Slashdot Mirror
Why Isn't BSD a Desktop Operating System?
An Anonymous Coward in red leather asks: "I mostly use my machine for desktop-user type stuff: web browsing, word processing, game playing, listening to MP3s, and so forth. Out of curiosity and general geekiness, I've tried a fair sampling of Open Source and other alternate OSes just for kicks (SuSe, Red Hat and Slackware Linux, BeOs, FreeBSD). My favorite, so far, has been FreeBSD. It's stable, fast, supports all my hardware (including nifty OSS sound drivers) and the ports tree makes installing new software painless. Yet when I tell my other Open Source type friends (including BSD users and supporters) that FreeBSD is my favorite Desktop operating system, they look at me funny and say, 'FreeBSD is a server operating system, weirdo.' My question is: Why is FreeBSD not considered a valid desktop choice? What would FreeBSD need added to it to make a desktop friendly BSD distribution?" Now I feel that *BSD is as much of a 'desktop system' as Linux. It may not be widely known as such, but still: "Have Desktop. Will Travel", and BSD does have a desktop, right?
MacOS X is a BSD Desktop Operating System.
No.
on FreeBSD
I'd guess that your on FreePCP, myself.
Ive got FreeBSD running on a 386sx with 8mb ram, it runs ok. We're just using it for a low powered router though. I imagine Apache would be OK, unless you start running CGI scripts or PHP.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I read the internet for the articles.
I totally understand that "FreeBSD elitists" aren't a proper indication of FreeBSD itself. Unfortunately, they tend to be the loudest and a lot of people pick up on. See #FreeBSD on EFNet. It's one of the worst channels I've ever been to.
This entire story exists because FreeBSD elitists probably gave the poster the impression that it was solely a server OS.
What planet are you on? Oh ya, and your web site is down, probably because you're running Apache on Windows 95 :-)
Heh, Oh the irony!. It was down because I installed mod_gzip and told it to use /tmp/mod_gzip for work files. When the system was rebooted (new kernel) the directory was wiped out and Apache failed to start.
I was running Apache on Windows 9x just to prove a point, not to say that everyone would -want- to run it on Windows 9x. A lot of people just believe that it's impossible. The salesman reacting the way he did confirmed it. Personal Web Server wasn't as popular at the time, but even the way they named it "Personal" Web Server says that Microsoft only wants you to think of it in a certain way.
Desktop and Server dedicated systems really have no technical reason to be different, but vendors will make different versions exist, through simply no effort or through direct sabotage of the desktop version.
None of the free operating systems make a significant server/desktop distinction -- since these systems are based more on technical realities than trying to extort money.
Sure, the level of support may be different, the packages they ship with may be different, but in the end they can fit both roles.
Restating my point: There is no technical reason that when developing an OS, it can't be both a server and a desktop OS. If an OS is developed to fit just one of these roles, it was deliberate and not in the consumer's best interests.
Those are stupid distinctions to make
Have you ever noticed that the only people who will sell you targetted versions of the same Operating System do it in order to make money?
Windows NT Server is priced much higher than Workstation, and the only difference is that they were (probably) compiled with different flags. Server would be compiled with flags to allow more than 20 connections, for example.
One of my coworkers (salesman) was blown away when I ran Apache on a Windows 95 box to prove to him that the workstation/server barrier was bullshit. He couldn't believe he was retrieving files via http from a Windows 95 box.
Other than maybe a difference in prepackaged software, a good OS will be able to handle a wide variety of tasks thrown at it.
I think FreeBSD elitists just don't want to believe people use it for things other than mission critical enterprise champion edition servers. (A lot of my coworkers are FreeBSD elitists, I know this first hand. :)
"Linux" is used in two distinct ways:
A) just the kernel
B) The kernel, the bsd utilities, perl, gnu utilities, apache, X, and the other stuff we normally expect on a running system.
As near as I know, noone actually ships a GNU/Linux combo (which would be close to useless), but instead include the other things we mean in the second definition.
hawk
Uh, yes it is. The seller quotes a price and the buyer decides whether or not to pay it. If the seller doesn't sell enough to make a profit, the price has to be adjusted if the seller wishes to remain in that business. This is called "price discovery" and it's one of the things that a free market does.
I was going to mod you up, until I read about you switching NT Workstation to NT Server by switching these two registry keys. I very much doubt you've done it.
:-)
The original Dr Dobbs* article where it told you how to do this, points out that NT has some hooks in the registry to detect changes to these keys, which automatically revert them if you try and change them. Now the people who wrote the article actually figured out a way to point those hooks elsewhere, allowing you to change the keys and thus convert your NT Workstation to "NT Server". However MS lawyers didn't like that too much, and performed one of the most amazing cleanups I've ever seen - every link to that utility was removed from the net, to the point where it's no longer possible to find that magic tool (at least last time I checked).
But the point overall is that you pay extra for NT Server because you get the extra tools, plus support for those tools. If you don't pay for Server, you won't be able to get support for the extra tools you managed to get working on your converted copy.
The solution of course is to install a free OS
* I think it was Dr Dobbs, though it may have been Byte, or NTinternals
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
If you're going to pick nits, you ought to at least know what you're talking about before you start picking.
OS X uses a BSD kernel, based on NetBSD code, running on a Mach microkernel. It's not a "BSD emulator", it's a BSD kernel on top of the microkernel. If you don't understand the difference, you certainly shouldn't be shuffling your feet in and out of your mouth, it can't sustatin that I/O rate.
The OS X userland code is based closely on a recent FreeBSD distribution. Apple has, of course, moved a few things around, extended a few things here and there, and made the BSD system fit into their needs, but the system is a BSD system.
There are 2D drivers of course, and a driver for XFree86 3.3.x series that has been used by the Utah glx project. This Utah glx driver is better than nothing (I fact I used to play Quake with it), but much slower than the binary driver release for XFree86 4.0.x series.
Some kernel hackers will tell you that Posix is broken in that a feature can be better implemented or more functional if the feature is not Posix compliant. Others will tell you that there are some useless Posix features that are not worth implementing (ie the feature is not interesting). Both groups could be right. I don't do kernel design.
