri 24th Aug 2007 01:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Not too useful"
protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

I have to say I came to the same conclusion as the author did while running PC-BSD V1.3 some months back. I was using K/Ubunto and PC-BSD and settled on the latter as being much easier to install and set up. Just my opinion, but thought I would pass it on. And, BTW, if you run the beta V1.4 sign up for the testing email list. People are very responsive when you report bugs or suggestions.

And you are right about the nVidia cards. You set them up on the first boot and then go right into your desktop with the driver already installed.

Edited 2007-08-24 01:58 UTC

Reply Score: 4

people just don't know how to spell
by pllb on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 17:48 UTC
pllb
Member since:
2007-04-30

If you have a FF english dictionary installed you will see the correct spellling.

Reply Score: 2

looking for Gnome version
by buff on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 17:51 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

The review on PC-BSD was interesting. It looks like a decent alternative to Linux. I was surprised it only came in KDE versions officially. I'll wait until an official Gnome version is made.

Reply Score: 3

RE: looking for Gnome version
by Lengsel on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:38 UTC in reply to "looking for Gnome version"
Lengsel Member since:
2006-04-19

If you install PC-BSD, just populate the the FreeBSD ports, I know PC has a graphical tool for that, and after you populate the ports, open a terminal or a shell and login as root, and just type "cd /usr/ports/x11/gnome2/ && make install clean" and it should compile and install the whole GNOME environment

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: looking for Gnome version
by spikeb on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE: looking for Gnome version"
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

that's hardly what the guy is asking for.

Reply Score: 2

RE: looking for Gnome version
by KLU9 on Fri 24th Aug 2007 01:13 UTC in reply to "looking for Gnome version"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

I'll wait until an official Gnome version is made.

don't hold your breath... PC-BSD's focused on KDE and the pbi system, one of the big things that make it PC-BSD (and not just FreeBSD), is tied into KDE.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: looking for Gnome version
by spikeb on Fri 24th Aug 2007 01:49 UTC in reply to "RE: looking for Gnome version"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Well, I don't find PBI wonderful either, but many people really seem to like it...

Reply Score: 3

PBIs
by ebasconp on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 17:55 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

I do not like the PC-BSD PBIs concept; I agree they simplify enormously the software installation process on PC-BSD, but:

1. As far as I know, they bloat the system adding static linked libraries (per application installed using the PBIs).

2. By (1), they remove the possibility of updating core libraries to be used on all the applications for fixing bugs, adding functionality or improving performance.

3. The PBIs and the FreeBSD Port system (ports, port collection, pkgsrc, etc.) are two completely opposite ways of doing package management, and, being BSD, the PBIs are an unstandard way of installing things on FreeBSD (I do not know if it is a bad thing, but I do not like it).

Reply Score: 2

RE: PBIs
by dylansmrjones on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 18:07 UTC in reply to "PBIs"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

They only ship statically linked libraries to the extent they cannot be expected to be present. Many packages are AFAIK dynamically linked. This works fine as long as they only link dynamically against packages one can expect to be present on a PCBSD system.

Personally I prefer the approach of DesktopBSD, though PC-BSD definitely has a thing going for it.

Reply Score: 5

RE: PBIs
by Core Duo on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 18:25 UTC in reply to "PBIs"
Core Duo Member since:
2007-06-24

1. As far as I know, they bloat the system adding static linked libraries (per application installed using the PBIs).

This is FUD. Have you tried PC-BSD? Honestly, I say honestly, did it use more space that any other system? The truth is it doesn't use more space.

2. By (1), they remove the possibility of updating core libraries to be used on all the applications for fixing bugs, adding functionality or improving performance.

Did you feel the system slower? It is actually slightly faster than other systems. Just try it please, I mean try it for real.

3. The PBIs and the FreeBSD Port system (ports, port collection, pkgsrc, etc.) are two completely opposite ways of doing package management, and, being BSD, the PBIs are an unstandard way of installing things on FreeBSD

This is correct. So?

Reply Score: 10

v RE[2]: PBIs
by Moulinneuf on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE: PBIs"
RE[3]: PBIs
by Core Duo on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PBIs"
Core Duo Member since:
2007-06-24

If PC-BSD doesn't work with any of these brands, they should discontinue the development.

You're not worth my time. You're inventing.

Try PC-BSD first, then we can talk.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: PBIs
by Moulinneuf on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PBIs"
RE[3]: PBIs
by computrius on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PBIs"
computrius Member since:
2006-03-26

What in the world did you just say? Nothing you wrote makes any sense. If you were talking it would sound like you were just standing there making noises at me.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: PBIs
by ThawkTH on Fri 24th Aug 2007 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PBIs"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh. My. God.

Here we go again...

It's been ever so peaceful...

Reply Score: 2

RE: PBIs
by Oliver on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:54 UTC in reply to "PBIs"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

You don't have to bother with it, IT'S AN OPTION.

Reply Score: 3

RE: PBIs
by butters on Fri 24th Aug 2007 01:40 UTC in reply to "PBIs"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I do not like the PC-BSD PBIs concept

I agree that the self-contained application images are largely inappropriate for FOSS. The beauty of openness is that we can assemble a system from parts even as the parts keep evolving. Package management is simply the optimal solution whenever we have source code.

However, when we don't have the source code, in the case of proprietary software, we rely on the vendor for building and packaging. They have to support many different systems with different package formats, release cycles, and incremental update policies. It's impractical. While this is a reasonable argument for why proprietary software sucks, we live in an imperfect reality.

So I do support self-contained packaging for proprietary applications. Obviously it can't work in all cases. For example, you can only have one kernel running at a time, so you can't install multiple proprietary driver packages based on different kernels. But it works in most situations.

Proprietary software is already a blob, so I see know reason for it not to be a self-contained blob. Just throw all of your warez in /opt or /usr/blob or whatever.

Self-contained packaging for FOSS isn't necessarily wrong, but it puts a damper on what I see as the fundamental theory of FOSS development: that we can transcend the cost/quality/time relationship in traditional software development by distributing the workload among a network of autonomous efforts driven by pragmatism to cooperate with one another.

FOSS development works by decentralizing work and control. It's a recursive divide and conquer algorithm, like quicksort. A lot of people can't wrap their heads around how or why it works, but it has to do with log. As I recall from my childhood, log is better than bad, it's good.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: PBIs
by google_ninja on Fri 24th Aug 2007 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE: PBIs"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

The problem with the whole dynamically linking everything idea is that it increases the complexity of the system exponentially. That is a non-issue for a geeky OS, but PC-BSD is going for simplicity. The idea of something like ports is quite a bit for a normal end user to wrap their head around, and in the even that something goes wrong, they can't really be expected to trouble shoot it. The idea of a self contained package that one installs or removes from the system is quite a bit easier to grasp.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: PBIs
by butters on Sat 25th Aug 2007 05:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PBIs"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I'm not arguing for ports or any other source-based management system. I'm a Gentoo refugee in favor of binary package management supplemented by easy package creation.

Package management looks exactly the same as application bundles from the perspective of the novice user. They both feature a handy directory of applications that they can click to install. The only difference is how it's implemented behind the scenes.

