Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th May 2006 22:14 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 128924
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
BSD's are usually more conservatively developed than Linux:
1.) They're a bit slower to get driver support; and they tend to do it better when they get it.
2.) Some of them are highly reviewed, not freeBSD, which most desktop BSD's seem to be using, but Net and Open.
And the second difference is that the coreutils are BSD instead of GNU.
Other than that. You'll still use Xfree/Xorg, Gnome/KDE/other, Gaim/other, etc just like you do on Linux. And FreeBSD has had a very strong linux binary support layer; so you can run commercial linux applications that don't give you source.
Going Windows to Linux, or even Mac to Linux, is a lot bigger a change than Linux to BSD. Let's just say, the two are very similar on the outside but the internal philosophies may be completely different; and the end-user graphical applications will likely be the same, except some small patches.
I wouldn't say they're more controlled though. But they are less bazaar in their development; not that the whole of a typical Linux based OS is going to be entirely developed like Linux is...