Just because you keep posting this dosen't make it correct. *BSD will die the day the last developer dies.
/usr/ports/ trolls go home. /usr/ports is nice. It gets the job done. But it dosen't beat Debain's apt-get install package_name. And yes the Debian packages list is as big as the FreeBSD /usr/ports list.
I am sorry, but I am tired of seeing this /usr/ports argument. It is not a big reason to use FreeBSD over Linux. Most linux distros are huge. Most of the software you could ever want it packaged up and ready to install. I have not had to install from source on my Debian systems in a long time. I understand that Suse has an equally huge list of packages. If you want to promote FreeBSD over a Linux distro look at FreeBSDs real strenghts:
- FreeBSD is a well integrated system not just a kernel.
- /etc/rc.conf is your one stop daemon startup config file
- the man pages are really well done
- the default install comes with everything a Unix system should have, and nothing more.
There are other reasons I am sure. TheTrue. I would like to elaborate on the publicity issue. My bias: I use Debian/Linux on my workstation, and OpenBSD on my servers.
There is a big perception issue. I have found that several Linux distros are designed to be more of a "desktop" OS. They install KDE or Gnome by default. There are fancy gui system admin tools and a million and one IRQ/AIM clients. When I last installed FreeBSD 4.1.1 (one my fileserver[1]) it came installed with fvwm2. I think the bigger Linux distros have the manpower to put more effort towards a desktop then FreeBSD can. It can be the little things that make the difference. For example, when I install a new app under Debian, a new menu item is automatically added to my X menus. I can also quickly install a new binary under Debian with few short apt-get commands.
*BSD is an Admin's Unix. (So is Slackware Linux [2].) The default install is pretty bare by Linux distro standards. It has a lot of nice features so that admins can have their *BSD running exactly as they want it. For servers this is an important feature. For workstations I don't care if I burn a few cpu cycles on a suboptimal configuration. At the end of the day I don't want to have to admin my desktop any more then I have too. I do however want to have the ability to configure a few things as I see fit hence the use of Debian/Linux.
From a technical point of view I found that as much "desktop" software is developed on Linux (such as large bits of Gnome and other flashy bits) it works better on Linux. This is less of an issue today as Gnome recently announced that FreeBSD was "officially supported".
There is nothing stopping you from using FreeBSD on your desktop. There are no signification techinical issues. Out of the box FreeBSD requires more effort to get a "modern" desktop, then many Linux distros which come with KDE or Gnome. However, the bottom line is FreeBSD has not publicised itself as a desktop Unix. Mandrake, Red Hat, and others have worked to publicise Linux as a desktop Unix.
[1] I had to switch my home fileserver over to OpenBSD to support my OpenBSD firewall. The firewall is too slow and dosen't have enough ram to compile anything important like a new kernel. Going with OpenBSD on both made more sense as I am more familiar with Open than with Free.
[2]I use Slackware in places where I need a generic Linux server. Usually it is due to a piece of hardware only having Linux support, or I need a VMWare machine. I might have used another distro, but I created a custom bootable cdrom that installs all the Slackware bits I want, adds some customization, and does this unattended. It was pretty straight forward to setup Slackware to do this.
The reason that freeBSD isn't as accepted as a desktop OS is not one of technical merit at all, just one of Promoton:
It's a desktop OS because the industry promotes it as such. The industry promotes it as such because it has industry support. It has industry support because of it's interesting history, and it's history is interesting because it was first spawned by a college student in Finland, not a large corporation.
FreeBSD, OTOH, is just a really a Port for some corporate code, and doesn't have the 'human intrest' value that Linux does. This doesn't mean one is technically superior to the other, just one catches the imagination of the public more than the other.
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
More to the point: since my bosses evaluate the quality of something by its price tag, when will someone generously assemble the CostlyBSD package?
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
Yes, the Linux "emulation" is really just a translation of calls to the kernel. There is no speed hit at all other than the initial load time of the LKM (at boot time or whenever you first need it).
> Linux has caught up in PnP and USB in 2.4,
.. " than BSD, even the VM is better with 2.2.
> Linux's 2.4 VM may be somewhat faster
I think Linux is great. I use Debian on my main desktop. But MAN!!! When have I heard this argument before?
Seriously, when 2.2 came out everyone said "Now Linux is faster/more stable
Now, it's the same deal with 2.4. Come on...
Linux is great, FreeBSD is great. Both are almost identical from an end-user poitn of view. Linux gets things first, and is generally more supported by corporations, but can anyone seriously argue that Linux is more stable than FreeBSD?
I run BSD on my servers and about half the time on my desktops. It may not always have the newest bells and whistles, but it's always rock-solid stable. I also personally feel that it's faster under heavy loads.
What really gets me is that despite the similarities there's such a nattering back and forth between BSD and Linux.
> I bet if you were really whacko you could set up a freebsd box that was indistinguishable (in terms of user experience... installed packages, file system layout, etc) from a run of the mill Linux box.
/compat/linux/bin/sh your shell. The overlay mounting it does will create some real weirdness, and of course you have a perfectly good userland on the BSD side... Come to think of it, no two Linuxes have the same filesystem either. BSD already looks pretty much like Slackware as it is.
It doesn't require a wacko, it merely requires making
Besides, "desktop operating system" is really too slippery a term. If you mean *home* desktop operating system, Linux isn't there yet either. As a business desktop, people are adaptable -- people who are barely computer literate can and do productively use Solaris with CDE for their desktop (e.g. Sun, not everyone there is an engineer after all).
As for home machines: graphic card support isn't quite as far as linux (since FreeBSD obviously can't use the closed binary-only nVidia drivers) but that's about it. Sound support is available natively and through OSS. Plug-n-play and USB support in FreeBSD has typically been *better*.
--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
After I finally burned out on the Amiga scene in 1998, I put together an Intel box with the intention of running Linux. Instead, I ended up with FreeBSD because it's generally a cleaner, more cohesive system. I've run it on my desktop since.
That said, I still don't think FreeBSD is a desktop operating system. Oh sure, a robust kernel and fantastic stability are great things in a desktop OS, but FreeBSD still isn't close on one thing: Hardware.