Novice users hardly even have to use the package manager anymore. When they click on a media file that requires a new codec, they click OK on the dialog to install it. When they turn on file sharing for their media folder and they don't have an SMB server installed, click OK on the dialog to install.

It's getting braindead-simple to obtain common functionality even when it's not installed by default.

The issue here is whether package management is more prone to installation and upgrade problems than application bundles. Clearly package management has an advantage in automatic upgrade management. It also offers tighter integration between applications.

The problems are generally limited to niche applications and proprietary applications. For those, I'm fine with application bundles. But there's no reason for users to install some standard application like Amarok as a self-contained bundle. They'll get 95% of the same code when installing the Kaffiene bundle.

That's not to say that application bundles aren't interesting for things like testing development releases or virtualizing servers.

I'm really interested in the recent development of Glick, a brilliant hack to remove the runtime layer from the Klik2 application virtualization solution. A Glick bundle is simply an ELF binary. It runs like any other binary, except it has its own filesystem that no other application can see. The only non-LSB dependency is FUSE.

Reply Score: 2

Richness
by hraq on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 18:12 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

Ubuntu is more rich in features than PC-BSD; which to me is the reason that makes switching difficult; the same holds true for users of windows who have extremely power applications under their hands and don't want to switch to linux.
Windows as a platform is more rich in features than it's healthy, but people are used for more features than quality. 3 cups of coffee each 1$ is better than a starbucks 4$ high quality single cup of coffee. That is the trend of the market; and that made China the best retailer for alot of products.
Last time I tried PC-BSD I noticed a kernel panic on a system that accepted all kind of high quality OSs like Sun Solaris 11.70 and RHEL 5.
Even Ubuntu is making for me troubles when I want to run vmware server; but It is good enough for me as a point of balance between quality and richness.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Richness
by Core Duo on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 18:29 UTC in reply to "Richness"
Core Duo Member since:
2007-06-24

Ubuntu is more rich in features than PC-BSD

Could you elaborate? For me, it seems PC-BSD has too many options in its System menu. Too much stuff to my taste.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Richness
by hraq on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Richness"
hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

One feature which is missing in PC-BSD is that their different versions are with different taste for hardware. I mean some versions will work on a specific hardware, then if you update the kernel or the the whole OS it won't work at all on the same hardware!

Installer of PC-BSD is so primitive and the partitioning tool associated with it makes it like a joke. One time during my testing on one of their versions; their partitioning software made a horrible mistake with the BIOS by using a wrong data access feature CHS and LBA rendering the desk unaccessable at the end of installation process; with the message Press F1..
So features of the OS doesn't mean only OS feature, but OS environment features, which includes Applications written for that OS.

And If I need to use even faster more stable OS than Ubuntu, I would choose Sun Solaris; but as we know software for x86 solaris are close to none.

Take Azureus as an example:
1. Linux supports it perfectly
2. Windows crashes it like a smackdown friday session
3. Solaris must be SPARC or compile your code on x86
4. PC-BSD doesn't work fine beyond 15 minutes complaining of networking stack problems

With Ubuntu and RHEL I was able to reach 700kbps download speed; on PC-BSD I achieved only 50! and thats the only service I ran and the only thing I have burdened the system with.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Richness
by Core Duo on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Richness"
Core Duo Member since:
2007-06-24

rendering the desk unaccessable

If you don't have access to your desk, try to enter by the window.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Richness
by Morgan on Fri 24th Aug 2007 03:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Richness"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Take Azureus as an example:
1. Linux supports it perfectly
2. Windows crashes it like a smackdown friday session


That's very interesting. My personal experience with Azureus is the exact opposite: On Windows it is flawless but on Linux it crashes and locks up a lot. The only thing I can think of is that it doesn't like the java that ships with Ubuntu. Either way, Azureus is too bloated for me; I just use uTorrent on both platforms -- under Wine on Linux of course.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Richness
by PJBonoVox on Fri 24th Aug 2007 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Richness"
PJBonoVox Member since:
2006-08-14

uTorrent is streets ahead, so why bother with Azureus?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Richness
by Morgan on Fri 24th Aug 2007 11:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Richness"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

If you had read my post all the way to the end (and it was short) before responding, you'd see that I do use uTorrent.

Edited 2007-08-24 11:36

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Richness
by google_ninja on Sat 25th Aug 2007 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Richness"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

And If I need to use even faster more stable OS than Ubuntu, I would choose Sun Solaris; but as we know software for x86 solaris are close to none.

Take Azureus as an example:
1. Linux supports it perfectly
2. Windows crashes it like a smackdown friday session
3. Solaris must be SPARC or compile your code on x86
4. PC-BSD doesn't work fine beyond 15 minutes complaining of networking stack problems

With Ubuntu and RHEL I was able to reach 700kbps download speed; on PC-BSD I achieved only 50! and thats the only service I ran and the only thing I have burdened the system with.


Azureus is a java app. First of all, that means no real compiling, secondly, any differences on different platforms have to do with how good a job SUN did on the JVM for that platform, not how good the platform is at supporting applications. The bytecode itself is the same no matter where you run it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Richness
by boudewijn on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:17 UTC in reply to "Richness"
boudewijn Member since:
2006-03-05

Er... Has Starbucks ever sold a single cup of decent coffee?

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Richness
by hraq on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Richness"
hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes In Europe.
US coffee branches are not as good as the European counterparts.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Richness
by diskinetic on Fri 24th Aug 2007 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Richness"
diskinetic Member since:
2005-12-09

A decent cup of coffee should come in under one US dollar, so the short answer is no.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Richness
by protagonist on Fri 24th Aug 2007 02:22 UTC in reply to "Richness"
protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

You had me right up to the point where you used the coffee example. I have to tell you I like an excellent cup of coffee and I have yet to get one at Starbucks. :-)

As for PC-BSD and the PBI's, it is a good system for the non Geek. If you are going to attract people over from the Windows world you need something like that to do it.

I am not saying Ubuntu is not good, but I find I prefer PC-BSD. I have used both quite a bit and finally settled on PC-BSD. And yes, I do use ports to install a lot of the software I use.

Reply Score: 4

What BSDs are missing
by saterdaies on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 18:22 UTC
saterdaies
Member since:
2005-07-07

Good Package Management.

They just don't resolve dependencies as well as Linux distributions do. apt is probably the gold standard, but even yum does a better job than pkg_add and ports take forever to install (since they have to be compiled).

BSDs are very well-made systems and arguably better than Linux, but this deficiency is holding them back.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What BSDs are missing
by Oliver on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:56 UTC in reply to "What BSDs are missing"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Try ports and have a good laugh about apt-get ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: What BSDs are missing
by Flatland_Spider on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE: What BSDs are missing"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

He's talking about pre-compiled packages. He's unsatisfied by pkg_add.

I prefer ports too, but that wasn't the comparison. The comment was probably from someone uninformed about PC-BSD and its PBI system.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What BSDs are missing
by danieldk on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE: What BSDs are missing"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Try ports and have a good laugh about apt-get ;)

In what situation? I sure don't want my servers (or even my desktops) to waste time compiling stuff where it is not necessary (yes, I know that there are binary packages, but you are talking ports). At some places I don't even want to have compilers around.

