Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Case for FreeBSD

Posted by Zonk on from the i-don't-want-to-go-on-the-cart dept.

essdodson writes "Scott Long of FreeBSD release engineering team describes some of the finer points where FreeBSD continues to innovate and display its mature development environment. Items such as netgraph, geom and incredible desktop support by way of Gnome and KDE." From the post: "While I strongly applaud the accomplishments of the NetBSD team and happily agree that NetBSD 2.0 is a strong step forward for them, I take a bit of exception to many of their claims and much of their criticisms of FreeBSD."

3 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. Does FreeBSD really need to prove itself? by ravenspear · · Score: 0, Troll

    I mean, FreeBSD already has a much larger userbase than NetBSD, so of what consequence are NetBSD's criticisms? I would say not much.

    Of course, <troll>since BSD is dying anyway, I'm sure none of it matters either way.</troll>

  2. Re:I agree by northcat · · Score: 0, Troll

    I've been using debian for some time and apt works fine for me. Even with sarge [the testing (beta-like) version of debian]. But FreeBSD's package management system has screwed my system many times. But you can't give much value to what happened on a particular user's system - me or parent. Generally speaking, apt is definitely easier to use and overall better than FreeBSD's package management system. Yes, even for compiling packages from source.

    People say BSDs are better than Linux and Windows because of the It's-a-less-popular-OS-so-it-must-be-good-and-I-mu st-be-cool-for-using-it syndrome. The same thing goes for a lot (most) of Mac users. Face it. x86 and x86-based OSes are better than Mac and OS X. Linux is better than *BSD. And in some areas Windows is better than Linux.

  3. Re:zerg by essdodson · · Score: 0, Troll

    SMP in 4.0 was on par with Linux's support in 2.4. 5.0 is once again on par with Linux 2.6. What problems do you know of?

    --
    scott