Grab that snazzy USB and plug it in. But wait, does it work? It wasn't until relatively recently that USB got decent on FreeBSD. Now you can use keyboards, mice, and printers. A few select scanners. Maybe a modem, but when I tripped over the cable and unplugged my USB modem while online, the machine locked solid.
How about Firewire devices? There's a device driver patch that you can add to the kernel, if you know where to find it, and it's only good for downloading video from a camcorder. The core team doesn't seem much interested in Firewire, though there's some outside development going on.
Sound cards? They're supported. Fancy surround-sound and/or 3D sound cards? Nope. Maybe in a few special cases, at best.
As for accelerated 3D video cards, I'm not even sure because I haven't found a definitive guide. It looks like you can do it with 3dfx, Intel i810, and older ATI chipsets.
I stick with FreeBSD even though it lacks these things because I like it and it suits many of my uses for a computer. But as a result, I still wouldn't call it a desktop OS.
Perhaps we need a new category of "User Experiences" - people could write in about their experiences configuring and running various OSes as or for end-users. For example, now that Sun is giving out Solaris CDs for (essentially) nothing, what's it like to use as an end user. Would you really want it on your desktop? What's missing? What really rocks about it?
I wish I could say that I have not had a server or desktop crash, but I have unfortunately crashed eveything including FreeBSD, and Win and Solaris, and Linux.
The real question is why is FreeBSD not a desktop OS? That is because FreeBSD is more typically considered UNIX and UNIX is not considered a desktop OS it is a server OS. That is just the way it is. Windows and Mac started out as desktop OSes. They are now both trying to move to more of the server arena, but they include as a basis all the desktop features which makes them bloated for a server. Think of it this way if you run W2k or Mac OS X you need 64 meg of RAM for teh OS itself, where with FreeBSD, Linux, or Solaris you don't need that much for the OS.
FreeBSD was originally designed as a server operating system. It was based on BSD and while it does have access to all the basic items for a desktop it just seems that becuase it was designed as a server OS it has never really tried to get away from that. Yes you can use it as a desktop but it just does not promote itself as that type of OS.
I disagree though that is cannot be used as a good desktop. I used to work with people who used FreeBSD as there main machine and they hated Linux becuase of the package system and becuase the Linux upgrades are not standard. One person told me that when you upgrade a FreeBSD kernel you don't ahve to recompile any of your programs. They also said that when you upgrade your services or any of that all your settings are saved. Unlike Redhat where they keep moving things around. (Redhat 6.2 vs 7.0 is a good example.)
I also disagree with the 'console vs mouse' argument as you can run X with BSD and use kde or GNOME whcih also both encourage the more use of the mouse.
Personally I think that the GUI has to be redeveloped anyway. It needs to have voice to text as ANOTHER standard way of inputting. As well stylus pens and such need to be encouraged. Sony is moving in this direction as they created a new computer flat panel display that is also a touch pad that is used as both a screen and an input device. It would be nice to have an OS that I could talk to muy computer (AT HOME mind you) in a quite room by myself and speak my thoughts rather than type them all.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Huh? Maybe W2K but 95 crashes on a regular basis as does win 95. The memory allocation is all wrong in that OS.
MAC OS X might as well consider itself BSD as it is based on BSD and it will show people that BSD is not just for the server anymore.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
BSD/OS is quite expensive - I guess it would look like a reasonable choice to your boss.
Oh, I feel pitty for you.
Perhaps Sun offers a site with lots and lots of connectivity for free.
So where did you see this 500K theme graphic for the Run box in the screenshots? Where did the screenshots show it taking 7 mouse clicks to get there instead of using WinKey+R?
You know, I used to be so infatuated with the fact that I could code a Quake-style console, but then I stopped to think if I should. I realized that I shouldn't.
Cheers,
...at least for servers. FreeBSD still doesn't have the kind of text mode console support I use heavily on Linux. One reason I tend to like *BSD for a server is that it simplifies much of the system administration. That comes down to SysV style vs BSD style init stuff, and how some distributions like Redhat have thorough corrupted SysV. If everything I wanted to do was on one menu that would be great. It isn't even close, so I have to sysadmin via my favorite editor (guess which one). That's when BSD init style makes life a lot easier than SysV. That's probably why Slackware is my favorite Linux distribution.
Linux still seems to be best for the home desktop due to lots more applications (FreeBSD on its heels) and lots more device support (FreeBSD is getting better, too). FreeBSD seems to be best for the server on a high speed net. OpenBSD seems to be best for the firewall. But the thing is, any one of them can do all three functions quite well. If you know one better than the others, just use it. If you want to learn, start with all of them.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I think that it's all a matter of publicity. Two years ago, the same people would probably have said the same thing about Linux or any other unix flavor. FreeBSD isn't a term heard very much in the mainstream, and I think that's the only reason for this. I personally use FreeBSD on my main workstation as well, for the exact same reasons.
I'm sure that as soon as more people here about FreeBSD, it won't be as strange to be running it on the desktop. Right now, Linux is a major buzzword, and that's the only reason why it's more "acceptable" to have it on the desktop.
It has NOTHING to do with "fear" as you so self-rightously put it.
It has everything to do with what you use a computer for.
Illustrator and Photoshop don't run in a CLI, so why the hell would I need one?
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Is *BSD, or Linux distributions such as Slackware, Suse or Madrake for that matter, ready for the desktop at all?
How you approach this question really depends on who you are. For a normal everyday user I would say that none of the Open Source Operating Systems (OSOS) are really ready for normal desktop use.
Yet for the type of person who likes to open up their boxes, do their own upgrades, compile their own software and fiddle with the kernel then the chances are that these OSOS are ideal for them.
Gnome and KDE are, I'm sure, making great ground in making the desktop a reality for the average user on an OSOS machine. But, to be honest both these projects are so riddled with bugs that it's not going to take long before the average user returns to the (not necessary better) familiar Windows or MacOS look and feel.
Just my thoughts, on-topic, not-flamebait, and really not trying to troll... may be full of lack of insight and completely uninsteresting, but there you go.
