Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Oct 2007 20:49 UTC, submitted by Flatland_Spider
PC-BSD Jan Stedehouder has used PC-BSD for thirty days to see what living with it is like. On day thirty, he concludes: "Does PC-BSD have the potential to be a serious contender for the open source desktop? I answered that question with a yes, because the potential is there. The solid FreeBSD roots, the very strong and very accessible information, the friendly and mature community and the PBI system provide the foundations for that potential. I don't think it is ready now and I couldn't recommend it yet to someone in the early stages of moving away from Windows to an open source desktop. But I do think that the PC-BSD team has the right target audience in mind and is building an system and a support system that addresses it's needs."
Thread beginning with comment 276473
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: BSDs not good desktop?
by dylansmrjones on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:43 UTC in reply to "BSDs not good desktop?"
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually no. OS X is _not_ a BSD. It is merely BSD-like but has never been a BSD.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: BSDs not good desktop?
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:56 in reply to "RE: BSDs not good desktop?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

It is merely BSD-like but has never been a BSD.

"""

How BSD-like does it have to be before it qualifies? We don't normally consider it to be a *BSD because Apple doesn't want us to. And they have slick marketing and PR departments to insure that we don't. That doesn't change the fact that it *is*, though.

Reply Parent Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

How BSD-like does it have to be before it qualifies?


Got me there. I don't know. But a BSD-like kernel does not make a BSD IMHO.

It contains BSD-elements but that's all. OS X is no more BSD than Windows with Cygwin is GNU/Linux.

But since there is no standard here, you are free to have your own opinion. You are btw. free to have that anyway, but since it's saturday I'll grant you a special right to your own opinion today ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: BSDs not good desktop?
by zizban on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:20 in reply to "RE: BSDs not good desktop?"
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course it's a BSD. It uses the mach kernel with FreeBSD 5 userland stuff. Seems pretty BSD to me.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: BSDs not good desktop?
by dindin on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:27 in reply to "RE[2]: BSDs not good desktop?"
dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

Of course it's a BSD. It uses the mach kernel with FreeBSD 5 userland stuff. Seems pretty BSD to me.


That would make everything BSD. Windows uses the BSD stack for its networking and Unix services for Windows is derived from BSD toolsets. That would include Linux as well since it contains stuff from the *BSDs.

If you put a BSD userland on top of a Linux kernel does not make it a BSD OS. Its still a Linux OS.

Reply Parent Score: -1

meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

Of course it's a BSD. It uses the mach kernel with FreeBSD 5 userland stuff. Seems pretty BSD to me.


Repeat after me:

XNU is not Mach. XNU is not Mach. XNU is not Mach.

And isn't FreeBSD's kernel either. But a heavily modified amalgamation of the two? That's better, but don't forget the completely reworked VFS and device driver API, which definitely count towards entitling XNU its standalone life and recognition.


And the FreeBSD 5 sync was done during Panther's development days (10.3), and was evidently updated to more recent codebases since them (again, evidently, when it made sense; plenty of stuff is comprised of API wrappers to functionality built by Apple engineers -- which, in case one didn't notice, Apple has, it's not simply lifting code from the "upstream" FreeBSD CVS; FreeBSD is not XNU's upstream).

Reply Parent Score: 3