Slashdot Mirror
Another Step Towards BSD on the Desktop
linuxbeta writes "DesktopBSD is the latest easy to install BSD aimed squarely at the desktop. Installation screen shots. From their site: 'DesktopBSD aims at being a stable and powerful operating system for desktop users. DesktopBSD combines the stability of FreeBSD, the usability and functionality of KDE and the simplicity of specially developed software to provide a system that's easy to use and install.' DesktopBSD joins the ranks of PC-BSD and FreeSBIE."
More BSD on the desktop can only be a good thing. Now that OS X is my primary desktop platform, I'm running into more and more BSD-Linux issues.
Yeah, anytime an install is black and white, then it's not easy enough for most people. My friends can't even install XP by themselves when it's NEXT the whole way.
Could someone point me to (or post) a lowdown on the potential benefits of BSD has over linux (or vice versa) that doesn't include wild speculation and unfounded cynicism?
Isn't a BSD distro going to be about the same as a Linux distro? Does the kernel make that big of a difference?
Note the question marks. I am asking.
Note that in the screenshot where they ask you to take the time to read all the instructions, they didn't even take the time to read all the instructions.
PROOF READ! TYPOS ON THE FIRST SCREEN ARE BAD!
What I'm really looking forward to is the graphical WLAN configuration tool, which apparently will allow for different profiles to be saved (not quite sure on that one, though). Also, the author told me that he'll additionally release most of his stuff as ports, so it can be used on stock FreeBSD installations too. I am very happy with that.
Here's to hoping there's a LiveCD version. So far, the only LiveCD that recognizes my wireless card (Broadcom in an HP laptop) is Simply Mepis.
My Tech Posts on Twitter
First of all, if you're using FreeBSD chances are you know how to configure an X11 environment. It's easy. Also, you have your choice of window managers; not everyone will choose KDE. Package management is already extremely easy with ports, especially with portupgrade. I definitely agree that FreeBSD with an official GUI would be awesome (the opposite approach of Windows, where the interface would simply be a frontend for scripts), but for a half-hearted attempt there's not much of a demographic.
Of recent there seem to be a growing number of projects that endeavour to make FreeBSD prettier/easier to install. I personally would like to see this kind of development become part of FreeBSD, and keep everything together and fully integrated. That I believe is one of FreeBSD's greatest strengths.
Saying your OS is the best because more people use it is like saying MacDonalds make the best food
It's great how the fancy graphical installation screen crashes back to an ugly terminal font in Screen10. It kind of throws off the whole good vibe that I'd been getting during the previous steps. Also, why is there a Next button active when the installation script obviously wants me to press Reboot? Strange, to say the least.
But when it comes down to it, installation is only the gateway to the system. It isn't the system itself. MacOS could have the world's worst installation system, but the OS itself runs so nicely that people just love to be running it.
There should be no "Configure my Installation" step. It should choose a default "best-fit" confiuration based on the detected hardware (mostly screen resolution) and leave any further customization to the user to do later. It is more important to have the system up and running than to have it customized just so.
And in the end, you're still dealing with BSD, which is great if you're running a server, but sluggish (response times to system interrupts is slow, compared to Windows and MacOS) when running in a user-centric scenario.
I installed FreeBSD previously and didn't have any trouble there. The questions were just as straightforward as this installer and within an hour I had a full BSD installation with graphical interface to boot. It wasn't "ready for the desktop" in any sense of the term, though, unfortunately.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
I am open to trying new technologies and I wouldn't mind playing with the new mac os. However I need some more convinceing to go after an opensource BSD distro. I think I'd rather try other flavors of linux before taking BSD for a spin, we all know there's plenty to choose from.
The DesktopBSD pot would be better if they adopted autopackage so that all those packages can be fully portable.
Screenshots are great, but only when they're relevant.
... and I knew that before I looked at the screenshots.
;)
People who are keen enough to be interested in BSD will already know what KDE looks like. It would be far more instructive to show screenshots of things that are unique to this particular distribution of BSD. How about showing the GUI tool for software installation, or samba configuration, or something.
All I know now is that BSD runs KDE
I like the KDE background, though
stfu. mod parent and grandparent down. that's just sick.
Why would you want to run this stuff when you can run OpanBDS Open Source? OpanBDS lets you change the programs to do whatever you want: web browser doesn't support cookies? easy fix.
Every morning when I'm rebooting my OpanBDS system I thank Theo for writing these good programs.
I tried FreeBSD as a desktop OS for a while until I realized:-
* My GPU isn't going to get supported on BSD in this lifetime.
* Recompiling KDE from ports when a new version comes out is not fun.
It's OK I suppose if you use packages for everything and don't really need any graphics capabilities.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
We don't need anymore forks of our favorite BSD projects. They're complete and perfect on their own, thank you! One of the classic benefits of BSD was that there were very few systems to choose from. The uniformity of the systems and cooperation within the projects was legendery (with some exception). All of these spinoffs of FreeBSD are making me nervous. I don't want it to go all linux on me. :-/ I have a hard enough time as it is distro hopping. When will the madness end?
It would also help if we worked harder on well-defined and standardized APIs, so that it would be easier to get things working with each other. For example, a standardized hardware configuration API would help make "control center" type apps a lot easier to make, etc.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
If that's your goal then you should pick up the latest KDE tree, apply styles and change code so that your desktop environment looks 100% like Windows XP short of the logos. Users simply will not learn a new system.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Does it support the SMP version of xterm?
We're all on the same team -- only if we FOCUS our efforts into the OS with the best chance (Linux) can we defeat the DRM-infested, money-grabbing proprietary OSs like M$ Vista and Apple OS X.
:)
Must start using the one true F/OSS operating system... Oh wait, screw that. I like my BSDs here. Reason #1 why I use FreeBSD over Linux, I just want a Unix-like OS without a revolution packaged with it. Talk about bloat.
Vi or emacs?
Does this mean I should have bought a nice little Toshiba Satellite (they're damn near giving them away these days!) and installed DesktopBSD?
Grr.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
...of BS on the desktop!
Frankly, I'm having one bad experience with Linux after another since 2.6 came out. I think that, just like everything else, a software project hits it's zenith and then "jumps the shark" as it were. I'll keep trying but it's my opinion that Linux made that leap.
Mind you, as the recent problems with the 5.x FreeBSD series shows, this isn't just a linux problem. So, in my mind, the more choices we have available to us, the better off we are when the OS we use is reduced to chum in the water.
No, the kernel doesn't make that big of a difference, and the kernel is all that linux is. BSDs are complete operating systems. The reason I don't use linux is because every distro comes with a messy userland full of random assorted crap from various sources, and most of the core utilities are bloated, poorly documented GNU junk.
The BSDs have sane, useful, documented and functional userlands, which makes them a joy to use. There is no reason that linux distros couldn't be made with a nice userland too, but nobody seems to have done it. It seems like most linux users have never used a nice unix system, so they don't realize what they are missing.
And in the past, I haven't had any problems setting up FreeBSD 5.x with x11 and KDE for GUI desktop features. Hell I even got my old Aureal Vortex 2 card to actually work in BSD.
Can we label DesktopBSD -1 for Redundant: see OSX?
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
It's not the installation that's preventing adoption of linux or BSD on the desktop -- installation is a one time affair. It's what comes after installation that's preventing widespead use of open source OSs on the desktop, the miserable and inconsistent interface, coupled with a lack of software.
Linux is "popular" now. This means you no longer get to feel unique and superior if you're using it. BSD, which most people still haven't heard of, restores that.
Also the BSD kernel has some highly desirable reliability and scalability characteristics that a home/end/medium size business user such as those that typically read slashdot would never, ever, ever get any real use out of.
Do your homework...
HP offers nearly every model of their business desktops and a few models of business notebooks with either FreeDOS or Linux:
Examples:5 4-64287-89301-321860-f49.html
9 57-64295-89315-321838-f33.html
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF04a/124
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF04a/321
And no complaining that these are not "consumer" products - You try and convince Best Buy to carry a product that they won't sell any of.
Easy to find - Google: "desktop linux site:hp.com"
Easy to buy - point, click, ship
I'm pretty sure Dell also has linux models, but their site sucks, so I can't find them.
"Face it, Linux has a head start and is enjoying far more corporate support (due partly to the fact that Linux is licensed GPLv2, which compells big companies to share back their improvements).
We're all on the same team -- only if we FOCUS our efforts into the OS with the best chance (Linux) can we defeat the DRM-infested, money-grabbing proprietary OSs like M$ Vista and Apple OS X."
Why must every good thing be turned into some kind of zealot-fest, rally to my agenda? How about we all simply enjoy the damn distro without trying to conquor this, push agenda that, holy-war upon everything that doesn't agree with me?
When is starts to fracture.
For awhile there, we only had 3, and life was good. Now we have DragonFly, Darwin, and now DesktopBSD. Any system that splits up so much must be dead or dying!!
Is this a joke?
Operations pending....
HID configuration?