It depends upon how you define an operating system. According to my dictionary, the bare Linux kernel meets every point.
On the other extreme, you have the MS definition of OS as being everything shipped on the CD. I'm sorry, but IE is not a component of the OS.
What most people think of as an OS is three distinct components. The "operating system", the "operating environment" and the applications. The OS is just the kernel and the bare infrastructure (init, etc).The operating environment is everything from the shell on down to the kernel. It's otherwise known as userspace. One distinguishing feature of an operating environment is that components can be switched in and out without changing the OS. And the applications are just that, applications. X11 fits into application space, because you certainly don't need it for a working system.
In BSD, the kernel and the environment are maintained as a whole. Under Linux, a large portion of the operating environment is GNU, with significant pieces native to Linux, or from BSD and elsewhere.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
No, FreeBSD doesn't ship with 7,000 precompiled ports. But then again, neither does Debian. There's a reason why SuSE comes with six (is it seven now?) CDs.
From experience in helping people set up their systems, having 7,000 packages to choose from during installation (your first hour of exposure) is extremely overwhelming. Sure, go ahead and ship those precompiled binaries. But let the user install them *after* installation is complete.
As for ports versus apt-get. So what? I consider them roughly equal. FreeBSD doesn't include the option to specify a binary instead of building from source, but it's not that big of a deal, IMO. There's no reason to pick sides over the package/source installers. Choose the OS you want. If it happens to be Linux, then perhaps take a much closer look at Debian. If it's FreeBSD, go ahead and use the ports.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
sysinstall is being redesigned as we speak. So don't fret it.
By the way, what's the problem with installing over ftp? Download two floppy images and everything else is down during the install. Some Linux distros do this as well. IMHO, this is a very important install option. If you don't want to go through all of the various install options, then just choose "CD-ROM"!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Have you ever seen BSD mentioned in a trade magazine?
Yes, PCM.
In a programmer's journal?
Yes, CUJ and DD.
Is it offered by hardware vendors as a pre-installed Operating System?
Yes. Dozens of them. No Dell or Gateway, but who cares?
"BSD" isn't a buzzword, and the hype surrounding it pales in comparison to Linux.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about buzzwords. And if you want hype, then check out the valuations of the dot.coms that where hyped to hell and back last year.
If you want an OS that hyped by the media, is in all the trade and developer's journals, and preinstalled on all the hardware, then stick with Windows.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
That's why you don't want ftp installs, because additional functinoality adds complexity? Okay fine. Dump bash and stick with sh, dump GNOME and KDE and stick with twm, and while you're at it, dump lpr and cat everthing to /dev/lp0.
Cheers!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
- A brower. (Netscape, Mozilla, Konqueror, Galeon, Lynx.)
- An office suite. (Applixware)
- A financials package. (Moneydance)
- A graphics package (GIMP)
- Gamage (the FreeBSD games ports page is huge)
The fact that things are a little slow to trickle into the tree is no handicap to most folk, unless somebody insists that RTF or straight text isn't good enough, they must be running the One True Microsoft Office Three Million (insert banishing pentagram here), at which point it's just time to shake your head and walk away. But I digress....A lot of people go off whining about the install. Yeah, yeah. How many people actually install their own WINDOWS? That's what an installfest is for. Get somebody professional or semi-pro to set it up the way you like it, get their business card, and go home happy. No, you can't buy it off the shelf. But then that's kinda the point of the exercize, no?
And as for this server v. desktop bovine scatology.... has Gnome or KDE suffered because they're doing things like Beowulf and Pirhana? Hell no, it's probably gotten MORE support. You need a (n+1)th machine with a fancy-ass console to support that cluster, no? As for NVidia having their heads where the sun don't shine, well, so do a lot of companies. Vote with your feet.
Besides, this won't be the first operating system I've personally as both a desktop and a server. Way back in 1991 I had Word Perfect running on the Motif desktop on my AIX 300-series machines in the professors' offices, while down the hall in the machine room the 500 series minicomps were grinding away at FORTRAN, and the 900-series mainframe class boxen were pulling router duty over in the next building feeding a T-3 line. They ALL ran AIX 3.x. We just changed what processes ran on each box. So THERE.
--
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a real damn good decoy.
You say 'why isn't it considered a desktop choice?'. Considered by whom?
OSS bandwagoners? People who have never really used anything but linux (other than windows)?
Some people will tell you Linux is not a choice. Some will tell you MacOS is the *only* choice... etc... ad nauseum.
I use OpenBSD on my desktop.. why? Because.. it's the best match for what I need/want. Which may or may not be anything like what you need/want. I want simplistic, traditional unix. I don't want fancy package management. I want consistency. I tried OpenBSD, and it suited me perfectly.
Is it a choice for my mom? No. A mac, or perhaps Windows is good for my mom. Is it good for a comp. sci student? Perhaps linux is better.. more multimedia type apps and other neat bleeding edge stuff to play with.
Also.. why do you seek to have others acknowledge your OS as a good choice? I don't understand this... use what you use for your own reasons... and don't worry about what other's think. That's just plain silly. I use what I use with great conviction (even if that conviction is that I'm using it because it happens to do the job, and even though 10 other products might do the same job, I JUST DON'T CARE). Let your own experience dictate such things for you.
Some links to compilers and virtual machines can be found here. The BSDi JDK is supposed to work with FreeBSD in the future, according to this news item.
Wow...I just posted something similar in the Linux 2.5.x thread, but whatever ;-)
Unix (in any flavor) is a server. I consider Linux as much as a server as *BSD.
Desktop OSes, however (I'm thinking BeOS, MacOS, WinNT) don't have the same layering scheme as *nix "desktops." The operating system is the graphical environment, something which *nix differentiates into an application.
Good to hear that FreeBSD runs things as well as Linux, though...I'll have to give it a try sometime...
(As a random, only sorta offtopic note, how well does FreeBSD run on 486's w/ 20 MB ram? I'm running Linux 2.2 on one right now, and apache is dog slow)
--------------------------
All they are doing is displaying their own ignorance. FreeBSD is not a server OS, and it is not a desktop OS. It is simply a unix variant that is capable of playing multiple roles. FreeBSD is used in server configurations, but then so is Linux. Its also used in desktop configurations, just like Linux.