It's easy to bluntly state something without argumentation, and it will probably buy you a lot of +1s, but that doesn't make it true.

Voting systems are only useful if posts that are informative or well-argumented are voted up, not useless one-liners. (Sure, the statement can be true, but without argumentation it is useless.)

Reply Score: 10

RE[3]: What BSDs are missing
by anomie on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What BSDs are missing"
anomie Member since:
2007-02-26

>> In what situation? I sure don't want my servers (or even my desktops) to waste time compiling stuff where it is not necessary (yes, I know that there are binary packages, but you are talking ports).

Ports give you a lot of flexibility (build time options) and, if used well, help ensure that you keep a harmonious relationship among all your third-party apps. If you haven't used them (I'm not implying that you haven't), give them a try. It's really a fantastic way to handle software installation/maintenance.

The compile times aren't as bad as you'd think -- particularly on a server that's not running Xorg or gui apps.

>> Voting systems are only useful if posts that are informative or well-argumented are voted up, not useless one-liners.

Couldn't agree more. As much as I like osnews.com, I loathe the "voting system". Thankfully they've at least removed the 'average vote score' that used to appear in parenthesis next to the moniker when posting. It was shameful (Hey! Look at how well I've mastered slogans!) and I am glad they dumped it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What BSDs are missing
by danieldk on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What BSDs are missing"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Ports give you a lot of flexibility (build time options) and, if used well, help ensure that you keep a harmonious relationship among all your third-party apps. If you haven't used them (I'm not implying that you haven't), give them a try. It's really a fantastic way to handle software installation/maintenance.

The compile times aren't as bad as you'd think -- particularly on a server that's not running Xorg or gui apps.


I often use pkgsrc, and I love it. But I think the ideal system has both, a good ports system, and a good binary package manager like APT. Yes, I know there is portupgrade for FreeBSD ports that can also use binary packages, and some other binary package management tools. But they don't provide the comfort of APT yet. I guess projects can learn from eachother there.

Besides that, it would be useful if the base system can also be maintained through packages. Though, that is on the horizon for NetBSD (syspkgs, I don't know whether the other BSDs are working on something similar).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What BSDs are missing
by korpenkraxar on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE: What BSDs are missing"
korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

Hmm, well I am not so sure about that. Why so?

It would be very nice to see a real empirical package-management showdown sometime comparing actual features, configurability, speed, ease of use and reliability of some popular systems in the *NIX world like Ports, portage, apt, yum and pacman (the last of which I've really come to like myself).

Reply Score: 2

RE: What BSDs are missing
by Soulbender on Fri 24th Aug 2007 03:23 UTC in reply to "What BSDs are missing"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Good Package Management."

Thus spake someone who hasn't tried it.
I much prefer OpenBSD's package management to Linux (be it rpm or apt or whatever).

"apt is probably the gold standard, but even yum does a better job than pkg_add and ports take forever to install (since they have to be compiled)."

Not all pkg_add's are created equal. pkg_add (on OpenBSD) solve dependencies just as well as any other package management system and it's faster than both apt and yum in my experience.

Reply Score: 3

v It's easy
by tony on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 18:55 UTC
I like PC-BSD but...
by tuaris on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 18:56 UTC
tuaris
Member since:
2007-08-05

The one thing thats really hurting it (and holding it back) is the KDE desktop. The PBI concept is exactly what's needed in Unix/Linux desktops. Who cares if the libraries are statically linked, it's worked well for Apple and Windows. FreeBSD has always been faster than Ubuntu, but Ubuntu has had the tight integration (and default settings) required for a easy to use and functional desktop and server. I only wish the PC-BSD developers would realize that they are missing out big time by using KDE instead of GNOME.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I like PC-BSD but...
by merkoth on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:13 UTC in reply to "I like PC-BSD but..."
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

The one thing thats really hurting it (and holding it back) is the KDE desktop. The PBI concept is exactly what's needed in Unix/Linux desktops. Who cares if the libraries are statically linked, it's worked well for Apple and Windows. FreeBSD has always been faster than Ubuntu, but Ubuntu has had the tight integration (and default settings) required for a easy to use and functional desktop and server. I only wish the PC-BSD developers would realize that they are missing out big time by using KDE instead of GNOME.


Uhm... what? How on earth can KDE "hold back" an entire OS? IMO, for Window users I'm sure it looks more "familiar" than GNOME.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: I like PC-BSD but...
by dylansmrjones on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE: I like PC-BSD but..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, it all depends on the theming. Take a look at Linux XP for an instance.

Personally I prefer ports over PBI, but other persons prefer PBI over ports. Different preferences - different choices. What I think is probably among the better elements of PC-BSD is the easy installation of Windows-specific applications. If just it was that easy on XYZ Linux-distribution...

Reply Score: 3

RE: I like PC-BSD but...
by segedunum on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:38 UTC in reply to "I like PC-BSD but..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I only wish the PC-BSD developers would realize that they are missing out big time by using KDE instead of GNOME.

Why? That article is telling me that it's faster and easier to use than Ubuntu. Why is that wrong? What are they missing out on?

Reply Score: 13

RE: I like PC-BSD but...
by spikeb on Fri 24th Aug 2007 01:52 UTC in reply to "I like PC-BSD but..."
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

gah, that is so incorrect i don't know where to start. having to go to an external website to get your stuff is the way it should be? are you kidding? that's completely ass backwards compared to having a program designed entirely for picking out and installing applications.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I like PC-BSD but...
by cg0def on Fri 24th Aug 2007 07:25 UTC in reply to "I like PC-BSD but..."
cg0def Member since:
2006-02-12

ok I've been using and defending gnome for many years now but the truth is that gnome is developing really slow and like always it's catching up rather than innovating. In fact this holds true for the OSS world as a whole (please spare me the exceptions).
So as of lately I have really started considering moving over to KDE but I think I'll wait for the 4.0 release. In general gnome development is driven by devs who build the environment to fit THEIR OWN needs rather than to provide a platform for everyone to use. Anyway as it stands ATM kde is more functional than a vanilla gnome install and is easier to add new features that are well integrated in the overall framework. KDE and QT in part also provide for a more consistent desktop experience than most implementations of gnome that I have seen. Hence PC-BSD chose KDE and not gnome as a default.


But PC-BSD has a fairly large problem with hardware support. It actually supports less hardware than linux does which in turn supports even less than windows. And companies in general still manufacture hardware for windows and NOT linux or bsd. If your hardware doesn't function I doubt that you will care how stable the OS is or how nice your desktop looks.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: I like PC-BSD but...
by Oliver on Fri 24th Aug 2007 11:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I like PC-BSD but..."
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>But PC-BSD has a fairly large problem with hardware support.

Any proof?

Sound: some very old cards, SB Live, Audigy1-4, Intel HDA, Envy 24, ...

Network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Open_Source_Wireless_Dri...

http://www.clearchain.com/wiki/Wpi

Graphics: Intel onboard, nVidia and so on; just Ati is a no-go, but it's not wise to use it in Linux too ;)

SMP/Dualcores: no problem at all

SATA: no problem

Webcams: pwc or spca5xx, about 250 webcams flavours

I don't see any real problem, apart from crapy hardware or crapy bios - problems which are usual in Linux too. And some drivers in Linux aren't maintainend anymore or buggy like hell. So please, don't spread FUD because of a massive, a real massive lack of knowledge.