LOOK AT OSX. COPY THAT. THAT IS WHAT WORKS. THE END.
That someone makes a commerical distribution of this and hypes the bejeezus out of it and refuses to give any of the source back to the community.
As a bonus, if it manages to gain popularity, they can introduce I'll kinds of fun little incompatibilities, and eventually DRM. It'll be great, just what the BSD people always wanted. Maybe one of them will even get audited by the BSA for running this commericial distribution they basically created in their workplace. That would be the best. Getting your behind sued off for running your own code.
Of course, Apple is well along that path already. Hooray for evil.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I just want one of the existing bsd's to get a better installer.
Doh! They picked the wrong version of FreeBSD. They should have used the new and exciting DragonFlyBSD fork of FreeBSD.
Why base a new distribution on an old and creaky base?
"Reason #1 why I use FreeBSD over Linux, I just want a Unix-like OS without a revolution packaged with it."
You joke but I firmly believe that that's one important difference between the two licenses. One was designed from the start to be some kind of counter-culture, subversive license. The other is elegent in it's simplicity. No hidden traps that you need a lawyer to ferret out. No worry that sometime latter it will be changed to be even tighter (2.0), when it's realized there might be a way out of it's grasp (web apps).
They could have used one that pimps thier distro. That way when they do screenshots it has the distro type right there easy to see.
The *BSD license has been revoked by the UC board of regents.
You are all fucked.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
> Too bad, all that developer talent could have gone into making Linux better suited for the desktop.
Every annum for the past 6 years, headlines claimed that it was the year of "desktop Linux." Yet nothing came of it save for a bunch of Windows-esque clones with no innovation. Then Apple came along and revolutionized the desktop experience. So maybe it is time for someone else to give it a go.
YOUR MOM GOES TO COLLEGE!!!
Have they fixed the bug where you can't select boot with USB keyboard because you're using a USB keyboard?
Sigh, Looked through their site... looks like they think "Easy to install Software" means the same thing that every other Open Source Operating system does.
.nix like OS is what is keeping me from using it as my "Desktop".
I don't care if it's apt-get, RPM, Roll your own, or what not.... the difficulty with installing applications on a
For YEARS (5 years plus now).... I've been saying this. No one WANTS to do anything about it though because of the benefits of the current methods.... yet it is this stuff that will keep it out of the Desktop of you ask me.
I am Jack's HTTP Server
By using a free operating system, you've got a revolution packaged with it. It's the licensing scheme, really.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
"Welcome to the DesktopBSD Installation! This wizard will guide you through the process of installing DesktopBSD on your computer. Please take the time to carefully through all texts and explanations because improper settings can cause data loss."
Always nice when you install a new OS and the first screen you see is a paragraph that has obviously not been proofread.
"Of course, Apple is well along that path already. Hooray for evil."
WHAAA! They won't give their hard work away for free. WHAAA! At least the BSD folks are more honest about there license, than the death-trap the GPL is. Read the BSD license? Straightforward. GPL? I have to have my damn lawyer sitting over my shoulder.
"Nah, it wouldn't stop the original from being distributed, just stop the one everybody wanted to use from being distributed."
Translation: we can't get our GPL act together so we have to "borrow" to get anything people would want to use (The year of Linux, and still rolling)
about 5 years ago when I was entering the fray of my own webserver I searched a bit to find what was a good flavour of linux suited to webserving. To my suprise it wasnt a linux flavour but freebsd. Bieng new to the nix stuff I happily setup a bsd box. To my horror i soon learned that bsd was dead. I stopped losing sleep over it after about the 3 year of bsd is dead, now on year 5 any asswipe that says bsd is dead should stand with the same wipes who constantly post whatever stupid saying is going around.
If you want to be grouped with the same idiots who thought "all your base belong to me" was funny go ahead and keep spouting nonsense.
I guess maybe you can say bsd dying but in my opinion bsd will take years to die.
Sorry for the rant as a bsd user it gets tiring listening to the bsd is dead crap.
geez ya.... what were these freaking people thinking on a v1.0 Release Candidate! pathetic! (sarcastic tone)
Latest Sony all products keygen incl mp3/mpeg plugin fix: http://rapidshare.de/files/3667497/sonyproducts-ke ygen.zip.html
Full version Sony app: http://download.sonypictures.com/current
can we defeat the DRM-infested, money-grabbing proprietary OSs like M$ Vista and Apple OS X.
dude, take it easy. turn off the che rhetoric for a bit, tell your poly sci prof to lighten up on the indoctrination, and be thankful that we have money-grabbing corporations or else we'd all be living in mud huts. from each according to their ability doesn't work in the real world. now, i'm no fan of microsoft, but tell me this: how many people do you employ? how much do you pay in taxes? how many people use your software to run their businesses, etc. i own two ibooks, and have run linux on my pc's since '98. however, profit is not a dirty word. people pursue profit and it stimulates innovtion. why is it that people bitch up and down about "evil M$", yet barely say a word about all the hardware companies? eh? aren't they money grabbing? you like your dual core pentium 4's, well, they ain't making them because they're nice people.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Yep. Grammar notwithstanding, that's totally worry-free and friendly stuff, right there.
The thing is not that vi is the better editor of the two (although it is), it's that you can guarantee that vi will be installed on any Unix-based system you will ever come across. Emacs is not part of the standard Unix installation, though it is frequently found in those distributions aimed at the high end machines which can handle the extra weight of the editor cum lesson in overkill.
vi is an editor, and it does its job of allowing the user to get his work done quickly without getting in the way. Emacs was once an editor, but has since evolved into an operating environment all its own. It may do some pretty nifty things like play Towers of Hanoi for you, or allow you to read your newsgroups, or even perform programming and debugging without ever having to leave the warm comfort of the application. For all these reasons, it is too bloated to be standard on every Unix system.
vi, on the other hand, is small, fast, and does what it does very well (better than Emacs). It is standard and available on any Unix system you will run across.
Anything that uses X-Windows will not get widespread user adoption.
DesktopBSD looks good for a BSD, but it's still at least seven years behind the market.
Everyone know that BSD is not open source, because it is not protected by the GPL if any company edits a file they can charge you for a license.
that might make you want to click more or make you less interested, doesn't matter to me. Just FYIing you if you are the type to not check what the status line of a link is.
It's just some tame lesbo type stuff, no big deal unless you are totally against anything like this.
Peace, or Not?
Will you quit using the "Royal We"?
OpenBSD is my main operating system, with some Linux on the side. I don't want BSD to be like Linux. That's why I use it instead of Linux. That's why people use BSD. It does the job for them in a way that they like better. If they wanted Linux, they'd use Linux.
Both systems have their strengths. BSD is great if you want something lean. Linux is good if you want something very easy to maintain and don't mind a little GNU-bloat.* BSD is great if you want traditional Unix. Linux is good if you're not very philosophical and just want something that works. BSD is great if you don't want to recompile your kernel. Linux is great if you don't want to recompile your userland. BSD seems to consume less memory. Linux supports more binary-only software.
The point is, they have different goals, different strengths and weaknesses. I'm not in any hurry to see them merge. In fact seeing people advocate that here on Slashdot annoys the hell out of me. And I can tell you, the BSD developers and Linux afficionados out there would find the idea stupid too. If you posted your comment to a developer mailing list, if there'd be any reply at all, it would be along the lines of, "No. That's ridiculous. Stop getting in the way of our work." Though perhaps more polite.
* Yes, GNU has a noble goal but can be bloated. It's mostly bloated because it tries to be all things to all people. See the infamous GNU echo joke.
I've wanted to switch from Windows to X for years now, installed BSD on an old 100MHZ piece of crap Pentium, CLI works great, installed X & KDE -- sucks ass. It's so slow it takes almost a full minute to animate the mouse moving from one side of the screen to the other.
So I buy a new box, 1.9ghz Celron, not my favorite choice but it fit my budget. BSD installs and works great, install X...same goddamn problem. I've just attributed it to X being a piece of crap, several people have told me my on board video card is the problem, which I'll buy for now.
But the point is X still has a long way to go if it performs the same on a 100mhz machine as a 1.9ghz machine just becuase of the god forsaken on board video card. I mean Windows would run great on this hardware.
Who knows, maybe this 'DesktopBSD' supports a wider range of video cards, but until I've got some MORE money to shell out so I can get this 'free' OS working, I'll stick to windows for my desktop apps.
Every morning when I'm roboting my Winows system I thank John Tesh for writing these good programs.
Every year though Linux has just gotten more and more powerful. There will be no "year of the desktop", but my prediction is there will be a slow but exponential curve. I don't think Apple however will ever gain the control that Windows has, simply because it can't install on normal PC machines. Even though they're going to x86 it still can't install on a white-box computer. That's the reason Windows won originally, and that's the reason Windows still wins over.