The bottom line is, if it works for you and you like it then to hell with what your friends say.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
i was under the impression that linux had alot more support for low end hardware. so people who purchased the cheap windows boxes from bestbuy, etal. are able to get linux working without having to worry about specific hardware issues. just a thought.
personally i like the gpl as opposed to the bsd license, but thats a holy war all by itself.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
Linux for my Desktops, FreeBSD for my Servers, OpenBSD for my Firewalls/Gateways, MacOS for Fun, and Windows for a Coaster.
Now the question is why do i use Linux for my desktops, and not FreeBSD. Applications, The same reason that Windows users say they can't leave windows. More of the "Upcomming Apps" are being created for Linux. And most of the Apps comming from other OSes are being ported to Linux. Yes I know that BSD has the linux compatability API's that let you run linux apps, but why run something emulated when you can run on the accual OS they are written for. I find little difference between my RedHat Desktop and my FreeBSD servers. If someone could tell me a reason to use FreeBSD as a desktop over linux then I could put up with the emulation. But for now they seem about the same, except for the Apps.
I do know several people who use OpenBSD for their desktops. They use it because of the built in crypto and extra security functions. Thye feel that this is worth the trade off in functionality that they loose by not using one of the more "Mainstream" *nixes. I've found this trade off to be mostly in device drivers and, again, apps.
I think that marketing is going to be the reason that more things keep coming out on linux first. more people hear about linux, more people try linux. Developers say "hey, we should develop this for the larger user base". Thats why Neverwinter Nights is coming out for Windows, Mac, and Linux. It's a very self propetuating system. Just like why there are more Apps released for Windows than the mac.
=================
macbert@hcity.net
macbert@hcity.net
http://www.hcity.net/mac
The X server is dependant on the hardware though, which means there would have to be an X server developed for it, not just the hardware stuff they are doing for OS X. Plus, NVidia has a history of releasing drivers binary only, which means that the drivers compiled for OS X on a mac won't do AMD/Intel or Alpha users much good
Mac OS X system is exactly a BSD OS on the PPC platform
Not to nitpick or anything, but...
I hear this all the time. OS X is NOT "just BSD with some apple stuff slapped on top." It's not even truly BSD. It's a Mach Microkernel with a BSD Compatibility layer on top. That means it replicates the BSD system calls but is not truly a BSD Kernel. It's kinda like saying WINE is windows. It's just an implementation of an API. Granted, the OS X implementation is a lot truer to correctly pretending to be BSD than wine is for windows, but it is NOT BSD. It just incorporates a lot of the BSD stuff that apple found useful
My question is how does one define a desktop operating system? Is a desktop operating system one that is used at home by Joe User? Or is a desktop operating system one that is installed on any machine that sits on or below a desk?
A server operating system is fairly easily to understand... it's an operating system that is built to serve services (be it files, web pages, MP3s, databases, printers, mail, etc.) and has multiple users connected at once via terminals, desktops and/or workstations.
So what do you consider to be the merits of a desktop OS?
FreeBSD can be both a desktop and a server operating system, mostly since FreeBSD is the only BSD OS (available for free, as in beer and as in open source) that supports SMP. OpenBSD would be a great server operating system since it's security audits on the core code and it's ``secure by default'' legend. And because of that, OpenBSD could also be a network appliance OS since it would make a perfect firewall/router device for any network (okay, maybe not for an ISP or a conglomerate).
But I wouldn't just go silly and give only one label to each BSD OS.
Just because something is very good at one job (server) doesn't mean it's unsuitable for another (workstation).
BSD is a desktop OS and has been since there were desktop-sized machines that could run it. The same is true of any "server" OS that can drive a display/keyboard combination while living in a small box that is built in or nearby.
Think about it: A "server" is just a system with enough resources to handle MANY users, of the sort that once required a box too big to lug around without a fleet of trucks.
Now a [foo] server (file server, terminal server, etc.) is another matter. That's a system that has enough of one kind of resource to handle more than one user, but not necessarily all the kinds of resources you need to support a desktop. But BSD is not a [foo] server. It's a generic operating system that provides all the resources you need.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Not to nitpick, but I just wanted to point out that BeOS is not 100% POSIX compliant. It was never certified as such (then again, neither is Linux).
But BeOS has some POSIX porting issues that can seriously hamper porting projects. Now, from what I understand (note: I'm not a hardcore C programmer, because I can't do memory management to save my life) there are some issues with normal, POSIX happy code calling mmap() (I may be slightly incorrect on the name). That's why you don't really see as many great command line utils on BeOS as you should.
I do want to note, however, because of the way BeOS is designed, if you can get your normal, POSIX cl util over to BeOS, you can create a GUI wrapper for it, so you don't have to totally rewrite your app to make it pretty. Gotta love that.
Also, BeOS has hardware support issues, like any niche OS. My NIC, for example, isn't supported. Also, printing has always been an issue (may have been resolved somewhat w/ R5). But they do (obviously) have some good industry connections and such, seeing as how nVidia cards, OpenGL, and USB are fully supported.
Okay. I'll shut up now. ^_^
Um, high usability is GOOD, and it's that kind of thinking that will keep BSD down. Text is easier for an experienced person, but inexperenced people like GUIs. It would be trivial to have a choice at install between graphical and text, with graphical as the default. That would solve that issue.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Scriptable installs are more likely to be for corporate settings, again where the end user will not be performing the install. This would be wonderful, but not for bringing BSD to the average person.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Desktop operating systems have to meet a few criterion before people can truly accept them as such.
First of all, when new software comes out, it has to be readily available on that operating system. Many people choose windows because most games come out on that platform. And if they come out on any alternatives they're mainly for Mac and Linux. If we're lucky enough (BSD people) somebody will port it from Linux to FreeBSD, but that rarely happens quickly. So Linux is a much more viable operating system as a go-between because even the most benevolent software designers who see the potential of open-source software rarely go deeper than Linux.
