Linked by snydeq on Tue 8th Nov 2011 01:29 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives Deep End's Paul Venezia wonders why more folks aren't using FreeBSD on the desktop. 'There used to be a saying -- at least I've said it many times -- that my workstations run Linux, my servers run FreeBSD. Sure, it's quicker to build a Linux box, do a "yum install x y z" and toss it out into the wild as a fully functional server, but the extra time required to really get a FreeBSD box tuned will come back in spades through performance and stability metrics. You'll get more out of the hardware, be that virtual or physical, than you will on a generic Linux binary installation.'
Permalink for comment 496413
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Where is...
by draethus on Tue 8th Nov 2011 07:37 UTC in reply to "Where is..."
draethus
Member since:
2006-08-02

Wayland, KMS, nouveau for FreeBSD?

Nothing interesting, and no innovation ever happens on FreeBSD. Not to mention Linux has better hardware support and also better performance. So nobody cares to run FreeBSD as a desktop OS.

Need I say more?


No innovation ever happens? You mean like Linux's epoll, inotify, timerfd, signalfd, all of which are trying to successively copy more and more of kqueue, which FreeBSD had since around 1994, over 10 years earlier?

Where is Linux's virtual serial port? FreeBSD has one.

KMS and co are being ported, so Intel graphics drivers will work on FreeBSD soon. Only ATi is left out, but hey, their drivers suck on Linux too and always have.

As for Wayland... how successful that is even on Linux remains to be seen. Remember that NVidia warned against the X-on-OpenGL approach to graphics drivers in 2006, saying that it is easier in the short term but creates further problems in the long run (http://download.nvidia.com/developer/presentations/2006/xdevconf/co... page 9 points 6 and 7).

Reply Parent Score: 6