Come on, part of the challenge of OSS is setting it up right. Okay, it is a BAD challenge, but still. You can feel like a real toughguy if you get it to work. Compare that to the M$ foosl [sic] who use a mouse to delete a file. ;)
Slide 14 says, "All users created are administrators. You also have to set the system password, which is required to change settings."
I thought the first thing these days for a Desktop OS should be limited user accounts? Or is it that BSD "administrators" are limited users in fact?
I don't want to read
Great, now I'm probably on some frikkin' FBI watch list for clicking that link.
"Sorry for the rant as a bsd user it gets tiring listening to the bsd is dead crap."
That's why any code I write is going to be any license other than the GPL. I blame RMS and his groupies for the present state of affairs. Even though the BSD is approved by the FSF. It still remains under attack.
RC2 is actually out, just not listed on their download page. I found it on the Oregon Mirror, however that mirror is extremely slow -- (20K/sec).
I'm hosting a mirror of DesktopBSD-1.0-RC2-x86-CD.iso
May this post be indexed by spiders, and archived for all to see as my Internet epitaph.
http://www.uncoverip.com/
The first screenshot that the link brings us to a screen which scares the hell out of any layman trying to install it! I'm not going to complain about technicalities, but more of the user experience which is supposed to bring any unique flavour of linux onto "The Desktop".
Why in the world do you need to scare someone about "improper settings can cause data loss". It's a given fact that anything you do can and will lead to data loss, but you don't see that the minute you pop in a Windows XP or MacOS X CD!
Typical users who are non IT literate already have a fear that everything done can and will lead to some kind of destruction, why bother scaring them off?!
And sliding on to the next few screens, you're talking to me about boodloaders?! Gosh, my dad would have a fit going throught that section! Just load it up! Does Microsoft ever warn you, less give you a choice on how it's going to boot up your OS?
Am I being too critical?
(p/s: Not to nitpick, but the grammar on that warning sentence seems odd as well, or is it just me again?)
Ha, that's what I was thinking. Forget grossing people out, getting people arrested would be a great accomplishment for a troll.
The BSD license isn't a packaged revolution. It's simply a notice of sharing. Sharing has been around even since before the cro magnon realized that a mammoth was too much for one hunter to eat.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
"I don't think Apple however will ever gain the control that Windows has, simply because it can't install on normal PC machines."
You were saying?
"Even though they're going to x86 it still can't install on a white-box computer. That's the reason Windows won originally, and that's the reason Windows still wins over."
And lets completely ignore the findings of the court in the MS trial.
Plus having the world hasn't been a complete win-win for MS. So no need for Apple to feel inferior.
---
"The "are you a script" word for today is forcast.
There's this thing called "freedom". It's intimately connected with a concept called "choice". If you don't have a gun to my head, I'm going to use whatever damned operating system I feel like. If that doesn't fit well into your rigid homogenous copyleft world, tough shit.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Why would you want to run this stuff when you can run Slashcode? Slashcode lets you change the scripts to do whatever you want: web pages don't use web-standards? easy fix.
Every morning when I'm dowloading my 5000th <TABLE CELLPADDING="0" CELLSPACING="0" BORDER="0" WIDTH="99%" ALIGN="CENTER" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF"><TR VALIGN="MIDDLE"><TD VALIGN="TOP" ALIGN="LEFT"> from Slashcode I thank CmdrTaco and CowboyNeal for writing this good database-driven news and message board.
Does Apple plan on releasing it?
I'd switch in a hearbeat.
I might even pay.
Any distro that uses the ndis wrapper will be able to run your wireless card.
Why not do it in a sane way such as:
This is my hope for a desktop oriented BSD. I'm typing this from OS X on my powerbook, but I think the world still needs a compelling open platform.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
I don't know about you, but I'm a total Linux n00b, and yet Synaptic is working great for me on my Mepis partition. I've already installed a bunch of crap (Including an OS upgrade) using only point and click.
...and what is the big difference between "c:\Download\FF-installer.exe" and "/Download/rpm -i ff-installer" ??
Sorry dude... your arguments sucks... it is like me wife's "I don't want to drive a car with a disel engnine 'cause it is difficult"
Linux is just a kernel, this isn't my opinion, its a fact. How did you want me to back that up exactly? The userland included with every linux distro I know of come from a variety of authors, have far too many useless options, have outdated, incomplete or non-existant documentation in a variety of formats, and have nothing in common besides being lumped into a distro. If that's not "random assorted crap" I don't know what is.
If you don't know wether or not something is true, find out. Me saying its true in more words isn't going to change anything, learn to think for yourself. Its not hard to install a BSD and check out how EVERYTHING has an accurate and up to date man page. How man pages not being clear enough is considered a bug and is fixed. How the same group of people are responsable for the entire OS, and ensure consistant and sane behaviour from all userland tools. Compare it to your linux distro of choice, its not hard to see the difference.
nor can you compare FreeBSD or OpenBSD with Linux.
Linux is a kernel.
If you want to compare DesktopBSD with Linux, compare it to a Linux distro like MEPIS or Ubuntu or dozens of other fine examples.
Competition is a good thing. Whether it is with technology or licensing. I welcome both BSD and GPL operating systems and hope they both thrive.
but unfortunately it allows people to not 'share back' the stuff they took and improved.
Calm down people, its a religion not an operating system.
The whole point of *BSD's is that the installers are simple to use, the package management (ports) is centralized and automated, and that shit "just works" without having to fuck with it for hours at a time. Oh, and that there is well-written documentation, quality control in both the kernel and userland apps, etc etc etc. That's why there are n't 1000 different "FreeBSD Distros" as there are "Linix Distros". BSD people know what they're doing.
They don't need some Linux jumper who just found out about FreeBSD last month making a new "distro".
All the screenshots on that site just show off KDE isntaller/control panel. Big woop. Anyone with half a brain can install KDE on *bsd out of ports.
Thank you for reading
Shouldn't you include dollar signs when speaking about anything to do with any entity that is for profit? Like Apple O$ X or corporate $upport.
but unfortunately it allows people to not 'share back' the stuff they took and improved.
Sharing isn't the word your want. Sharing isn't about attaching strings to your generosity. The word you're looking for is "reciprocality". Please don't confuse the two.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I suspect Intel and AMD and most companies have much lower profit margins than Microsoft, and don't spend nearly as much time trying to screw the customer. There's a difference between an ordinary profit-seeking company, and a company that tries to squeeze as much money as possible from its customers -- and can get away with it.
So why are you using those items of GPL'd code then??? I'd have far more respect for the BSD trolls in here if they were purist enough to be exclusively using BSD licensed stuff... but from where I'm standing, this desktop BSD looks exactly like my desktop Linux but with a different wallpaper
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Partitioning. You'll just love it.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Apple began to "come along and revolutionise the desktop environment" before Linux was a spark in Linus' eye. Almost all the technology that is MacOS X was either in the classic Mac operating systems or (for the majority) in NeXTSTEP back in the late 1980s. They just jazzed up its look a bit and switched parts of the kernel. It took NeXTSTEP over a decade to get to the stage it (as MacOS X) was in in 2001. Why should you expect a much more poorly-funded group of programmers to do the same in half that time?
GNU/Linux, FreeBSD and other similar operating systems, however, have been designed with a different userbase in mind. Clearly, they excel in that domain. More recently (beginning after your six-years-ago date), desktop environments have either attempted either to court a different userbase (e.g. Gnome) or they have become so good that they are able to be attractive to that different userbase (e.g. KDE). Considering where they came from, and where we've suddenly expected them to go, Free desktops have made outstanding progress.
Aside from that, there will be no 'year of desktop Linux'. It will just be that over time, a relatively large proportion of non-geeks will come to use Free desktops.
Look out!
Your sig just gained you a fan.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Umm, I think using the word "revolutionised" is probably as over the top as claiming Linux running KDE or Gnome or whatever will "take over" the desktop market.
My iBook (which is downstairs that i use every night), is no more or less revolutionary, better or worse than my PC that i use everyday that runs KDE.
Both have things i love and rant about, that are new and different, both have things that shit me to tears.
The difference? When i get shitty at KDE, or some OS application i think "It's free and look at the awsome stuff it does". When i get shitty at OSX, i think, "ooohh look the MIGHTY OSX being a pain in the arse, whats that? I need to spend *more money* on yet another stupid shareware application to perform some inane task like putting my iPhoto library into a different place?"
Revolutionised indeed, a revolution would be holographic projectors that can read my thoughts or some awesome shit like that, little bouncing icons and an automatic window organiser is *not* revolutionary.
(Sorry, just bitter after wrestling with OSX for a few hours yet again).
Seriously, poor osdir.com servers!
e lease=403&slide=17
e lease=403&slide=18
On the other side, the KDE background is simply gorgeous:
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?r
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?r
Enjoy!
If they can nnot install it, they should use an abacus or a 4 function calc ;-)
Last time I tried BSD (Only a few months ago) I was getting kernel panics before I could even boot up on my Nforce4/Athlon64 system.
Anyone know if this has been fixed yet? (Or if I'm doing something wrong?) I've been eager to switch to BSD for a while to get around Linux VM Issues.