BSD vs Linux is like reality vs hype.

Edited 2007-08-24 11:16

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: I like PC-BSD but...
by happycamper on Fri 24th Aug 2007 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I like PC-BSD but..."
happycamper Member since:
2006-01-01

>But PC-BSD has a fairly large problem with hardware support.

Any proof?


yeah, right here:

*buntu doesn't include lot of quality in my opinion. But it has got one very big advantage, hardware support. Try to install any BSD at a laptop or use some webcams for voip with video. Forget about it. I'm looking at the moment for a wlan usb stick. Ralink has got support with ural, rum is only for Current. And guess what, my stick wants rum :o)
Intel 3945 is in the laptop, but there is just a very alpha driver (wpi). Omfg, I don't want to run Linux just because of Wlan *g*

But you see, if some people want to use certain hardware it's most of the time a no-go, especially with wlan or some multimedia hardware devices like DVB-T/S/C and so on. _This_ is the desktop. Yeah, in my opinion *BSD is superior, it's "clean", but there is a lack of hardware support and that's a pity.

Cheers,

Oliver


so, BSD does lack hardware support?
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/unix/bsd/archives/kubuntu-vs-pcbsd-18431

Edited 2007-08-24 12:52

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I like PC-BSD but...
by Soulbender on Fri 24th Aug 2007 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I like PC-BSD but..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"so, BSD does lack hardware support?"

Yes and no. BSD has some things Linux lacks, Linux has some things BSD lacks and Windows has a lot that both lack.

Linux does not support my usb ralink device properly while it works perfectly in OpenBSD, ergo Linux has bad hardware support?

Reply Score: 2

RE: I like PC-BSD but...
by ThawkTH on Fri 24th Aug 2007 18:21 UTC in reply to "I like PC-BSD but..."
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

KDE is easy.

FUD is pointless.

Give people their freedom, accept that people have different tastes, deal with it.

Reply Score: 3

my experience
by backdoc on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:15 UTC
backdoc
Member since:
2006-01-14

I find Ubuntu to be sluggish. So, I tried to install PC-BSD last night on my Dell D800. It wouldn't even boot. I have no problem booting to the Ubuntu CD, though. The checksums are good. So, it's not a problem with the iso.

I'm going to try just plain old Debian tonight.

Reply Score: 3

RE: my experience
by OStourist on Fri 24th Aug 2007 05:40 UTC in reply to "my experience"
OStourist Member since:
2007-06-19

I was an Ubuntu user for a while..some apt-get upgrade
boinked my system..something that is much harder to do in BSD land(basically you have to upgdrade all ports and kernel to CURRENT)

Also Ubuntu FAILED to properly detetect and configure
my Nvidea 6200 + 23" LCD monitor.
Both PC-BSD and DesktopBSD got it right out of the box.
Another negleted point is SOUND.
Sorry but ALSA is BUGGY and cannot mix ALL sounds
on the most common on-board sound "cards" (AC'97 and
other protocols). Do you doubt it?
Try mixing sound from an OSS only thing..like a JAVA Applet with Rhythmbox..you can't. No I will not buy a sound card - only audio professionals should do that
these days. Freespire(linspire) is the ONLY linux distro that recognizes this problem and has an experimental solution(which worked quite well).
Oh PC-BSD(or any BSD) mixes sounds with no problems on my i915 chipset.
recognizes
For sheer stability and professionalism I do believe FreeBSD beats linux hands down..

BUT ..unfortunately Flash-9 is not ready for freeBSD
yet and this is a showstopper - though one can use firefox extensions and other tricks to download flash video and view them in mplayer.
As for the PBI system - I'm not too sure it matters
but it's nice as an option I guess if there is no other alternative.
I wish PC-BSD used Grub like DesktopBSD does..it gives
much better flexibility in multiboot situations.
I will continue to use BSD(Desktop or PC)
as alongside OS X as my main desktops.

Reply Score: 3

As for her conclusion..
by Simon Gray on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:23 UTC
Simon Gray
Member since:
2006-06-04

Dru Lavigne is a network and systems administrator, IT instructor, author and international speaker. She has over a decade of experience administering and teaching Netware, Microsoft, Cisco, Checkpoint, SCO, Solaris, Linux, and BSD systems. A prolific author, she pens the popular FreeBSD Basics column for O'Reilly and is author of BSD Hacks and The Best of FreeBSD Basics.


I'm not saying the author is wrong, but after reading that blob and noticing the article basically reads like a PC-BSD advertisement, I'm certainly sceptic. She obviously has an interesting in guiding people to BSD distros.

That said, I'm gonna try PC-BSD out some time just for their Windows-like installers to see if that system even works for Linux.

Edited 2007-08-23 19:24

Reply Score: 5

RE: As for her conclusion..
by Core Duo on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:30 UTC in reply to "As for her conclusion.."
Core Duo Member since:
2007-06-24

You advertise what you like. Who doesn't recommend what they're happy with? Makes sense.

Reply Score: 3

RE: As for her conclusion..
by Oliver on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:59 UTC in reply to "As for her conclusion.."
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Well, that's true - but furthermore she is a teacher and uses different operating systems all day long. FreeBSD is just her primary operating system. But there is no lack of knowledge toward the other systems.

Reply Score: 4

RE: As for her conclusion..
by Soulbender on Fri 24th Aug 2007 03:27 UTC in reply to "As for her conclusion.."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

She obviously has an interesting in guiding people to BSD distros.


You mean she is biased just like everyone else who writes articles and comparisons on operating systems?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: As for her conclusion..
by blixel on Fri 24th Aug 2007 05:12 UTC in reply to "RE: As for her conclusion.."
blixel Member since:
2005-07-06

You mean she is biased just like everyone else who writes articles and comparisons on operating systems?

I think he means that in addition to the usual bias that you'd expect from someone writing an article, this particular person also has book deals. (i.e. BSD is great - blah, blah, blah. Oh, and by the way - buy my BSD books. *cha-ching*)

Edited 2007-08-24 05:13

Reply Score: 2

meianoite
Member since:
2006-04-05

"Yes, this user is a complete jackass, has a consistent history of spreading lies and misinformation, and everything he said on this post in particular is wrong either out of ignorance or out of malice."

Users flagged with this modding category should be scrutinized by the OSNews crew and put on probation. After 3 offences, banned from commenting for a week. After 6, 2 weeks. And so on.

Either that, or someone who consistently fits that modding category (like, say, let's invent a fictitious French-side Canadian poster; let's call him Windmill9 (*hint* ;) ) should receive automatic negative modding and be reported straight to the OSNews admins so THEY could mod him up to reasonable levels again.

Spares us all of the trouble of losing votes we could otherwise use modding UP people that are worth it.

BTW, this is probably my first direct attack, completely off-topic post, so feel free to mod me down ;)

I just felt that something has to be done regarding for-the-sport trolls.