I think that is the main thing holding FreeBSD back. Aside from a few minor things as well, such as the not-so-laymen install procedure, I think it is a fairly good desktop system. I'm thinking about putting it on my laptop (which could truly benefit from the optimisation). But I don't know how to do a lot of things (such as set up ppp dial-up) and a lot of my friends use it for Word Processing when I let them borrow it.
FreeBSD is a fantastic operating system, but it hasn't been able to overcome the "Linux Craze" that people have gone through, some just choosing linux because it was the first thing they saw and never thought to investigate other systems, and others because of years of experience. But BSD will eventually get more exposure and may even overcome Linux. This might be a sad day though, many people love FreeBSD for what it is and always was: A server operating system. When or If it ever migrates to desktop systems, people will stray from focusing on optimizing the server components and concentrate on other facets, leaving admins to migrate to other, more server-oriented operating systems.
Moral of the story is, we should be careful in trying to push BSD to the desktop (open) market. Though I would love to see it happen, I don't want it to loose that "sparkle" in Daemon's eye.
- Are mostly posix
- Are mostly gnu
- Are mostly free (by some definition of free)
- Are mostly X based
which seems to be pretty compatible. For example, KDE and Gnome can run on FreeBSD with little problems... so WHY would Linux be a better 'desktop' than FreeBSD? It doesn't provide any OS level services that make it a more 'seamless' experience that FreeBSD...I bet if you were really whacko you could set up a freebsd box that was indistinguishable (in terms of user experience... installed packages, file system layout, etc) from a run of the mill Linux box.
So I guess the real question is: is linux a desktop OS yet?
-Chris
If you're looking for an OS that is great for desktop use, is incredibly fast, and is really easy to get used to, and has support for NVidia cards, then you want to use BeOS. I've been using BeOS for a while and although it's not as popular as Linux or BSD, its following is pretty devout. I rarely have any problems with BeOS crashing, and on my Pentium II 266 w/ 64 megs RAM it boots in about 10 seconds. BeOS is also almost completely POSIX compliant, so you can compile most linux apps under it with relative ease. And if you don't feel like doing that, BeBits has all the drivers and software you could ever need that's not included in the distribution. If you're looking for a satisfying desktop experience, then BeOS is the way to go.
I have found that several Linux distros are designed to be more of a "desktop" OS
Then step right up and go an get the FreeBSD for the Desktop!
FreeBSD for the Desktop
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
There is even an Official Port of Sun's JDK. It's been covered in a Slashdot article in the past.
<RANT>
The only reason FreeBSD even needs to run anything in "Linux emulation mode" is for software where the coders are either so shortsighted that the only release Linux binaries, or the source code is so Linux-centric that porting isn't worth the effort.
</RANT>
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
When the market is flooded with some particular "desktop operating system" SO unstable, they'll call anything stabler a "server operating system"
Kythorn has a very valid point. Each of the BSDs is an entire operating system in its own right. The entire operating system, including the kernel and all the default userspace apps, comes together in one big package.
The kernel used by BSD doesn't even have a version number. That's because it's just a member of an entire operating system, say, FreeBSD, and to consider the kernel separate from that operating system makes no sense. On a linux system, on the other hand, the kernel is just another software package, developed entirely separately from the distribution itself. This is so radically different from the BSD model that it surely warrants a distinction.
Please, don't accuse others of trolling when you, in fact, were the one to post erroneous information.
Jeremy
--
Looking for a Python IRC bot?
Maybe Linux's higher profile is partly a result of its name. "Linux" makes a great battle flag around which to rally - "BSD" does not. This is true on two levels.
First the superficial level: Linux is a cool word, evocative of both "Linus" and "Unix". It's the kind of simple-yet-catchy name on which companies spend millions. BSD is yet another three letter acronym, and not a cool one like NSA or ATA. I can't explain or prove this lack of coolness, but I do remember noticing it upon first hearing the name FreeBSD.
Second, the level of representation: Linux is Linus's OS. The name matches the story, and it's a simple story. Every time you use the word Linux you're touching upon Linux's primal creation myth.
Of course the same could be said of "BSD" - it reminds us of Bill Joy (I think) copying tapes of the "Berkeley Software Distribution", a modified version of AT&T Unix. Except, unfortunately, this story has little to do with the reality of *BSD today. If the BSD's could choose their names now, they might be something like Servix, Securix, and Portix - names which convey the core message of the OS identity, rather than some baggage from the past.
So how do these stories look to the casual observer? Linux: "Finnish student Linus Torvalds created Linux, a free OS which rose from hobbyist roots to challenge Microsoft, Sun and HP." BSD: "At one time, a bunch of people at UC Berkeley made changes to AT&T Unix, and distributed tapes. Then AT&T sued them, and the court..." (Casual observer wanders off.)
And that attitude is just what the original poster was complaining of. Contrary to the implication above, it is not customary in a free market for sellers to dictate terms to buyers.
First, there's a difference between proposing a deal (what you described) and dictating a deal (what Microsoft does). Second, the description you gave only describes one of several ways a deal can be made in a free market. It's equally likely that the buyer makes an offer, and the seller accepts, rejects or counters.
But that's a tangent. The real point is that Microsoft's two-tiered pricing for NT is enabled by lies (pretending there's a real difference) and sabotage (deliberately making it hard for Microsoft desktops to interoperate with non-Microsoft servers.)
Microsoft isn't part of the free market any more than an extortionist who sells you 'protection'. They happen to still be 'out on the street' awaiting an appeal of their conviction.
Another relevant question: "Why isn't Windows a desktop operating system?"
Got Rhinos?
Be a rebel, push the envelope, drink Dr. Pepper, etc.
DT
--
Is this thing on? Hello?
As I understand it, Minux's licensing was a bit too liiting, and Linus decided that he wanted something similar that he could play with a bit more ... (or something like that).
Linux is based on the GNU project (yes, Gnu's Not Unix -- the same way that Super Glue and Crazy Glue aren't the same thing... same purpose, same design same intent, different manufacturers and different names.
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Ah, I found a Linux History page with a copy of Linus's "Historical posting":
(bold emphasis mine)As for Linus being a student of Tanenbaum, Tanenbaum, himself, wrote:
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Does Gnome work? Yes. I use gnome with freebsd. So do many others, i'm sure. Where did you get the idea that it doesn't work?