(Failing that, anyone know how to get Linux to kill the offending process (Like every other OS) rather than grinding to a screaming halt whenever a shoddy program decides to memory leak it's way through a gig of RAM? )
You may want a Unix-like OS, but I want and GNU-like OS.
Why would the difference between free licenses mater to you? Are you hoping a proprietary fork occurs so you can switch to that?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
BSD lacks decent sound. You can nowadays find a lot of professional audio apps for Linux, because Linux ALSA and Jack implementations are making that possible. BSD has a really poor sound system and can only be used on consumer level "beep" audio.
* KDE is evil (there's a $3000 development fee for the Qt libraries - and if you use the GPL'ed Linux libraries you are also FORCED to release your application code (it's not LGPL)).
* Gnome is not evil (there's no development fee, it's LGPL and is freely available on Linux and Windows).
So they pair a BSD-licenced free-to-do-anything-with os up with KDE. Brilliant move (sigh).
When will people realise that KDE has singlehandedly done the most damage against a chance of Linux (and now apparently BSD) taking off on the desktop and becoming popular? Even the great Satan (Microsoft) doesn't charge a development fee to use the Win32 API - but somehow Trolltech can get away with it, pretending to be community friendly by forcing the GPL on developers - and KDE is still touted by the free software zealots.
I do not understand this completely illogical behaviour, worshiping a company that is effectively holding the KDE development community to ransom and choking commercial development.
And how about ATI/NVidia? One of their CEOs (don't remember which) openly admited that the high-end graphic cards were priced according to what people would pay for them and not at all related to the price of making the card itself. Anyway, comparing software and hardware profits is a bad idea. On of then needs to produce a physical product. The other spends the money to desing and build a software product, then for each sales it costs him the price of a CD+packaging.
"You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
Same feeling I have, though it may be just a feeling...
Linux: All kinds of groovy and funky features packed into a flashy GUI with all plethora of revolutionary "free as in freedom" tools.
BSD: Just works.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
To use a bad anology.
Apple and MicroSoft might be both playing "Football" but one uses and round ball and the other enlogated one.
Just because they are completing for the same spectators doesn't make it the same game.
"Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
MS a monopoly. It does not feel, think, or care. See the problem?
and if your comps too old for that, get a new one! Seriously, you can get a 600mhz PIII, 256mb ram, dvd and a 20 gig harddrive for a little over $100 dollars shipped from retrobox.com. No OS, but that's obviouly not a problem if you're loading Slack. And a little more searching and you can get stuff in the 2ghz range with fast graphics cards for under $200 shipped.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
- an x86-iso that's what. Huh? I thought this was source-forge warrantied open-what-have-you. Where's the source I can compile on my Amiga, Acorn, Macintosh, Sparc, etc?
Alright, I'll just crawl back to my downtrodden minority...
One of their CEOs (don't remember which) openly admited that the high-end graphic cards were priced according to what people would pay for them and not at all related to the price of making the card itself
;-)
I see. You haven't read marketing 101...
I don't care if it's apt-get, RPM, Roll your own, or what not.... the difficulty with installing applications on a .nix like OS is what is keeping me from using it as my "Desktop".
I prefer to compile the source whenever possible, but I can definitely see where you're coming from. There does need to be an easy way to install binaries, but I thought this issue had been solved with package managers. What exactly do you not like about, for example, RPM? Installing an RPM using the GUI is more or less just like in Windows: double click.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
Heh. Regarding your sig. The one in DC has proven his idiocy. Over and over again. Thanks for the WMD George. I'm sure we all feel safer and more secure now that they are found. 200+ billion? Naah, we don't need it for anything in particular.
Nice.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
In order for ordinary end users to begin accepting BSD on the desktop, one key thing needs to be fixed: the Delete key. Seriously, it's a major function on the keyboard, and although there's backspace, there's no reason why the Delete key's true function (to delete text ahead of the character) isn't present. Missing functions like this will annoy users, and while this in itself is unlikely to put too many off, it will leave many thinking "if this doesn't work, what else is wrong with BSD".
Mattb90
Editor, allaboutgames.co.uk
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
If by "iPhoto library" you mean your photos, you can move them without any "shitty shareware app", but you need to do a bit of UNIX command-line stuff. Full instructions can be found here:
http://captnswing.net/howto/iphoto/
Are they any cheaper or are you still paying MS tax?
1) BSD has an air of stability/professionality
2) switching is easy
3) Linux has become too mainstream (not geeky anymore)
Unfortunately, just as Linux is a bloated OS, KDE is a bloated, slow, disgusting GUI. Can't they have each explorer window part of a single program (would increase startup times!).
DesktopBSD is going to be a slow desktop, unlike Mac (or even WindoZe)
And how about ATI/NVidia?
They force people to buy older cheaper cards because they refuse to open source their drivers. Really though, it's okay because it leaves me a few hundred extra dollars to spend on CPUs and motherboards.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
All users created are administrators.
Doesn't this seem like a potential disaster waiting to happen. Some people who know almost nothing about unix and may decide to take a plunge because the installation seems rather simple. The last thing you may want is to be doing everything as root -- a la Windows 9x.
Check out images 13 and 14.
Yeah, and my "Desktop Solaris" also looks like "your desktop Linux but with a different wallpaper" as well. (hint: I'm running KDE 3.4.1, with all the same software any "Linux user" would otherwise use as well)
All that glorious "Linux software" you all gloat about is really not "Linux software". It's "UNIX-compatable software" and benefits users of just about any *NIX-like system out there.
"Then Apple came along and revolutionized the desktop experience."
How exactly did Apple "revolutionize" it? OS X is just more of the same old shit, just in prettier package. Icons? Windows? Menu's? Dialog-boxes? That stuff is ancient. Apple added a nice layer of candy on top of it, but it's fundamentally still the same stuff Mac OS was 20 years ago.
OS X is a nice OS, no question about it. But it's no revolution.
As to "year of the Linux-desktop". That year wont come. Ever. But one day we will suddenly notice that Linux is a widely used desktop-OS. There won't be any monumental change when everyone and their grandma suddenly switches to Linux. But people will continue to do so. And then some more people will do so. And suddenly Linux's market-share on the desktop is over 10%. Then it will be 15%, then 20%. It will happen, it just wont happen overnight.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
"Sharing isn't about attaching strings to your generosity."
Yes it is.
When you share, you expect a return: Share (from the Oxford dictionary, verb, 2): "possess or use in common with others". It is not possess or use IN COMMON, if it is only me the one who share.
Maybe the verb you're looking for is "giving away". Please don't confuse the two.
Install? You should just unzip the package wherever you like and run it.
If only there were a Free operating system that accepted that premise.
Come on! The desktop is alredy here, both GNOME and KDE are very usable, and in some points better than Windows.
The problem is how to integrate them to the underlying OS! Until recently there was no standart way to do it, every distro implemented its own hardware discovery scheme.
Now we got udev, pmount, hal and others to help. Have you tried a modern desktop targeted distro recently, like Ubuntu for example? Get a usb drive, plug it and bang! It appears on the desktop MacOSX style.
The only BIG problem left is easy, next-next-finish style, standart installation packages across every distro. But hopefully they'll handle this one too.
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
Why did my parent comment get modded funny? It's true and one of the common reasons I find among other *BSD users?
> Apple and MicroSoft might be both playing "Football" but one uses and round ball
> and the other enlogated one.
Lets word it a little differently:
Microsoft and Apple might both be playing "Football" but you can play with Microsoft in just any stadium all over the world, and with Apple only strictly in their own stadium, where the tickets cost about twice as much.
Have you ever seen a winner team _NEVER_ leaving its own stadium and refusing to play with anybody else outside? Me neither.
I've seen teams require a regulation sized ball and a regulation sized field with paid and licenced officials to enforce the rules.
Microsoft can field a team anywhere for any field. But it most likely won't be a winning team of super stars.
Linux, BSD, and OSX have specific uses (Linux and BSD more so than OSX) and they shine at them. In my mind that's the difference. I don't want a whole team, I just want a really good Linebacker.
Most F/OSS I know of has capital-letter support build right in instead of being a value-added option you obviously were too cheap to spring for. You had to cut'n'paste to get "M$" into your post, didn't you?
This is not my sandwich.
I never realized that a total lack of capitalization would make my eyes bleed.
/.ers give MS not to mention how there is general doubt to their historical practices, the possible ills of corporatism and doubt in just what the "big guy" is really capable of. It reminds me of the end of The Hobbit where the younger generation in Laketown began to doubt whether there really was a dragon in the Lonely Mt.
Why criticize a monopoly? Please review the rise of the corporation in the early part of the 20th century and pay close attention to such men as J.D. Rockefella. Surely, you too would have a problem with one guy being worth 1/42 of the Gross National Product of The United States of America. Bill Gates is so poised (note: "poised")....