Reply Score: 11

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Excellent idea. I'm sure Adam could sort something along those lines out and Thom could vet the moding. They only problem that I see in this is, why bother? Both Adam and Thom do this in they're free time, without any monetary gain, and I don't see why they would create more hassle for themselves.

I think they should just ban him like what happened to NotParker http://www4.osnews.com/user/uid:7674. At least NotParker had some well researched, not to mention intelligible posts.

See my above post for another reason why this guy should be banned. http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?265323

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

LOL... I didn't know his name translated to Windmill9 ;)

EDIT: Is Windmill correct translated? According to babelfish it's only Mill9 ;)

Edited 2007-08-23 20:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

Mill is a better translation. And his name can be translated to Mill9 or New Mill.

That said, given all his gesticulations and blah blah, Windmill seems more appropriate.

Reply Score: 1

v The article is usual BSD bulshit
by Moulinneuf on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 19:53 UTC
Principle or practical?
by Haicube on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 20:40 UTC
Haicube
Member since:
2005-08-06

I would hardly call this article a comparison, but rather an introduction to PCBSD for Ubuntu users or something like that.

Reading the comments and reading the article and giving some thoughts to this, you could easily say that the classic license wars seem to have converted into a Gnome VS KDE war or so. I personally don't really dig any of them to be honest.

As far as I'm concerned, those who tried PCBSD (me being one of them) and tried Linux will witness that PCBSD overall feels more responsive and faster. Maybe Linux has some more drivers but in the end, they're very similar (as in the nature of *Nix).

People tend to hide behind the principle these days instead that after propagating how good Linux is for years, it'd be difficult (and for some impossible) to accept the fact that a BSD desktop flavour actually outperforms a Linux desktop distro.

In the end, it's being realistic and admitting when you're right and wrong which partially separates the men from the penguins (mice?)!

Reply Score: 3

Nice
by WyldStylist on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 21:16 UTC
WyldStylist
Member since:
2006-12-30

Too bad noone makes a slim version as an alternative like puppylinux/dsl. Of slim pcbsds so far we only got picobsd that btw seems to be quite dead.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nice
by KLU9 on Fri 24th Aug 2007 01:43 UTC in reply to "Nice"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

on an old laptop (PIII 450mhz, 128mb RAM) Puppy & BeOS flew but PC-BSD crawled. I'd be interested in a ready-to-go BSD good for old hardware, like Puppy does with Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[9]: Not too useful
by BSDfan on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 21:38 UTC
BSDfan
Member since:
2007-03-14

Moulinneuf is simply a troll.. He only surfaces when people discuss BSD..

He is clearly uneducated.. arrogant.. and likes spreading FUD.

Moulinneuf - Take a hint, You're wrong... stop acting like a child.

Edited 2007-08-23 21:39

Reply Score: 2

v RE[10]: Not too useful
by Moulinneuf on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Not too useful"
Fanboi?
by bb_matt on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 21:39 UTC
bb_matt
Member since:
2006-01-04

I question the merits of this comparison, due to the fact that there are no benchmarks, merely opinion.

I could easily state that Slackware is faster than Ubuntu and probably be correct, however, without benchmarks to backup my statement, it's not a viable comparison.

This being a site dedicated to the discussion of Operating Systems, I suppose it would be a moot point to consider a review based on productivity?

Hmmm, thought so - too much talk about eye-candy, too much glossing over OS aspects and far too little indepth research into how productive an OS is.

Bottom line, you CANNOT sum up the merits of one *nix distribution against another without testing in a production environment.

Reply Score: 3

gnome?
by spikeb on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 23:40 UTC
spikeb
Member since:
2006-01-18

When there's a PCBSD with a gnome desktop, then i'll be interested. not until then.

Reply Score: 1

Why use BSD for a desktop?
by valnar on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 23:48 UTC
valnar
Member since:
2006-01-17

changed my mind

Edited 2007-08-23 23:50

Reply Score: 3

To moulinneuf
by meianoite on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 23:51 UTC
meianoite
Member since:
2006-04-05

Sorry for opening a new thread, the mobile interface to OSNews won't allow me to post a reply to his specific message.

Anyway.

Moulinneuf. Dude. This is the last time I'll reply anything you say. Giving you any kind of attention besides modding you down is probably harmful *to you*, since it might make you believe such attention is deserved, out of your "intelligent" and "intelligible" remarks. Let me assure you, this is NOT the case.

I'm bothering to reply because yours accusation regarding my motives was the most ridiculous thing anyone ever said about me. Ever.

First, I *never*, ever, judged anyone based on race. On creed? Sometimes. On political alignment? Often so. Displayed level of understanding of the subject on topic? Of courde. Actions? ALWAYS. Racial traits? Nope. Unless the person in question happens to be a cute asian schoolgirl with a great body. Then I might cut her some slack on whichever subject might be discussed ;)

Second, since when is being Canadian a matter of race? It could only be a matter of nationality. You could at most call me a xenophobist, which I don't happen to be, either. I figured you're a French-side Canadian because it was a straightforward deduction, given the recurring pattern of linguistic mistakes you make. If your name actually happens to be Moulinneuf, I couldn't care less. But that it happened to at least be the handle you use on OSNews *hinted* to the possibility that you lived on the French side. For all purposes, you could have been christened Qwerty Uiopas and it wouldn't have mattered (but it'd be quite amusing ;) ).

Third, there have been *absolutely no hatred* in my message. I'm tired of your consistently wrong and malicious comments, your spreading of misinformation, your lack of civility when discussing *anything*, and your extremely combative attitude regarding anyone -- actually, no one, as it doesn't matter who you're arguing with or what their position is; as long as it's different from yours, you'll quote out of context, distort, lie, throw red herrings, ad hominem attacks, or otherwise mangle the language to a level that simply impedes comprehension of what the hell you're trying to communicate. It makes it impracticable, if not impossible, to make the conversation flow.

And I'm not even simply criticising your English skills, for I'm not a native speaker myself, and make more than my share of language mistakes daily, in my native tongue or otherwise. I'm talking about the fact that it's impossible to keep any kind of conversation with you, and I suspect that this would be the case even if you wrote in your mother language.

You won't settle for anything less than having the last word, even if modded down to abyssal levels (hint: there's more to communication than words, and the fact that you are *modded down* is a form of communication; so, see, you can't possibly have had the last saying when people engage in *visibly* disagreeing with you); you won't, ever, accept that either your methods to "spread the truth" (whatever it is that you believe is the truth) are flawed, or that you're plain wrong and way too proud and full of yourself to accept it.

And to put the cherry on the cake, my name happens to be quite common in Portuguese-speaking countries; using it as a unique identifier on the Internet is just not doable. In itself, neither is "meianoite", which is just a contraction of "meia noite", Portuguese for "midnight". It's just a reminder that things always change, no matter if it's the worst day of your life or the best, and however elusive this (symbolic or not) turning point might be, it's certainly there.

Anyway, for those who couldn't care the least about the philosophical blabbering, my name is published there as well.

So, come again, how the hell am I hiding myself?

Have a nice day.

Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.1; U; en-us) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413 es70

Reply Score: 14

v Not going down to your level ...
by Moulinneuf on Fri 24th Aug 2007 03:12 UTC in reply to "To moulinneuf"
RE: To moulinneuf
by Soulbender on Fri 24th Aug 2007 03:33 UTC in reply to "To moulinneuf"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Dude, give it a rest. You are putting way too much energy into this and it will all be for naught. Some people just can't be argued with. I'm thinking of a word here and the word is "fanatic".
I also notice that "there are 17 comment(s) below your current score threshold", most, if not all, of them by "Windmill9" so at least the moderation system works.

Edited 2007-08-24 03:53

Reply Score: 2

RE: To moulinneuf
by elsewhere on Fri 24th Aug 2007 03:54 UTC in reply to "To moulinneuf"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

On behalf of Canada, I apologize for Moulinneuf.

There is a very small but vocal minority within the French-Canadian population that falls back on racism as an argument for anyone that disagrees with them. It's inexcusable, it's inappropriate, and it is not representative of either Canada or French Canadians as a whole.

Moulinneuf is what we in Canada simply refer to as an idiot. Please take his comments for the worthless value they possess, and please don't feed him by bringing up his nationality. I am, frankly, embarrassed as a Canadian and will send everyone a free Molson as a token of apology... ;)

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: To moulinneuf
by Soulbender on Fri 24th Aug 2007 03:58 UTC in reply to "RE: To moulinneuf"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"will send everyone a free Molson as a token of apology... ;) "

Do you really want to embarrass your country even more? ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: To moulinneuf
by elsewhere on Sat 25th Aug 2007 01:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: To moulinneuf"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

"will send everyone a free Molson as a token of apology... ;) "

Do you really want to embarrass your country even more? ;)


I'd embarrass them more by admitting that Corona is actually my beer of choice, but respecting Molson is something we are taught in childhood immediately before learning the national anthem. ;)

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: To moulinneuf
by Moulinneuf on Fri 24th Aug 2007 05:54 UTC in reply to "RE: To moulinneuf"
RE[3]: To moulinneuf
by dylansmrjones on Fri 24th Aug 2007 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: To moulinneuf"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: To moulinneuf
by elsewhere on Sat 25th Aug 2007 01:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: To moulinneuf"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Now since you said everyone get a Molson then I will be waiting for mine ...


Will do, but keep in mind that since you're in Quebec, it will have to be a Laurentide. After all, Molson Canadian is considered offensive, right ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: To moulinneuf
by meianoite on Fri 24th Aug 2007 06:22 UTC in reply to "RE: To moulinneuf"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

On behalf of Canada, I apologize for Moulinneuf.

There is a very small but vocal minority within the French-Canadian population that falls back on racism as an argument for anyone that disagrees with them. It's inexcusable, it's inappropriate, and it is not representative of either Canada or French Canadians as a whole.


No need to excuse yourself ;)

Actually, the fact that figuring out he's a French Canadian (thanks to pointing me the correct way to write it) made he promptly accuse me of insulting his country and his origins was *so* amusing in itself that I can't possibly be pissed at him ;)

Such is the power of comic relief ;)

Not to mention his inability to understand why I obfuscated his name, rather somehow turning it into some capital offence...

Not to mention, too, his inability to distinguish racism from xenophobia, particularly when neither sentiment is taking place (woot!).

But this bit of background info you're sharing with us almost helps me make sense of his actions. Barely. ;)

Moulinneuf is what we in Canada simply refer to as an idiot. Please take his comments for the worthless value they possess, and please don't feed him by bringing up his nationality. I am, frankly, embarrassed as a Canadian and will send everyone a free Molson as a token of apology... ;)


Well, actually, I *always* wanted to visit Canada, particularly the French territories, even more so with the incentives the French Canadian government gives to immigrants looking for jobs there; so I actually know a thing or two about Canada -- hence my somewhat acute perception of his origins.

But I must confess that his behaviour was somewhat disencouraging; a chilling cold shower if you will. But I found your words reassuring; I hope that we'll eventually share a Molson together, for real, while laughing at this episode ;)

There are hockey games on the French side too, right? ;)

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: To moulinneuf
by Moulinneuf on Fri 24th Aug 2007 06:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: To moulinneuf"
RE[4]: To moulinneuf
by dylansmrjones on Fri 24th Aug 2007 09:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: To moulinneuf"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

But apparently I am the idiot ...


Congratulations. A step in the right direction for you ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: To moulinneuf
by meianoite on Fri 24th Aug 2007 06:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: To moulinneuf"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

For the love of God.

I'm not talking to moulinneuf anymore, so would someone PLEASE point him to the correct Wikipedia article on xenophobia?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia :

As with all phobias, a xenophobic person is aware of the fear, and therefore has to believe at some level that the target is in fact a foreigner. This arguably separates xenophobia from racism and ordinary prejudice in that someone of a different race does not necessarily have to be of a different nationality. In various contexts, the terms "xenophobia" and "racism" seem to be used interchangably, though they have wholly different meanings (xenophobia being based on place on birth, racism being based on genetic ancestory). For example: to dislike a black person from France because they are French is Xenophobic, but if one does not like them because they are black, it is racism.


Edit: and I still fail to understand his reasoning for calling me racist, or even xenophobe for the matter -- I clearly am neither.

(To add insult to injury: my best friend is currently living in Nantes, France, and his father *is* French, born and raised. I, myself, have my family origins in France, Portugal and Lebanon.

So, again, is moulinneuf a member of the Non-sequitur Practitioner's Club or something? Or perhaps he's just been rehearsing some horrendous remake of some discarded and never-aired Monty Python sketch, and we all fell for it?...)

Edited 2007-08-24 07:10

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: To moulinneuf
by Moulinneuf on Fri 24th Aug 2007 06:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: To moulinneuf"
RE[4]: To moulinneuf
by meianoite on Fri 24th Aug 2007 07:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: To moulinneuf"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

Now, a little mental exercise, which I hope someone will point our current king of negative moddings at.

Suppose there's a Wikipedia article on fruit. You find a big box there that enlists fruit such as apples, oranges, bananas, watermelons. While there's no doubt they're all fruit, does that entail some kind of sweeping generalisation that make apples the same as oranges, bananas the same as watermelons, so that by extension one can be offered a lemonade and be given tomato juice and no one can possibly tell the difference?

Oh Lord, why do I keep grasping for a fibre of logic among his words when there's none to be found...

Reply Score: 5

v RE[5]: To moulinneuf
by Moulinneuf on Fri 24th Aug 2007 08:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: To moulinneuf"
RE[4]: To moulinneuf
by Obscurus on Fri 24th Aug 2007 12:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: To moulinneuf"
Obscurus Member since:
2006-04-20

I'm not talking to moulinneuf anymore, so would someone PLEASE point him to the correct Wikipedia article on xenophobia?


There really is no point. He is what we in Australia colloquially term a wanker or a bloody drongo (to put it mildly). He clearly has kangaroos loose in his top paddock, and is as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike. His insults are like being flogged with a warm lettuce leaf (to coin a phrase), because you can't understand what on earth he is trying to say. Such individuals transcend nationality and ethnicity, and they are instantly recognisable for what they are as soon as they open their mouth or put finger to keyboard. The only way to help him is to not respond to his posts.

