Linked by Julian Djamil Fagir on Thu 14th Feb 2013 22:23 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 552760
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 05/18/13 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:
2006-01-01
I used windows98, and the shareware/freeware plethora not only resulted in BSOD's daily, but the start menu gave scant hint of where many programs could be found, having grown in size.
I've used and could use Linux, howsoever, browsing the forum for one distro daily, I wonder if each poster could not do 20 to 80 percent more fixing/installing/upgrading/developing daily if the poster were running FreeBSD instead. Breakages are posted... for which dual machines... then, often "dd'd sdb rather than sda..." countless times...
My post on FreeBSD's positives were not to put down the ones I consider less efficient, but to point out the advantages of the former, and how it can *indeed* be used as a desktop capable machine, which if I did not make it clear, was the reason for the original post, as
a counterpoint to those who said or implied that FreeBSD would *someday* be ready for the desktop.