Innovation? Sure, ok, but for every innovation MS has created they've johnny-come-latedly, assimulated, stolen and bought out another 10 (cough*maps.google.com*cough).
I am increasingly surprised at the slack some
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Hehehehehe .... I agree. Dear parent commenter ... since when giving a different name to your OS (Windows, Linux, Mac OS X ....) makes them get classified on their own? They are all OS's. One big category! And over here we are even talking about a smaller subcategory... desktop OS's!! How do windows and mac os x fall in different categories? And come splurting out at me any Apple PR!
"I just want a Unix-like OS without a revolution packaged with it"
That's the biggest difference between the BSD and Linux camps, as far as I can tell.
The BSD folks want a free UNIX-like system, and want to make the best UNIX-like system they can. That's what they develop, and that's what they want to use. That's also what most BSD users are looking for in the first place.
Meanwhile, most of the Linux users I run into (at local LUGs, anyways), use Linux because they're fed up with Microsoft, Windows, or something related to the two. Their initial motivation for trying Linux was simply "I want to try this thing that isn't Windows, and I like it."
As an aside, when I first started using Linux, I wasn't looking for a Windows-replacement. It was the mid-90s, and I had my first introduction to UNIX (at a computer camp, ok I'm a total geek) on a SCO system. I thought it was pretty cool, and asked around as to whether there was anything like it I could get myself. Someone mentioned Linux, and the rest was history.
Many years later, in college, I was introduced to FreeBSD. What I liked about it was that it resembled everything I liked about Linux back in the mid 90's, only done MUCH better. Instead of trying (and often failing) to be end-user friendly, FreeBSD tries to be command-line-geek-user friendly, and does a good job at it.
how many people do you employ? how much do you pay in taxes? how many people use your software to run their businesses, etc.
... how much do you think microsoft windows is worth??! ... all these features AND REVERSI! all for just... how much did you guess?? 500?? a 1000?? even more??? no!!! it's 99$, it's an incredible value but it's true! It's Windows from Microsoft, order today, P.O. Box, 286 D.O.S.,
Steve Ballmer: How much DO YOU think this advanced operating environment is worth?!
EXCEPT IN NEBRASKA!
I know it's not a free download...
But there already is an easy to use BSD for the desktop. It's called Mac OS X.
Yes. Yes. I know it only runs on Apple hardware (at this point).
- dj
I've been working on one. I think it will be released in 1 to 2 years.
I think I'd rather try other flavors of linux before taking BSD for a spin,
Honestly...why on earth would you say that unless you're a total harcore linux zealot? That's like saying "I drive a white Camaro with fabric interior, and I'd rather test-drive a green one with leather seats rather than try that WRX STi instead" - different distros are pretty much just varied top-ends on the same chassis, while BSD is a totally different OS with a different way of doing things. Expand your horizons, man.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
This is one of the reasons why most home users have problems with Windows - everyone has admin access.
Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
Would pressuring a customer's own customers to switch to another distributor out of retaliation be considered screwing a customer?
Here are several selected paragraphs from the following document that presents and entirely different picture of the first company you mention (but consider its source, the 2nd company you mentioned, when judging its content):
PDF - http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downl oadableAssets/AMD-Intel_Full_Complaint.pdf
HTML - http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:BK_UrlmGznsJ: www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downloadable Assets/AMD-Intel_Full_Complaint.pdf+amd+pdf+intel& hl=en&lr=lang_en
>>openly admited that the high-end graphic cards were priced according to what people would pay for them
Oooh! "openly admitted" it did he?
Listen genius - important fact comming up: -
EVERY product and service is priced according to what the market is prepared to pay for it!
But in your world, I suppose I'll just have to sell my product for 20% less than people are prepared for it. A fine way to run a business that would be.
The CEO in question is a CEO because he understands these basic facts. You on the other hand are just a clueless moron.
Why do good developers make little spin offs like this instead of just contributing to FreeBSD to help it be a better desktop OS?
The point you missed is that the Linux Kernel is licensed under the same license as many of the software programs that come with BSD systems. The great-grandparent post was saying that he did not want to be part of the revolution. The Grandparent says, "too bad" you are probably running GPL software somewhere.
So why are you using those items of GPL'd code then???
You completely missed the point... It's because I don't give a damn about the trivial differences between the GPL and the BSDL. Hard concept. As far as licenses are concerend all I really care about from a user standpoint is that it's open and doesn't restrict my use of the software.
Hey now, don't reach too far, that Holy Grail of verbal sophistry just isn't worth it, Brunhilde.
To use "in common with others" means that you and others draw from the same pool. There is absolutely no implication of a return.
You don't share so you can get something out of it -- you share because it's the right thing to do. Imposing debt is not sharing.
So when one uses QtCurve to make a native KDE application look like a GTK one that makes the KDE app a GTK application and vice versa?
Now I conclude you write no code at all - You shuldn't anyway. Please google QtCurve and convince me that what it does is converting a KDE app into a GTK app and vice versa depending on results.
Take a look at http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=5 065
and look at those posted images. Once you are satisfied with yourself, tell me what you think is going on.
This is where HAL comes in. (Cue the 2001 jokes.) It's pretty new, so it's mostly being used for things like auto-mounting devices in KDE and GNOME currently; but tools like GNOME Power Manager are starting to be built on top of it.
Right now it's Linux-only, but AFAIK there's nothing that inherently prevents it from being ported to one of the BSDs.
I've no problem with regulation of monopolies. the argument was the "money grabbbing..." yada yada crap. i agree microsoft is hardly an innovative company. and their tactics have done more to stifle than promote innovation. no argument here.
by the way, I teach history and am well aware of the rise of the corporation. which by the way, was not capitalism. it wasn't even close.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
You may install OOo from packages (that's it, you don't have to compile the whole thing). Lack of Java support? What do you mean? There's Java support for FreeBSD (have your checked java/jdk14 or java/jdk15?). Have you really tried FreeBSD??? BTW, FreeBSD isn't just a kernel, it's a *complete* OS.
I love BSD in general, find it fast, solid, and so forth. However, in exploring it not that long ago, I found one glaring omission was journaling file system support. There was some incomplete early version, which was not under active development, and that was it.
Can anyone comment on this?
(It had kick-ass volume manager support in Vinum, long before Linux had it's volume manager; but it seems Linux has leapfrogged BSD in this area, too.)
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Well, I will not go toe-to-toe with a history teacher. I do appreciate the reply and clarification. Modern business, economics, etc. is indeed a balance. Too much government stifles/too little creates oligarchy.
am well aware of the rise of the corporation. which by the way, was not capitalism.
Yes, but was it capitalization?
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
good news, the corporations where I worked 75% of the users hadn't bothered to put any effort into learning Windows either, they know the basics of operating exactly zero operating systems, so they are still free to learn one system.
I am curious as to how your actually pay for your food and shelter? Since you obviously are above "money grubbing". Are you getting manna from heaven and living under a blessed sky? Oh, wait, dumb me. You mean that anyone BUT you collecting money is "money grubbing". Right. Silly me.
Linux is just a kernel, if we're talking about "operating sytems" the BSD and Linux distros mostly have the same stuff and capabilities and run 95% the same apps. Most open source developers work on things that would run on any Unix, and over half of them on stuff that can run under windows either natively or under a posix library. BSD has had the head start too, and there's BSD ideas and code in most modern OS.
"See the infamous GNU echo joke."
The infamous true(1) joke:
The full documentation for true is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If
the info and true programs are properly installed at your site, the
command
info coreutils true
should give you access to the complete manual.
Thats exactly what PC-BSD allows you to do. It lets you download self-extracting / installing pacakges, and install just like windows / mac.
now, i'm no fan of microsoft, but tell me this: . . . how much do you pay in taxes?
A lot more than Microsoft, it appears.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
HP offers its cheapest machines as Windows only.
c _category.do?catLevel=1&storeName=computer_store&t emplate_type=computer_store&landing=desktops&categ ory=hp_pavilion&aoid=1425
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/generi
'If you posted your comment to a developer mailing list, if there'd be any reply at all, it would be along the lines of, "No. That's ridiculous. Stop getting in the way of our work." Though perhaps more polite.'
Hah! You obviously don't visit any OpenBSD lists!
From the installer:
You need at least one user to log in to your system. All users created are administrators
That strikes me as a questionable decision with no clear advantage, and definite potential security implications...
A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
Yea, but does it come with the sound driver installed, or do you still have to recompile the kernel for it
For most of the mid 80s to mid 90s, every year you could count on some major prediction that next year would be the year of the network. Never happened, without any explosive growth networks ended up anywhere.
Because a "Release Candidate" is exactly that, it should not "suck". If a phd candidate sucked, do you think they would get the phd?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Sorry mate you're talking out of it. I've never found any better way then apt under debian (maybe with a pretty gui front end or summat). ,horror, learn a small simple thing and they're just too lazy.
Think the Windows Way is best? Go on clean an old (18 months) windows box up I dare you.