Such people are not worth talking to, so don't waste too much time on him. I really don't see why he isn't banned quite frankly, as he contributes nothing but personal insults and random unintelligible gibberish.

Please feel free to mod me down for this post - it is grossly off topic, and contains offensive language and personal insults.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: To moulinneuf
by superstoned on Fri 24th Aug 2007 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: To moulinneuf"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

sure, it's offensive and off-topic. but so true...

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: To moulinneuf
by elsewhere on Sat 25th Aug 2007 01:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: To moulinneuf"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Well, actually, I *always* wanted to visit Canada, particularly the French territories, even more so with the incentives the French Canadian government gives to immigrants looking for jobs there; so I actually know a thing or two about Canada -- hence my somewhat acute perception of his origins.

But I must confess that his behaviour was somewhat disencouraging; a chilling cold shower if you will. But I found your words reassuring; I hope that we'll eventually share a Molson together, for real, while laughing at this episode ;)


Don't let him discourage you. Montreal is an incredible city, in fact if it wasn't for the f$@@! g*#$*#$ d*$*#$ winters, I'd live there. It is one of the most cosmopolitan cities you'll find in North America, has one of the most vibrant night life scenes, and Old Montreal is an incredible place to kill an afternoon or an evening, as one of the oldest historical settlements in NA.

Quebec City is also a beautiful city with an incredible night life and some stunning architecture, but if you don't speak French, you'll have to tell people you're American. That they can accept because they relish tourist dollars and US acceptance if the dream of separation ever happens, but they really don't like Anglophone Canadians so it's best to stress your non-Canadian-ness when visiting there... ;)

But seriously, don't let Moulinidiot dissuade you, Quebec is easily one of the most exciting and intriguing place to visit or live in all of North America.

There are hockey games on the French side too, right? ;)


The Montreal Canadiens - Toronto Maple Leafs rivarly is the oldest grudge in the NHL... The Stanley Cup playoffs don't generate the same energy level you see when watching both teams play against each other in either city. Phenomenal. ;)

Reply Score: 2

painless software install?
by zhulien on Fri 24th Aug 2007 00:15 UTC
zhulien
Member since:
2006-12-06

"Software installation has also been designed to be as painless as possible"

Does this mean they fixed the issue most linux distros have in assuming you only want the LATEST copy of a particular program installed at once? Or is it a lie?

Reply Score: 1

enough of the gnome vs kde already!
by pixel8r on Fri 24th Aug 2007 03:41 UTC
pixel8r
Member since:
2007-08-11

Is it just me or is there a lot of people getting VERY sick and tired of hearing all the "my desktop is better than yours" crap on this forum (and others)??!

If you like GNOME, use GNOME, and if you like KDE, use KDE, and so on.

A lot of people use and like GNOME and the same can be said for KDE. Some people use both.

Not everyone wants to use GNOME, and not everyone wants to use KDE, so live with it. Dont go on here thinking its your job to beat people into using your favourite desktop. It aint gonna happen. Instead you just create a bad image for linux users. No one wants to switch to an OS if they know that whatever desktop they choose they will be hounded by the community for making "the wrong choice"...

My opinion is that its great that we have 2 main desktops. It improves competition and this brings excellent results - as we can see in both desktops.

People that complain about this usually dont understand what they're talking about - for example - KDE apps, will still work under GNOME, and they will look like KDE apps. There are no issues for developers to worry about - their app will look exactly the same no matter which desktop it runs under. The same is true for GNOME apps.

People generally dont care that much about what the apps look like, as long as they're fairly similar. At the moment we have winxp apps that use the new themes and ones that were compiled for older versions of windows that dont use the new themes. They look quite different, but I bet hardly anyone notices.

Oh, and by the way, I use KDE because I like the way it works, looks, and it has the features I need/want. Looking forward to KDE4. (I dont hate GNOME, I've tried using it several times and usually install it for fun, but I prefer KDE - its what makes us individuals).

Reply Score: 7

deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

I strongly disagree with this:

"People generally dont care that much about what the apps look like, as long as they're fairly similar. At the moment we have winxp apps that use the new themes and ones that were compiled for older versions of windows that dont use the new themes. They look quite different, but I bet hardly anyone notices."

Quite a number of people DO care about this, because they have come to understand the positive aspects e.g. of Mac OS X: There is _one_ printing dialog, and every application uses this printing dialog. There is _one_ way to create/print PDFs, and not five or six. ALL applications use the same buttons, and when I press a certain button it's clear what's going to happen.

I despise mixing applications from Gnome and KDE desktops. Instead, I stick with Gnome and search for a GTK application instead of using the QT application.

At least I notice the difference between GTK and QT applications, and - since I am a Gnome user - regard it as a showstopper. Therefore I try to avoid QT applications.

Reply Score: 3

dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

ALL applications use the same buttons, and when I press a certain button it's clear what's going to happen.

Unless that app happens to be Shake, Final Cut, Maya, XSI, Logic, Garage Band or any of the other countless apss where the above statement is false.

Reply Score: 4

superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Indeed. Linux has approx three different kinds of apps: KDE/Qt apps, Gnome/GTK apps (and both have some apps that don't adhere to the standards, like Scribus and Gimp, but those are just a few) and the third are some old and weird looking motif things.

Most ppl use Gnome or KDE, and have a few apps of the other DE in there. If you use KDE and use the GTK-Qt theme, the difference is even hard to see.

Now go and compare this to windows, where you would have a hard time finding two apps really looking the same, even if they are MS apps (eg MS Word, IE7, Explorer, Notepad and Messenger don't seem to have even a single widget in common, here on XP!!!). Same goes for MAC, btw. Black & Glossy, 5 kinds of aqua-like, brushed metal.

Windows and Mac os X are a mess. Linux is much better - just two dominant toolkits, and a very very small amount of apps with another toolkit. OK, I admit, OO.o and Firefox have their own stuff, but a lot of work by the community ensured there is really reasonable integration now.

Reply Score: 3

DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

At least I notice the difference between GTK and QT applications, and - since I am a Gnome user - regard it as a showstopper. Therefore I try to avoid QT applications.

I am sorry but this doesn't make any sense. What do you do when the best of the breed is a QT application? Settle down with an inferior alternative just because it is made with GTK?

There are applications out there that are simply way better than others done with "the other" toolkit: k3b, Valknut, Apollon and Amarok are such applications on the Qt side. GIMP are Inkscape are such applications on the GTK side (although Krita is shaping up nicely and is promising!)

I happen to like KDE better but the truth is that most Linux/BSD users would be better served using a mixed desktop, picking the right tool for the right job. The only ones raising objections in this regard are OS X users, as they seem to be really concerned with this thing for some aesthetic reason.

I can tell you that having watched people trying to use computers for nearly 18 years I learned that most people don't care at all about small differences between buttons, toolbars, scrollbars and the likes on their applications as long as it works.

Reply Score: 3

Still not ready...
by Almafeta on Fri 24th Aug 2007 03:47 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

So, inspired by this article, I decide to give PC-BSD another go. Got the image, got a machine I can afford to putz around with, got it in the drive, all set up to brave the BSD waters once more.

After the bootloader autoruns, the normal startup screen comes on... and after about 20 seconds, it hangs.

