Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD Vows to Compete with Desktop Linux
AlanS2002 writes "FreeBSD developer Scott Long is being reported as saying that FreeBSD is quickly approaching feature parity with Linux. Apparently this is being achieved through efforts to more tightly integrate GNOME with FreeBSD, with one of the priorities being to 'GNOME's hardware abstraction layer--which handles hardware-specific code--working with FreeBSD'."
I though BSD already has beaten Linux to the Desktop Market.
OS X core (darwin) is based off of FreeBSD. Or they are trying to beat linux by doing it the way that linux is trying to win, by focusing on technology that isn't that important to standard desktop users. getting most of the development effort in useless eye-candy and only minimum development in important features for desktop users like easy hardware detection for a wide variety of hardware, Brainless software installation, excellent wireless support...
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Anyway only with Gnome they have no chance. Where is KDE?
Wasnt the goal of BSD to be secure and reliable, like debian, only moreso? How come now they're "competing with desktop Linux" ?
To head off some confusion: This isn't about the FreeBSD base system; it's about third party code (like GNOME and KDE) in the FreeBSD ports tree. The FreeBSD base system already has feature parity with Linux (ok, there are a few things Linux has which we don't, but there are also things we have and Linux doesn't) -- the problem now is to get groups like GNOME and KDE to use the features we're making available to them.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
"the problem now is to get groups like GNOME and KDE to use the features we're making available to them."
Exactly. When is KDE/Gnome going to use the features of SELinux? Metadata? ACLs?
Compete with DESKTOP Linux? Shouldn't they aim a little higher, compete with OS/2???
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
You've got a point. I for myself been struggling with GNOME for a while now and it clearly doesn't get my work done. Nothing really works and finally I decided to switch over to KDE and found myself confortable with a working desktop.
I'll give you an example of just how poor their hardware config tools are. My system is 5 years old, includes a Sound Blaster PCI16 audio card, NIC uses the Tulip Driver, Via Chipset and under freebsd it's impossible to configure the sound card withouth rebuilding a kernel? and I've never succeeded in even getting started on rebuilding the kernel. Another issue is why in hell don't they use DMA access to drives as yet? All 4 drives in my system all offer DMA access and they can't bother to run hdparm automagically and enable that feature? That's idiotic as it provides such a performance boost to the system.
What the need to do is enable audio support in the kernel and use Alsa instead of reinventing the wheel as they're trying to do and yes I do know that the entire project derived from a server environment where sound wasn't a concern. At least they did the right thing and used Xfree so the video support is available to those who need it.
Now if they'd spend some time developing the needed hardware configuration tools and ease the audio/video/misc hardware issue by taking it out of their kernel and using existing modular projects "Use the Modules Luke", maybe they'd finally get somewhere.
Of course it is :) otherwise they have nothing desktop once they realize how miserable GNOME sucks :) It's actually a good idea to help them port GNOME, so even FreeBSD people know how much it sucks.
To bet for Desktop? Is it that it is going to stop betting in Servers' topics? I do not understand in order that it wants to bet for Desktop if his clients are for the most part for Servers' use, is it what already it does not see future only to bet for clients dedicated to Servers?
In 1908, the Ford company released the Ford Model T. The first Model Ts were built at the Piquette Manufacturing Plant. The company moved production to the much larger Highland Park Plant to keep up with the demand for the Model T, and by 1913 had developed all of the basic techniques of the assembly line and mass production. Ford introduced the world's first moving assembly line that year, which reduced chassis assembly time from 12½ hours in October to 2 hours, 40 minutes. However these innovations were not popular and turnover of workers was very high. Turnover meant delays and extra costs of training, and use of slow workers. In January 1914 solved the problem by doubling pay to $5 a day, cutting shifts from nine hours to an eight hour day, and instituting hiring practices that identified the best workers. Productivity soared and employee turnover plunged, as the cost per vehicle plummeted. Ford cut prices again and again and invented the system of franchised dealers who were loyal to his brand name.
By the end of 1913, Ford was producing 50% of all cars in the United States, and by 1918 half of all cars in the country were Model T's. Henry Ford is reported to have said that "any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black." This was because black paint was quickest to dry; earlier models had been available in a variety of colors. But most were black."
What the Model T was to the automobile DOS/Windows is to computer software. People faced with new technology that manages to takeoff tend to choice a brand that they gravitate toward in order to provide them with a base from which a general learning curve can be traced. As with the Model T, once a general concensus is arrived at as to what the new technology can do for the masses then competing models come into play and bells and whistles are taken in hand after the basics have been learnt. The computer industry has achieved a saturation level and the basics have been put in place. Now there is a chance for more competition. It's likely that Linux on the desktop is coming soon.