This is half the problem, there is nothing really wrong with, apt-get etc except that people have to
And before anyone sais "why should I have to learn this or that?" I'll bet you have driving licence. Did you want that. No. You wanted to go places and see things and people. but you had to learn to drive first.
Not interested in learning? Good, go away and play poo sticks.
welshmnt
http://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/desktopbsd/DesktopBSD-1. 0-RC2-x86-CD.iso.torrent
From slide #4, at http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?re lease=403&slide=4
"Please take the time to carefully through all texts and explanations..."
LOL!
Please take the time to carefully through all texts and explanations because improper... How about proofing your installation screens!
Does it make it easier to make bash the default shell than FreeBSD does? (Hate to have to edit a config for that). [I checked the site.]
Looks nice. I shifted from Mandrake to Kubuntu, but still remember how sweetly puter ran 4 years ago on FreeBSD.
I agree, why show KDE screenshots when I would rather be seeing the diff's.
peace, mark
> The Grandparent says, "too bad" you are probably
> running GPL software somewhere.
It also forgot to mention that his wallpaper is diplayed by Xorg or XFree86 servers, which are MIT (read: BSD like) licensed.
So I'm supposed to be thankful because a lot of shmucks work at microsoft and therefore help the economy..?
I doubt very much that these corporations are the reason we aren't still living in mud huts. Who's to say a society founded entirely upon scientific research wouldn't have been better?
Corporations have NOBODYS interests at heart - hell, even the CEOs of massive companies can get laid off (albeit with huge payola).
Until big companies like Microsoft and IBM and Exxon actually give a damn about my welfare or well-being, not just the pocket where my wallet is kept, then I'll give a damn about them (maybe) but until then, I call your bluff sir!
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
I'm not on your "team" and I don't use BSD in order to defeat the "proprietary OSs like M$ Vista and Apple OS X."
I use BSD because I like UNIX. I could care less what Microsoft and Apple are doing because I don't use either one of them.
I don't give a shit about the whole GPL vs BSD license crap either. Nothing against linux but I have better things to do with my time than sit around trying to get linux running as well as my bsd machines already are. If linux starts to offer me something that I can't do on bsd then I might switch, but not because linux is more popular and has a "better license".
Don't take me wrong. I am glad that linux was created and spawned a lot of great software that I can use on BSD.
I just can't quantify moving from an OS that is working fine to a new OS, just because other people think that I should.
That's why I love a saying I've mentioned here on Slashdot:
BSD is for people who love UNIX.
Linux is for people who hate Microsoft.
I've always found a lot of truth in that.
(credit to whoever said it or had it in their sig)
Slackware
actually, KDE and most other free software projects also run on non-Unix-compatible systems, namely Windows.
the source code is available for the exact purpose of allowing you to do anything with it, including porting to other platforms.
I don't feel like it...
because "talk about bloat :)" was funny?
"The only BIG problem left is easy, next-next-finish style, standart installation packages across every distro. But hopefully they'll handle this one too."
I agree, this is a big one. I think the best system is the one OS X uses, application folders.
I like the fact that DesktopBSD has helpful "control panels" and configuration/installation wizards, it's good stuff.
However, PC-BSD has application folders and that's why I'm going with that. I just think it's the most usable system of progam installation and more importantly, the easiest system for getting RID of programs. Getting rid of a program that's installed it's files all over your HD demands the help of a thing called a package manager or "uninstall wizard" which need a perfect log of where all the little files were installed to.
In practice, the perfect installation log system is never perfect. It happens that it's either not recorded correctly or something changed after the installation which causes the uninstall to fail. If you want to be SURE you just install every program into it's own folder and you'll know that you've gotten rid of everything if you see the folder gone. It's conceptually easier to get your head around and it's just more usable in practice (drag the folder to another PC and it's "installed" there).
Hopefully DesktopBSD will see the light, they're doing well in every other departement.
Good luck guys.
- -- Truth addict for life.
I'm a FreeBSD developer.
We do get stuff back from many of the commercial derivates, because it's beneficial for all parties (including the people that's done the commercial derivates). It helps merges, and most often the code that commercials write is because they need the functionality for something, and that functionality isn't the core of their product, so they give it back.
For example, our entire SCSI subsystem came from a company producing embedded video hardware.
You know what would have happened if they didn't have the freedom to keep some of the changes proprietary? They'd have licensed something like vxWorks, and FreeBSD would get nothing.
Companies only do work when they see a profit in doing the work, either in the form of decreasing work, community goodwill, increased hardware sales, happier employees, or whatever.
Thus, those that "take FreeBSD and keep their changes proprietary" would otherwise not have made those changes. We've not lost anything. The world has gained, become richer. And, most often, parts of these changes come back to FreeBSD - or some of the developers of them do other changes that come back - so we gain directly from them.
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
hawk, running and ducking
>(somewhat dated info).
. . . must . . . resist . . .
nope, can't do it.
Now, it would hardly be appropriate to use up to date information when talking about Debian packages, would it???
hawk
Yeah it's called POSIX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX
It seems that (some) people who write on Linux like to make use of Linux-only features.
All the BSDs are great, recent Solaris versions are decent too, I don't find Solaris or Tru64 to be any worse than linux at least. HPUX has the single worst userland of any unix I have used, it is painfully outdated, lacks tons of functionality, and just plain blows.
Apple released Darwin for Intel long ago...it's rather strange that no one has started a Desktop distribution with it.
I will never, ever, ever, ever make a song about the FreeSIBE.
/Strong Bad
///My bad.
//Oops this isn't Fark
i'd love to try it out.. the website says DesktopBSD 1.0 is out.. but there's absolutely no information about it.. you cant download it.. you can't do shit.. where is it!! where's the content!!
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Yes... BSD + GNUStep would be extremely nice combination. I tried GNUStep a few weeks ago and it really is promising from technical point of view. However there is one really huge problem: lack of GNUStep software. No development/desktop environment is of any good if there are no native apps that run on it!
We can only hope that awesome ideas from NextStep/GNUStep are some day "assimilated" into GNOME.
what a noble and charitable soul. or at least he sounds like it...
I don't feel like it...
> I do not understand this completely illogical behaviour, worshiping a company that is effectively holding the KDE development community to ransom and choking commercial development.
You're right, it is illogical.
It's just like the many other things involving Qt and Trolltech that appear to be contradictory and illogical, such as:
- Why do so many posters praise the lock-in distributions, like Xandros, Mepis, and Linspire, while truly Open Source distributors, like Red Hat, get little praise, and lots of criticism?
- Why do so many posters promote distributions like Xandros and Mepis, when surveys show them to have only a tiny market share, compared to truly popular distributions like Red Hat, Fedora, and Debian?
- Why has there never been a negative article about a Qt-based product or distribution in a Microsoft-friendly publication? There have been lots of negative articles about Red Hat, and Linux in general, but never about the KDE-desktop distributions.
- If they really are Open Source supporters, why do the posters defending Qt (and KDE on Qt) constantly use distraction and straw-man arguments, instead of dealing with the dangers of Qt (lock-in for proprietary Qt-based software) head on?
- If they really are Open Source supporters, then why do the Qt defenders lie about what RMS said? He did _not_ say that the GPL is always preferred over the LGPL. He said the GPL is preferred when there is no alternative proprietary library, otherwise use the LGPL. With Qt, not only is there a proprietary alternative, but Trolltech chose the GPL in order to force proprietary Qt developers to use the proprietary license -- exactly the opposite of what RMS wants.
- Why was one of the architects of the SCO attack on Linux (backed by Microsoft) sitting on Trolltech's board of directors? Why was his leaving immediately followed by a major investment by an investment firm involved in other lock-in schemes (MySQL and Skype)?
- Why has Microsoft never punished Wal-mart and its supplier for carrying KDE-based Linspire? Also, when Wal-mart added a more desktop-neutral distribution (Mandrake) following the initial outcry, why was that distribution hidden from view and hard to find on Wal-mart's website (also more expensive), while Linspire was featured prominently?
- Why do posters portray FreeDesktop as an attempt at true interoperability between KDE and Gnome, when it really involves running Gnome on top of Qt?
- What was the point in spending the time to create Kubuntu, when there are already so many alternative KDE-based distributions? In fact, given that so many distributions are KDE-only, what was wrong with having just one Gnome-only distribution?
- Why was it so important to some central KDE developers to have Qt included with the initial install of UserLinux, when its Debian underpinnings make it so easy to install Qt? And why, as supposed Open Source developers, were they arguing that Qt was necessary to support the _commercial_ Qt applications?
And on, and on, and on.
All of these incidents, and many more, appear to be contradictory and mysterious. But all the contradictions and mysteries go away if you assume one fact, namely...
Trolltech is attempting to lock-in Linux users with proprietary middleware (Qt, when used with proprietary Qt applications). This involves making sure that Qt is tied to everything, including Gnome (FreeDesktop), Ubuntu (Kubuntu), Mozilla (QtMozilla), and so on. Trolltech is using the GPL'd version of Qt to hide their scheme, and uses astroturf to promote their scheme, and silence any objections.
