Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Nov 2009 19:41 UTC, submitted by Gabor
FreeBSD Astute readers probably already saw this one waiting in our backend, but since there was no official announcement yet, I decided to wait. Now that it's officially here, let's rejoice: the FreeBSD team has released version 8.0 of their operating system, packed with new features and improvements.
Permalink for comment 396729
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: What's the point with *BSD?
by toast88 on Fri 27th Nov 2009 09:39 UTC in reply to "RE: What's the point with *BSD?"
toast88
Member since:
2009-09-23

When I read your comment, and replace "*BSD" by "Linux" and "Linux" by "Windows", I actually have SUCH A GOOD TIME because you cover every one of my Linux-as-a-desktop experiences. And too bad we're not on LinuxNews.


When was the last time you used Linux? 1995?

Linux have useless hardware support (usb3.0)


It's useless just because Windows doesn't support it? There are already USB3.0 devices out there and once USB3.0 will be on most mainboards and laptops, it will just work out of the box without a hassle. And it is as predictable as the snow in winter.

but still can't operate most graphic cards properly. Woohoo.


What *most* graphic cards? Linux Intel drivers are written by Intel (like the Windows drivers), nVidia's drivers share 90% of the Windows code (according to nVidia), so they are virtually the same. I can't speak for ATI because I use xf86-video-radeon there and those lack some functionality (which I blame ATI/AMD for). If I had the option, my graphics adapter would be Intel.

BSD isn't that bad too.


*BSD uses xorg and thus the same drivers like Linux. I don't see why *BSD should be better here.


The ZFS block I don't understand, but you seem to imply that whatever technology linux copies will be better done. Okay, reeks of bias.


I didn't say it's better on Linux. I just say you already have the equivalent functionality.

You know that Arch/Debian/Fedora use different yet all binary packages, while FreeBSD default to ports? At least compare it with Gentoo. Also, your install might use alot of Linux-flavored stuff, default on Linux but not BSD.


I used the binary ports.

Who claims that? Fact is, BSD is rock solid, especially OpenBSD (though I had 0 problems with FreeBSD on my servers).


See, that's what I meant. "It's rock-solid because it's rock-solid."

And the license is much less restrictive and matches my view of what freedom is.


It depends on your point of view. The BSD-license means more freedom who uses code which is under the BSD-license. You can do whatever you want with the code without having to give anything back to the original authors. That's not what I prefer. I put my code under the GPL because I want people to give something back when they use my code. I prefer the GPL over BSD but it doesn't mean that either of them is more free, it's just two totally different goals.


Adrian

Reply Parent Score: 1