OSNews

I would bother to answer except for two things: this thread is about Windows and the fact that you do not include any actual evidence as to how the BSDs are so behind Linux. People who make said claims must present evidence to be taken seriously. I simply claimed that the *BSDs were a complete operating system designed with the goal of each component going with every other component. This, if you have even used a BSD for five seconds, is obvious. That alone puts it ahead of Linux for desktop use, as the various parts of the os must work together for a smooth and consistent user experience. Windows has this, *BSDs also have this, as does OS X. Linux does not and, until it does and until the community acknowledges this, desktop GNU/Linux will go absolutely nowhere. As long as it's possible to brick your system with a simple security update that prevents X.org from running (yes, I've seen that and to an average user that is a bricked system) you'll gain no traction. Ignoring it, or shouting at we "haters" who point this stuff out won't help. We don't do it out of malice, you know. Plenty of us, including me, would love to see a real alternative to Windows on generic hardware emerge and if there were ever a time for that to happen, it is now. Either it happens now, or it doesn't happen for another twenty years. I don't need to remind anyone here that, if Microsoft has their way with secure boot, that might be twenty years too late.

Are you claiming that BSDs have the advantage that the kernel and user-space are made by the same people?

What about Linux and things like Wayland and systemd? Those are Linux-only and were designed for Linux in mind.

Anyway, I can see the advantage of having an unified system but I don't think the NIH Syndrome is an advantage, but to each his own I guess.

darknexus: I don't know what OS you normally use, but you seem to be talking about Linux from years ago. I run Fedora on the desktop, and while I have run into some issues, none of them were ever bad enough to keep me from being able to use the system. Part of the issue is that Linux is constantly updating. Linux is under continual advancement. Windows goes years between versions. OS X goes at least a year. About your concerns:

-While X is certainly a bit old, it has enterprise features that other OS's still don't support, especially when it comes to multi user systems, which Windows and OS X are NOT.

-I have used pulse since it was put in Fedora. In at least the last 2 years I haven't had a single problem.

-Your kernel API's are going to change. Its a fact of life. They do in Windows and OS X as well. Your user space APIs are stable. I can run software that was produced half a decade ago with no problems. (like Loki games).

I won't deny that Linux has some issues to work out to get to the desktop. But its not as bad as you make it out to be. Half or more of the problem you listed will never affect normal desktop users anyway. The key here is that if the user is going to have to learn a new system (ie WIndows RT) then they could just as easily learn a new Linux OS.