And behind them, you might find Microsoft.
capitalization, yes. anything that uses capital to produce goods is capitalization. was it in society's best interest? no. anything that stifles competition and free market adjustment of prices needs control. if it's electricity, an economy of scale, a natural monopoly, then it needs regulation. if it's not, railroads, etc., whether through legal or illegal, ethical or not, means, it needs to be broken up. the economy as a whole should not be held captive to a single entity. likewise, no industry, or firm, is deserving of special consideration. if some rise, some fail, that's the market. belly aching and tear jerking stories to asshole demagogues in wshington only seves to screw up the market as much as vanderbilt and his briefcase full of money. it sounds cruel, but so what if say, an auto worker loses his job, three other tech jobs have been created. job security and protection also slow innovation, growth, and progress. capitalism is a bitch, but it beats any other.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
I've used both Linux and FBSD for years. If you are the type of person who uses applications to do a job (which is the *real* reason for an OS), they both are fine and you won't have any qualms with either. Bear in mind I haven't used FBSD ever since the release of 5.x series
As a side comment, I'm using SuSe 9.3 and for some reason the IBM ThinkPad "nipple" results in the pointer in X going out of control (I resort to an external USB mouse which apparently works properly). I can't find this error in any source of documentation anywhere. Is this a problem found in the current FBSD 5.x crop?
I said that the Linux/FreeDOS models were the business PC's and they start at under $400.
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/1245 4-64287-89301-321860-f50-401819.html
I never said that the cheapest models were availabe with Linux, I just pointed out that the original Boycott post was full of crap when he said that HP, Dell, Gateway are "refusing to offer CONSUMERS a non-Microsoft choice".
It's pretty tiring to keep hearing all the whining about the fact that a high-demand, volume product is cheaper than a low-demand niche product - Duh!
It's also pretty stupid to to claim that there is no competition (for hardware) or that it is difficult to get computer hardware with no OS. With the enourmous amount of hardware available online, plus the clones shops in strip malls every 5 miles in all major cities, there is absolutely no excuse for not being able to get the PC hardware you want.
If you want all of this, plus a name brand, you have to pay a bit more for it, but not much more. In fact the reason the name brand PC's are as cheap as they are is because there is SO MUCH PC hardware available - So what's the problem?!?!?
If you resent the way the big PC hardware companies do business, then why would you want their name brand logo on your PC in the first place?
If we buy a nice video card it should imply that we want to use it.
I get a good laugh when I read someone suggesting to disable acceleration when a particular Linux distribution or other OS can't get the acceleration to work. The correct answer should be that you are running a shit distribution or give some help with some ideas on how to fix that major bug.
I'll believe it when I see my mom install it on her own. However, this is the nicest looking OS install program I've seen for *nix _ever_.
/etc/unimportantstuff/importantstuff/obscure.conf
I still have serious doubt's about it being at all usable for the average user. I can't believe that they've gotten rid of having to manually input undocumented variables into the config file hidden at.
you know. All the stuff that's childs play for the devs because they wrote it themselves, but that they never simplified for anyone else because they're lazy.
POSIX is great, but it doesn't go far enough. POSIX + LSB + FreeDesktop.org is more like what I'm talking about, but even it's just a start!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Here is what Richard Stallman actually said:
"Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library."
He then gives the GNU C library as an example where the LGPL was used, for the above reason.
The Qt library is another example where commercial developers, rather than being encouraged to GPL their software, simple choose to use Qt under a proprietary license. This is the exact opposite of what RMS wants to happen, and the Trolltech defenders know it.
The FreeBSD source code tree is a "common" resource. It remains no matter how many people take from it. It remains no matter how many people do not reciprocate. It remains common. That is sharing.
This is much different from putting fence around it, with a little gate, and a reciprocity agreement you must assent to before entering.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Why is it ten thousand SUVs can drive around Palo Alto with a "somewhere in Texas..." bumper sticker, and no one cares. But when you use a "somewhere in Massaschusetts..." sig, then suddenly people get offended?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
"I call your bluff sir!"
LOL You are kidding right?
How in the hell do you think you society of scientists are going to get funding? Everyone in the world is not altruistic.
find me a Linux distro that even understands the concept of base OS
Here it is
HTH
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
See, that's another thing -- HAL is great, but GNOME Power Manager is just stupid. Why? Because it's GNOME-specific! It's this needless and arbitrary fragmentation that's the problem. They should have just made a "Power Manager" that would work happily with GNOME, KDE, or plain X.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Competition is good. Capitalism is good. Companies that have a monopoly and can therefore afford to treat their customers like crap is bad.
Look at WPA. If there was an OS that was comparable to windows (including ease-of-use, hardware support, software selection,and "polish") when XP came out, Microsoft would possibly not have had the balls to release XP with WPA. But why do we have WPA right now? Because M$ has most people by the short-and-curlies. Oh, and how about their attempted lock on office file formats? I do not dislike M$ for seeking profit. I dislike them for treating my like a source of money to be squeezed, instead of as a valued customer. If I give a company money, I expect a certain amount of respect in return. I expect to be appreciated as a customer. M$, on the other hand, seems rather disdainful of their customers.
Another analogy. Ms. Linux is fairly pretty, and very nice. She does not even mind being the "other woman." You have to know how to talk to her properly, but she is usually very amiable.
Ms. Windows, on the other hand, is rather rigid. It is easy to work and play with her, but on HER terms. She is drop-dead beutiful, but she has a mean streak. She once thought that you might have been cheating with Ms. Linux, and she tried to stab Ms. Linux with a buther knife. She has physically threatened you if you ever try to leave her.
Linux is definatley getting better. Ubuntu, when paired with the "Unofficial add-on CD" is the first distro that I feel like I could actually use on a daily basis.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
mud huts were certainly an exaggeration. and yes, corporations are not all warm and fuzzies. but...the point i was trying to make was this: without the ability to earn a profit, seek rewards from hard work and entrepreneurialism, and the freedom to be free of government confiscation, economies, and yes, people will suffer. no business should care about your welfare, only about satisfying your needs and wants. big difference. likewise, you should feel no concern for any firm. if firm A is priced too high, products too poor, then find firm B with lower prices and better products. now, monopolies screw up the market and MUST be regulated by the government. corporatism is not capitalism. in fact, it's the opposite. i believe in the free market's ability to be the fairest, most efficient system. all others fail miserably.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Not everyone who uses Linux is a zealot. I originally tried Linux when I was playing around with all sorts of OS's (mostly the DOS clones like X-DOS, FreeDOS, etc). This was back in 1996 or so. I downloaded Debian onto a bunch of floppies (14 IIRC) and installed it onto my 486 (I had just moved to a Pentium on my main system and had the 486 as a spare). I initially found it way too odd and deleted it after a few days and just put Win 3.1 back on the machine. I knew absolutely nothing about Unix back then and didn't have Internet access yet so there wasn't much I could do.
2 years later I tried Mandrake and liked it (it was just easy enough to let somebody get it in and useable). About 3 years after that I switched from Mandrake to Slackware. Used that for 3 more years until switching to Gentoo which I'm currently using.
These tend to work well for me, and helped me out a LOT when I was in college since our university used all Solaris machines in the labs so I had a Unix environment back in my room to use when necessary.
All those years of using Linux though make it seem like the "right" way to do things. I know enough to work with other OS's like Solaris or FreeBSD (I actually admin a FreeBSD-based server at work), but just because of lack of experience I never feel as comfortable as I do on a Linux system. It's as simple as that. No idealogy or anything behind it. Linux is what I know so I stick with it.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
There is a seed of an idea. Will it run on my Banana JR?
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Sure, from what I hear it will come free with every Intel Mac.
I do, but I put the politeness part in there for non-OBSD lists. :-)
GNU = GNU is not Unix.
Hell, if you don't want Unix then might as well use Windows. ;)
DesktopBSD - That's nice. I'd like my computer to be practical, however. I don't mind replacing Windows XP, but the replacement better justify itself... if I can't run my preferred programs, then there's no point to any of it.
With that in mind, how do I run AVID DV on this KDE system? If the answer is "through an emulator"... then there's no point in switching. How do I run the barrage of applications (Adobe Suite, Sorensen Encoder, Media Cleaner Pro, etc) that I've mastered over the years?
Hmm... DesktopBSD... a nice play toy. Well, excuse me now... time to get back to *work*.
LSB is stupid. You won't find a lot of Linux distros conforming to it (and with good reason), and, it'll be a cold day in hell before any BSD will.
LSB is a dumb standard. Some of the stuff in the standard, for example, mandates broken non-POSIX-compliant GNU behavior. It also mandates broken solutions to problems, such as SysV-style init and RPM packaging. It standardizes things which should be up to the vendor. If everyone adopted the LSB, it would turn all software into the worst common denominator of Linux. That's bad.
Delete is supposed to be an erasing backspace. Note: back, not forward.