*sighs*
--Ryvar
Except for the fact, of course, that MacOS X graphical layer is not X-Windows.
I mean, reliably and not in "linux emulation mode"? You may ask "well, who needs Java!". I do. I test my servlets on my local machine before I stick them on the production server (which is non-BSD as well for that and only that reason).
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
You can't judge Linux by Redhat alone.
You're quite right. As time and available boxes to play with permits I will be trying out some other flavors of Linux. I'm just not in any rush to, as FreeBSD does everything I would expect of a Linux box. As this discussion was over the suitability of Linux versus FreeBSD I may have over stressed the point a bit.
Although I have not used FreeBSD myself
Take one empty box, a connection to the net, and 2 blank floppy disks. If you weren't on a Northpoint DSL connection (like I was), and happen to have a fair bit of bandwidth you'll be playing with an up and running FreeBSD box in about 30 minutes. Your mileage may vary based on how much stuff you check off to install, and how big a pipe ya really got.
Personally, I recommend installing very little from the sysinstall menu. Better to cvsup everything to the latest greatest and build all the rest from the ports tree. Takes a little longer, but it sure is worth it. For the quicker route, just install from the binary packages. They install from across the Internet as well.
If I never see another f**king RPM file again with it's dependencies to totally unknown files belonging to unnamed packages it'll be way too soon. I do not miss RedHat. On the other hand, I am still very curious to see Debian's magic in motion with them get-apt things. Maybe some time this summer between rolling blackouts.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
As a one time RedHat user and now fully FreeBSD when not on my NT Workstation I suppose I can kinda see why the perception is the way it is. The RedHat installer walks you through from an empty system to a graphical logon straight into Gnome. At this point in time if a user isn't taken straight to a GUI, then it must be a server kinda machine.
Personally, I feel that RedHat's hand holding actually hurt me in the long run. I never felt comfortable going any where near the command line when using it. I couldn't figure out why the directories were structured the way they were. Oh boy, then there was the couple of times that X crashed and left me at a blinking command prompt. Reboot!
With FreeBSD I was forced to get at least somewhat comfortable with getting around without a GUI. Due to it's being a bit harder to get going it actually made things easier for me in the long run. The real problem with this is that you're never going to manage to convince someone who isn't willing to put in the time of this.
One issue that folks like bringing up is the lack of hardware support for FreeBSD. Not only has this not had any impact on me, but I've actually found FreeBSD to be a good bit smarter. For example, on my RH box I had 128meg of RAM installed, where only 64meg was being seen. A kind soul over on #LinuxHelp walked me through configuring the system to see the rest of the memory. If my life depended on it I couldn't recall all the steps that went into fixing this. FreeBSD just picked up whatever was in the box and ran with it! When I've needed to add support for something, doing up a custom kernel was surprisingly easy.
As it is now, I'm writing this using Konqueror under KDE 2.1 with FreeBSD 4-STABLE and doing just fine. Occasionally I use the Linux version of Netscape for the better plugin support, as well as a few other Linux only apps. StarOffice works just fine here. I also keep Apache, PHP, and MySQL going in the background for stuff I'm developing. I just can't see going back to any distro of Linux any time soon.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
FreeBSD's Linux binary compatibility is not emulation. Its not even really abstraction. Linux binaries don't have to go through any extra layers in order to execute on FreeBSD than they would in order to execute on Linux.
Linux binaries can run natively on FreeBSD because the FreeBSD kernel contains all the necessary ABIs, and the filesystem contains all the necessary libraries, and there is even now a linux procfs that runs alongside FreeBSD's procfs for the benefit of Linux binaries. FreeBSD simply executes a native FreeBSD binary one way, and native Linux binaries another way. There is no performance penalty for running a Linux binary on FreeBSD because nothing has to be emulated or translated from a Linux-style execution to a FreeBSD-style execution, it is simply executed as-is.
Maybe try to understand it this way: FreeBSD can run Linux binaries not because it emulates the way Linux executes binaries, but because it has implemented the way Linux executes binaries alongside its own implementation of binary execution.
So to ask "Why should I run linux programs on FreeBSD when I could just run them on their native OS?" is a question based on misunderstanding. The simple answer is that even when they are running on FreeBSD, the are running on their native OS.
For a more technical explanation, read http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/x19213.html
FreeBSD has very poor driver support. I would have to throw out half the hardware on my desktop if I installed FreeBSD. In fact, I could not even install FreeBSD because I have new hardware (an ATA100 hard drive controller). Linux supports all my hardware fine, but FreeBSD only supports a few things. I have even asked people on freebsd newsgroups and such if there is a way to install FreeBSD to an ATA100 IDE controller, and they have had no answer.
I like freebsd a lot. I think it is a lot more coherent. But since it doesnt support a lot of my hardware that I NEED to use it, it will not be on my desktop.
Now when building servers one can select hardware that is known to be freebsd supported. That is why it is used on servers. But on the average desktop, especially with newer hardware, freebsd just would not cut it.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
using *BSD on the desktop soon is not even their fault. But I gotta have my video drivers and damn Nvidia won't do it or let anybody else do it. Otherwise I would think about switching. Oh yea and if Debian/BSD got off the ground that would be very cool also. But that mailing list is *very* dead.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
And Windows 2000 on the desktop to connect. Right on.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
But that is the problem. You need to be technically savvy.
If you have someone that is clueless on this stuff, then the answer is "Start X? how the hell am I supposed to know that?"
The latest Redhat has a nice pretty gui type install. But if you have odd ball hardware setup, it is a problem.
I have one guy teaching himself how to do work with Unix by installing Redhat. He has a nice desktop with gnome fired up. By default it installs with Dialup (not Ethernet), even though he choose a server config. The computer doesn't have a modem, but it does lan card. He is going to figure this out on his own, but hasn't yet.
Redhat has the prettier program, and sets up the dial up for you. FreeBSD is "Uglier" (I think it is better) but you have to know more. But in both cases you still have to be fairly knowledgable.
The bottom line is that I still think that Unix is still not for beginners. This is a practical problem for widespread adoption. I happen to prefer FreeBSD.