Tried it three times to see if it was a fluke, no dice, hangs at the same place all three times. The last time, I waited 15 minutes -- still hung.

Guess it's not to be this time around...

Reply Score: 4

Rubbish
by tristan on Fri 24th Aug 2007 04:19 UTC
tristan
Member since:
2006-02-01

Oh, man, where do we start with this one?

In this article, I'll compare Ubuntu 7.04 (Fiesty Fawn) with the (as of this writing) upcoming release of PC-BSD 1.4.


Well, for a start, if you're going to use an upcoming release, you might as well look at Ubuntu Gutsy too. But then that would require some sort of *comparison*, which is completely missing here. All we've got is a two-page PC-BSD advert.

The increase in responsiveness (i.e., everything seems to just run faster) and ease-of-use will surprise you.


Whenever I install a clean OS I'm impressed at the responsiveness of it, whether it's Ubuntu, Fedora, Windows XP or whatever. I doubt PC-BSD is any different in this regard. And secondly, the ease-of-use won't surprise me. It's KDE. Just KDE. The exact same KDE that Ubuntu users can install with a couple of clicks in Synaptic without having to install a new OS.

I've found that PC-BSD installs much quicker than Ubuntu on the same computer.


That's funny, I've found that PC-BSD won't install *at all*, due to the fact I want to put it on an extended partition (which, by the way, is fully supported in any Linux distro you care to mention).

A clean installation of Ubuntu can take 45 minutes, while a clean installation of PC-BSD can install in 15 minutes.


*Can* take 45 minutes? Maybe. But normally it takes about 15 minutes using the live CD installer, and you get to browse the web etc while you're waiting for it. I notice the author failed to mention that...

One of the available PBIs is a two week evaluation of the commercial Win4BSD Pro program. This software allows you to run Windows from your PC-BSD desktop


That really does sound fantastic. If only I could do that sort of thing in Ubuntu. But obviously I can't, because if an equivalent programme was available the author would have mentioned it in the interests of a fair and balanced comparison, right?

etc. etc. etc.

This is crap. It's an advert written by a PC-BSD fan that fails to tell me anything whatsoever about how PC-BSD actually stacks up next to Ubuntu. It doesn't mention that BSD supports less hardware than Linux. It doesn't mention that it forces you to use a primary disk partition. It doesn't mention that Flash doesn't work.

I'm sure that the author -- and the PC-BSD fans in this thread -- really like the OS. But would it kill you to use the slightest amount of *objectivity*?

Reply Score: 13

RE: Rubbish
by antik on Fri 24th Aug 2007 13:24 UTC in reply to "Rubbish"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

That's funny, I've found that PC-BSD won't install *at all*, due to the fact I want to put it on an extended partition (which, by the way, is fully supported in any Linux distro you care to mention).

Because Linux supports braindead disk partitioning scheme like extended partitions does not mean it is superior. You need only *ONE* primary partition to install FreeBSD/PCBSD.

This is crap. It's an advert written by a PC-BSD fan that fails to tell me anything whatsoever about how PC-BSD actually stacks up next to Ubuntu.
This is crap. This comment is obviously written by a die-hard Ubuntu fan. Nothing to read here- move along.

It doesn't mention that BSD supports less hardware than Linux.
This is common Linux FUD- FreeBSD supports sometimes more devices than Linux (wifi for example). This is true that Linux supports shitload of craptastic cheapass hardware you can buy for 1$ in new condition.

It doesn't mention that it forces you to use a primary disk partition.
Read release notes, please.


It doesn't mention that Flash doesn't work.
Flash works here just fine. PC-BSD got Flash version 7 included with license agreement. Flash 9 reported to work just fine on recent FreeBSD CURRENT releases.

Edited 2007-08-24 13:27

Reply Score: 3

RE: Rubbish
by bthylafh on Fri 24th Aug 2007 15:04 UTC in reply to "Rubbish"
bthylafh Member since:
2006-09-21

When I see a "review" on OSNews, I know that it's going to be pretty worthless compared to an Ars Technica or Tech Report review. Almost invariably OSNews reviews are rife with personal views and lack any sort of depth.

Just don't bother, unless the article links to a review from a reputable website like the mentioned two.

Reply Score: 1

re
by netpython on Fri 24th Aug 2007 05:16 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

First of all both PCBSD and Ubuntu are very usefull. PCBSD automagically starts X and you are presented with a comfortable and nicer graphical install procedure that will appeal to a lot of users.

In addition when you compare both OS solutions after the initial install this is where PCBSD is loosing the lead somewhat. Especially when you begin to wonder if your favorite OSS application i around.

Please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong but imho PCBSD should tie a graphical solution around the traditional pkg_add and make more use of what's allready there. A great ports system with a huge amount of packages for almost every imaginable purpose you can think of. The PBI way of installing is simply to resource hungry and packages are mostly dated. Whereas the ports are reviewed by a much larger community and are more up to date. Why not innovate what's there and works. PCBSD as said shines through the nice install procedure and initial package install through the PBI system but leaves you after that with the same steep learning curve as FreeBSD does.

PCBSD could use a package manager such as synaptic that gives an easy direct access to the very rich BSD ports.
Perhaps an GUI with both the option of installing "just" packages with dependancies and an advanced option packages compiled from source for the power users. Saves you once written a lot of resources that can be better used elsewhere.

Installing packages with ubuntu is: "apt-get <package>"
Articles dealing with any subject where something has to be installed, the author simply has to provide some apt-get lines which the user can copy and paste in the terminal and of you go. Ubuntu no doubt has a very large community. There isn't much what hasn't allready been explored by someone before you. Thus chances are good when typing your ubuntu related search querry in google gives you the documentation you are after. That can make the difference of dumping the distro or continuing both having fun and practical usage.

Edited 2007-08-24 05:16

Reply Score: 2

RE: re
by OStourist on Fri 24th Aug 2007 05:45 UTC in reply to "re"
OStourist Member since:
2007-06-19

Well DesktopBSD has a tool to graphically configure
ports(I think the tool is actually in the /usr/ports
directory) so you could install that for PC-BSD too.
As for packages , yes it would be nice and not to hard
to have a graphical tool..maybe one already exists!;
there is so much in those /usr/ports.

Reply Score: 2

Well, I don't like KDE ...
by deb2006 on Fri 24th Aug 2007 07:16 UTC
deb2006
Member since:
2006-06-26

... and therefore PC-BSD is not an option for me. Sorry.

Reply Score: 2

v Never been able to use it
by sirhomer on Fri 24th Aug 2007 12:09 UTC
RE: Never been able to use it
by Natorp on Fri 24th Aug 2007 13:25 UTC in reply to "Never been able to use it"
Natorp Member since:
2007-06-14

sirhomer wrote:

And it may support sound, but is there anything like ALSA for BSD?

4front's Open Sound System, currently available in FreeBSD Ports, supports ALSA: http://www.opensound.com/press/2007/OSSv4.txt

Reply Score: 1

i before e rule no longer taught
by Robocoastie on Fri 24th Aug 2007 13:28 UTC
Robocoastie
Member since:
2005-09-15

yea that "rule" isn't even taught anymore because there are too many "exceptions" to it.

Reply Score: 0