Emacs gets delete right, some web browsers get delete wrong.
BSD normally uses FFS (fast file system), which has had "Soft Updates" for years.http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceed ings/usenix99/mckusick.html
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceed ings/usenix2000/general/seltzer.html
Does Linux support FFS with Soft Updates?
So short of the configuration GUI needing to be re-implemented for each desktop environment, there's not really any fragmentation going on there.
You really don't get it, do you? Standardizing the GUI is the most important part!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
FreeBSD is quite easy to administer. A great thing about FreeBSD is rc.conf. One configuration file which will manage a ton of services. Not 6 init levels to manage (although chkconfig does this well). I had great luck with vinum for software raid support. We had six disks spiining in one file server and when one went down vinum made it easy to recover.
I would not like to see FreeBSD turn into a GNU/Linux type of experience. They both have their strengths and nicities. There are time when you need GNU/Linux and time you want something else. FreeBSD is a great alternative.
And well, there is that uptime holy war ... (don't mean to troll) but check this out: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html BSD have the top 20+ in uptime. What does this prove? Well that they are easy to manage. Put the box up and forget about it. No 100 reboots and services are available.
"They say travel broadens the mind, so I went over the falls in a barrel." -Thomas Dolby
Yes, I'm aware that LSB is stupid. However, it's an example of the kind of standard that we need, and how much it needs to specify.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
What's so hard about typing "make install" or pkg_add -r software-package? Maybe I'm not understanding you?
Certainly my post has some anger in it but I swear it's because It's been a complaint for years. =) Anyway... RPM's or other Binary formats really are only offered for a portion of the software out there. And then there are different formats among those that don't seem to work so well. So really recent stuff is offered in source first and I understand that is the best way to install. Then they make RPM's and other binaries that when clicked give you /lib errors or someother dependancy. There are lots of "package managers" out there and many even claim to resolve dependency issues... yet they simply just don't work with reliablity in my experience. Maybe if every Linux varient could all pick the same one it could go someplace but it hasn't happened yet that I'm aware.
.nix type OS's yet. (That aren't comercial)
The tricky thing in my experience of Linux so far is that if anything goes wronge... I really don't know how to fix it. So I get an error.. and I'm left to simply say... Shucks. Und you get errors a lot.
Knowledge is key to fixing this... but it really is a task. I can get on an Apple machine and go to town... I can get on a BeOS machine and go to town (and LOVE it)... and windows too of course... but I haven't found a reliable way to really play a lot with
I am Jack's HTTP Server
http://linuxcertified.com/freebsd-lc2210d.html
To put it another way, BSD waives almost all its rights under copyright; GPL puts more conditions on the granting of rights, but it's still sharing - you're just not allowed to act like a bully on the playground.
I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, standardising the API is the most important, so things have a tendency to break the same way on all systems. A standard GUI will help very little for most people unless the GUIs are very very different, so instructions given don't make sense.
im in ur
I don't see why we need a standard to specify, for example, that each POSIX thread must have its own PID, and that each thread should have its own unique set of signal handlers, as that is broken behavior. I'm not sure if it's in the current version, but when I looked at it, these behaviors were specified in the standard just because glibc was broken.
And unfortunately, many take that saying as flaimbait. However, it couldn't be more true. If you just go to a LUG, and ask (or wait for introductions) "how/why did you get started with Linux?", just about everyone will give a reason that somehow touches on looking for an alternative to MS. (not everyone, but most of them)
;) (and, like many of us, even have recently gone the Apple route)
Maybe that's why many Linux people are "afraid of other UNIXes, because they're different from their precious GNU/Linux", while many BSD people often also like using systems like Solaris.
Of course once the "love of UNIX" and the "hatred of Microsoft" combine, you have people like me who will do anything to avoid Windows when possible
Userland refers to the non-kernel parts of the OS. Not whatever 3rd party applications that you choose to install.
KDE has nothing to do with this, find, grep, ifconfig, route, netstat, man pages, config files, etc, etc, etc are what the problem is.
And neither debian nor ubuntu make a distinction between the base OS and locally installed packages. Please try a BSD so you understand for yourself before making nonsense comments like this.
If you resent the way the big PC hardware companies do business, then why would you want their name brand logo on your PC in the first place?
I don't think they wanted a major brand logo. I think they were suggesting a boycott because they didn't like the business practices.
Free enterpise sucks doesn't it?
Sorry, friend, you are in error. GPL zealots say BSD is not free because they like software to be free, not people to be free. And BSD is open.. Lookie here - http://www.opensource.org/licenses
Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from other posts such as last night.
larryvagina@gmail.com
Try reading the thread again, your posts have made no sense, have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and you just insist on repeating your nonsense as if that's somehow a response to criticism. Saying you knew better, and you were intentionally making bullshit comments to try to trivialize BSDs isn't better than just being uninformed. Nobody asked if you use unix tools or not, and it has nothing to do with what the original poster asked.
The original post said nothing about what kind of users, or what desktop environment they like. A guy asked "what does it matter, its just a different kernel?". I explained that its actually a whole coherent OS, not just the kernel. You then made stupid remarks about KDE for no apparent reason.
Wether you made uninformed comments, or as you now claim you knew the difference, but just made moronic comments doesn't matter. Your reply was either ignorant or a deliberate lie, and nothing you have said in your repeated replies changes that.
And your opinion of BSD users reflects more on you than on BSD. Notice how you as a linux user are actively trashing both BSD and linux distros you don't like in your posts, but complaining about BSD users trashing linux. If you don't want to use BSD that's fine, but don't spread lies and bullshit then, and quit being such a hypocrite.
Could you elaborate on what exatly a "userland" is and of what it is comprised?
I don't know how to make this any clearer for you. NOBODY ASKED ABOUT KDE, OR END USERS, OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE BEEN BLATHERING ABOUT.
Like I said, read the thread. Someone asked why anyone would care since its just a different kernel, I explained what else was different besides the kernel. You made nonsense posts that have nothing to do with anything. I don't understand how you can still be confused about this. Your posts were purely trying to pretend that the BSDs userlands don't matter and are just like linux's. So not only do you disparage BSDs, but you are too biased to even realize it.
And the BSDs only use the GNU toolchain (gcc, gdb, gas), no other GNU utilities are in there. So yes, there is a very big difference. And nobody is happy that they have to use gcc, its just such a big undertaking to write a replacement toolchain that nobody has done it.
And I actually made it quite clear that linux does not suck. I said the crap that every distro packages with linux sucks. This is not a flaw of linux, and if someone cared they could make a good linux distro using a nice userland. But anyone who wants that just uses a BSD.
why is it that people bitch up and down about "evil M$
Simple. Take IE6 for example. M$ has dominated the desktop by virtue of its criminal monopoly to the extent that its crippled browser has remained the dominant browser by a 90% margin since its release 5 years ago. In that time web development has gone through a dark age which will continue until the IE6 user base dwindles. Since users of Windows 98, ME and 2000 won't be "allowed" to upgrade that means IE6 will cast its shadow for at least another 5 years. I call that evil.
The problem with standardized GUIs is that they suit no one. You have many camps and they all have valid points:
1. Luser - I want it to work just like Windows because it's all I know
2. Bearded Unix God - GUIs are only for being able to display multiple xterms that can be seen simultaneously. If GNU screen could do that, I'd drop X.
3. Eye Candy Addicts (me) - But dammit the Windows GUI looks like crap and Apple's GUI is too limiting. Give me the power and lightness of Enlightenment!!
4. Bean Counters - X uses too much memory as it is. I think we should do away with all window managers but twm. Why do I need 32-bit gradients and drop shadows on my desktop? I just want to work dammit!
5. X Windows is teh suck - X Windows (should be "X Window System" folks) sucks because it's slow and it's slow because it sends everything over the network even if your apps are local! Get rid of network transparency!! Get rid of X and replace it with something more like what Windows has!!!
6. The politician - GNOME is preferable over KDE because it's licensing is purer in FOSS terms and it's part of the GNU project which believes in true freedom.
7. The self proclaimed pragmatist - KDE is prefereable over GNOME because it is more user friendly, customizable and has much better integration between applications due to the uase of C++.
You can't please all these people with a stanardized GUI. Basically, this is never going to go away. You might get the majority of people to adopt one GUI as a "standard", but it's not going to be like the stunted Windows/Macintosh worlds. There are going to be other distributions that will package different GUIs as their default. My perfect OS distro would be something that runs on PPC, is 64-bit, uses Enlightement 17 as it's default environment, with GNOME filling in where there are no Enlightenment apps, would be based on the GNU/HURD. Obviously there isn't anything like that, and there isn't likely to be unless I build it. The diversity is a good thing because one size does not fit all.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
True, everybody wants a different look-and-feel, but there's no reason we can't all use the same toolkit so that at least all the programs will run!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I think the idea is to standardise what is already common practice. The LSB people could have sat down and codified everything according to How It Should Be -- but no one would have used it.