Alot of impressions are highly dependant of the Distribution, which deals with items like installation, ease of changing components, changing setups, installing programs, etc. Not the underlying soundness of the system, the drivers, etc.
But that (your fav distro) is a different flamewar indeed. (I need a cup of coffee, my mind is too fuzzy for this, this early in the morning)
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Now quit trolling and find something else to complain about...
I can't be karma whoring - I've already hit 50!
SIG: HUP
And you sir, are also trolling. That is defined as many things - from goatse.cx links to FPs to just trying to prove me wrong without it being relevent. What you say is true, but ultimately irrelevant. He's made the thing usable as a desktop, and that's it. Just because it may be intended otherwise doesn't mean it can't be. If you disagree, say so. Otherwise, let's just end this...
I can't be karma whoring - I've already hit 50!
SIG: HUP
So, you've built a desktop. Most other people set it up as a server - but your system is indeed a desktop. Go tell them to fork a daemon or something...
I can't be karma whoring - I've already hit 50!
SIG: HUP
FreeBSD is perhaps the most vigorous. Let's look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo understates that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. This ties up with the fact that NetBSD doesn't have a newsgroup. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts, rather surprising when you think there is no such operating system. Therefore there are about 700 users of a phantom operating system called BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is completely inconsistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the closeness of Walnut Creek to FreeBSD, CD sales and so on, FreeBSD gained a lot of business and established closer links with BSDI who sell a supported version of the same OS. All marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily risen in market share. *BSD is very healthy and its long term survival prospects are very secure. If *BSD is to decline at all, it will be among the mental freaks who frequent the slashdot trolling grounds. *BSD continues to improve. Nothing short of a miracle could stop it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD has it made.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Unless I'm mistaken, X on OS X is being worked on/works, and NVIDIA is just handling hardware access, isn't it?
Slap an X server (whether it be xFree or something else), and you get X-Windows, don't you?
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
How ironic that NVIDIA is pushing hard into the Mac market with their GeForce line of cards, when the Mac OS X system is exactly a BSD OS on the PPC platform =)
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
Technically, yes, Gnome works on FreeBSD. Gnome HAS worked on FreeBSD; even before they've officially supported it on FreeBSD. Now, they officially support it on FreeBSD, which means the porters don't have to use up their time making it work on FreeBSD, the developers do.
Have you ever seen BSD mentioned in a trade magazine? In a programmer's journal? Is it offered by hardware vendors as a pre-installed Operating System? Let's face it. "BSD" isn't a buzzword, and the hype surrounding it pales in comparison to Linux. It doesn't even have the courageous Free software crusade or the GPL to back it. Other than its outstanding performance, there's nothing really noteworthy about it. No human interest, no millions to be made. And no glibc exploits to be fixed. I was the one saying "Eww, BSD, who would use that garbage?" a year ago, because I, like a lot of people, was a totally ignorant Linux zealot. Since then I have learned better, and in the last couple of months I've convinced nearly all of my coworkers to switch to FreeBSD, but it took a lot of hand-holding. Even the hardcore Solaris guys. The moral: BSD is a viable desktop OS, but you have to go door to door with it, and slap people around if you have to. And a pretty GUI install program wouldn't hurt (hint hint).
They'd run their own OS, but they're hosted by sunsite.
They don't have the bandwidth to host a site like openbsd.org, so they're smart enough not to try.
Do you like German cars?
I think one of the main reasons why FreeBSD wasn't viewed as a great desktop OS is because in earlier versions (2.x and the early 3.x tree) the support for desktop related hardware (sound cards, video cards, multimedia, etc) was lackluster or non-existant. It might have been there, but the main focus for the FreeBSD project has been to make one of the best server platforms out there. Linux on the other hand, while being a good server, also makes a good desktop. There is much more support for cutting edge hardware in Linux because the software/driver developers have a much easier time getting their drivers added to the kernel or making a kernel patch.
Fastforward to the 4.x tree, and you'll find support for pretty much whatever you've got in your computer. There is also better support for PNP devices (read soundblaster Live! cards) and more video support. Plus, more X desktop environments are supported under FreeBSD now like KDE, Enlightenment and Gnome. Pack that on top of FreeBSD's ultra stable kernel, fast TCP stack and really sweet filesystem, and you've got one hell of a desktop OS or server platform.
Brad
I run FreeBSD, Mandrake and Windows 2000 all courtesy of GRUB. Windows was pre-installed, it is my brother's machine, Mandrake came second and eventually FreeBSD.
FreeBSD is both the easiest and the hardest to install depending on whether you've done it before. RedHat and Mandrake have wonderful graphical installers and FreeBSD has a graphical installer. Well, an installer. Well, something that if you know what you're doing will result in a working system. But certainly nothing you'd give your mom.
Once FreeBSD was installed configuring it was no more difficult than Linux. My only real complaint is that turning soft updates on for the root file system, and /tmp in my case, can't be done easily. Mounting Mandrake partitions is easy.
KDE, Netscape, RealPlayer etc. looks pretty much like Mandrake but I don't have a graphical session manager. Linux applications, for example Netscape, run perfectly. FreeBSD ports are easier to deal with than RPMs.
I think FreeBSD is a fine desktop system. But the installer could use some work.
Power management works, my Logitech USB Optical Wheel Mouse works, my digital camera works using Gphoto. Oh, did I mention that it has never crashed? Did I mention that when I wiped the default windoze installation off the drive tat it went from a 1.1 GB base install to a 700 MB install, and that's including 300 MB of swap space?
In fact, although I'm pretty sure that most people think of the BSDs as server operating systems, (particularly OpenBSD), I'm just giddy over here. Yes, it was a lot of work, and sure, Linux would have probably worked pretty well, but I like the svelt, clean BSD design, and the BSDs are what I'm most comfortable with.
This article is actually pretty timely, since I am going to be puting FreeBSD on my dual processor desktop machine next week (never played with it much before), and I'm sure I'll pick up a few pointers and get to read a couple "*BSD is dying*" trolls along the way.
If ya can't beat 'em, clone 'em.