Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Mar 2010 22:32 UTC, submitted by aaronb
Legal It's time for bed over here, but before I turn in with a nice cup of tea and a Gilmore Girls episode, we've got some good news for you: SCO has been dealt yet another major blow in its baseless lawsuit against Novell. A jury has ruled that Novell owns the UNIX copyrights - not SCO.
Thread beginning with comment 416202
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: SCO
by Laurence on Wed 31st Mar 2010 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SCO"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

GNU/Linux has the problem of having inconsistent documentation,

That depends on the distribution

breaking drivers (that did work)

As opposed to a lack of drivers on other platforms?

and reinventing the wheel (ALSA, PulseAudio) when there are already good software that could have been built upon.

ALSA and PulseAudio are desktop tools and on the whole Linux is a better desktop OS than BSD or Solaris.

Most of the BSD base system except for things like GCC are now not GNU.

If we're talking about desktop systems then the base system should be transparent to users - which, for the most part, it is on desktop distros (eg Ubuntu). In fact, the very reason I dislike Ubuntu is because I wanted to play with the base system.

However, if we're talking about server systems, then why even mention ALSA / Pulseaudio as I'm struggling to think of any enterprise solutions that would require a soundcard let alone a sane sound driver model.

Furthermore, while BSD can make a perfectly adequate desktop OS (I've had FreeBSD as a working desktop as well as dedicated a file server), Solaris (read vanilla Solaris, NOT OpenSolaris) does not.

And finally, you talk about quality in your OS then go on to discuss BSD desktops, well my experience has taught me that a key quality desktop OSs should have is ease to build and maintain. The ports method on FreeBSD (as much as I loved it for the server) wasn't a patch on pacman (Arch) or apt-get (Debian) in terms of ease and speed of delivery. Sure, you might enjoy tinkering, but most desktop users don't.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: SCO
by phoenix on Wed 31st Mar 2010 17:32 in reply to "RE[4]: SCO"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

And finally, you talk about quality in your OS then go on to discuss BSD desktops, well my experience has taught me that a key quality desktop OSs should have is ease to build and maintain. The ports method on FreeBSD (as much as I loved it for the server) wasn't a patch on pacman (Arch) or apt-get (Debian) in terms of ease and speed of delivery. Sure, you might enjoy tinkering, but most desktop users don't.


pkg_add has existed on FreeBSD for many, many, many years. There's even a pkg_upgrade that can be used on binary-package-only systems (no ports tree installed). And the major ports managements tools (portmaster, portupgrade, portmanager) all include support for binary package upgrades.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: SCO
by Laurence on Thu 1st Apr 2010 10:53 in reply to "RE[5]: SCO"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

pkg_add has existed on FreeBSD for many, many, many years. There's even a pkg_upgrade that can be used on binary-package-only systems (no ports tree installed). And the major ports managements tools (portmaster, portupgrade, portmanager) all include support for binary package upgrades.

Good point. I'd forgotten about the binary package managers.

The other points still stand though. As good as FreeBSD is and as much as I liked it myself, it's not the jack of all trades and as such there are occasions where Linux is the sane solution over FreeBSD.

And I don't mean in an elitist or Linux-fanboy way either as I run a variety of platforms, many of which are non-Linux *nix.

Reply Parent Score: 3