Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 30th Apr 2006 16:19 UTC, submitted by Charles A Landemaine
Thread beginning with comment 119867
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-08-06
I guess it's all about flavours. Both have their benefits I suppose. I haven't really tried Desktop BSD for a while but I have tried PCBSD and I love it.
I think at some point these two will merge (or I wouldn't be surprised if they will at least), but if there is room for 300 linux desktop distros I'm confident there is room for 2 BSD flavours for the desktop.
As usual, they seem to have 2 different approaches to 3rd party add-ons. PCBSD go for .pbi (which works brilliant) while Desktopbsd uses Ports.
There is becoming a bigger archive of .pbis as we speak but can't compete with the volume of ports at all. Luckily on PCBSD you can use ports but with a little more hazzle. Obviously it's logical for these 2 to merge, .pbi for "native" (ehrm or what you wanna call it) DesktopBSD could move their ports system to PCBSD for seminative but easier install than traditional Portinstalls.
My view on all this is simply that I figure that PCBSD has started later but accomplished a lot more in less time. Therefor I'd recommend you to go with that for now (unless something happens).