That freeBSD has chosen to announce its competition with Linux is more supplemental support to show that the basics of the desktop have been put in place. Competition between Linux and freeBSD is great and will foster competition between F/OSS alternatives that will soon provide greater incentive for the general computer population to move from Windows to alternatives.
I suspect the initial gauge of this movement will be a greater market share taken by Apple.
Just my loose change
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
If you're relying on Gnome to form hardware 'parity' with Linux, you'll be waiting a long time. Pop FreeBSD into a machine and have it autodetect everything on any modern 32-bit PC- then you will reach 'parity'. Gnome.. why?
Windows eats Linux and poops FreeBSD
I am confused - are you trying to depict Windows as a gourmet or rather as an entity with a magic colon?
from personal experience i have to say i am biased towards GNU/Linux with Slackware being my favorite, i recently tryed both DesktopBSD & PC-BSD on my first primary partition, they were both decent KDE desktops and i was familier with CUPS so setting up my printer was not a problem, but with GNU/Linux when i tried ubuntu breezy it made setting up a GNU/Linux desktop a total "no brainer" (including printer, scanner & digital camera) that should help non-techies setup a GNU/Linux desktop a lot easier, the two BSD desktop flavors (DesktopBSD & PC-BSD) stand a good chance to give the GNU/Linux desktop camp some competition which is a good thing :)
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I don't understand what you mean. MacOSX is a *nix system that works very nicely as a desktop. I don't think the *nix systems in general have something that prevents them from being successful at the desktop market. Unless you mean that, for market matters, nobody will ever be able to have a significant marketshare and compete with Windows. That may or may not be true, but sugesting *nix systems are technologically incapable of working as desktop computers is... bullshit?
Why does a desktop environment need a hardware abstraction layer?
There are separate teams working on KDE and GNOME integration. It just so happens that the interview was conducted with a GNOME on FreeBSD developer, so the focus was on GNOME. Be assured that FreeBSD's KDE integration is very good and will be even further improved on in the future. DesktopBSD, for example, features KDE as the default desktop.
Also, KDE is officially a cross-platform environment, with KDE4 being developed not only on Linux and FreeBSD but also on MS Windows. I don't know what the officiall position is for GNOME, but from what I hear they are a pretty Linux-centric project.
I don't understand what you mean. MacOSX is a *nix system that works very nicely as a desktop.
OS X is not a *nix system in any meaningful sense of the word.
OK, so I have to be the one to dissent to the usual mindless Apfel followers wet dreams:
> Mac os x is the best desktop operative system in the world.
No, Maccie, OS X actually isn't the best desktop operating system in the world.
> It's also the one who has more eyecandy than any other operative system.
And again, Maccie, it isn't even the one with the most eye candy, regardless of what your Apfel prospectuses tell you.
> You don't like those "useless" drop shadows and transparencies? Well, here comes a newflash for you: Max os x added them first than anyone else.
Apfel has indeed often be the first one to add useless stuff to their desktops, just for you fanboys to have something to orgasm on regularly.
He is exactly right! Consistently, users choose KDE...
I would love to see that backed up with some actual facts? I'd say the users are pretty evenly divided (this is definitely what I see at work).
About two years ago being a Gentoo user I tried FreeBSD and never went back. Everything just works very nicely. It worked right "out of the box" but unlike many Linux distributions that are considered easy to use it doesn't abstract away too many things from the user so I can still implement my own changes without any hassle.
Installing GNOME or KDE is already possible and is actually quite trivial. What TFA is really talking about is implementing all the extra stuff that makes life a little easier like hald that's required for GNOME or KDE to autodetect hardware. Things like automatic detection of USB devices already exist and work great in FreeBSD, it's just not compatible to what KDE and GNOME require.
:/- spoon(_).
I am not a BSD user and I am not going to even test it, but I think this is a good thing - bigger free desktop market will lead to better Free Software, more people will report bugs and more people will discuss new features.
[ed. note: in this following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals.
Well, this *IS* bsd.slashdot.org after all. It isn't that hard to imagine a place on slashdot where people are actually civil and mature. For the most part, the comments on this article don't seem to be too bad. Although, I am browsing at threshold 1...
Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
Show me ALSA equivalent in FreeBSD! FreeBSD can be used for low quality, high latency consumer level audio - nothing more. Thanks to ALSA Linux can be used in recording studios nowadays. ALSA supports high end audio cards like RME Hammerfall and M-Audio delta series. FreeBSD is lightyears behind when it comes to high quality audio.
He's just tired of the car/OS analogy and
decided to introduce the bodily function/OS analogy.
Brilliant! I can't believe he posted AC!
Scott Long is going to f*cking kill Linux!!!
My guess is that you define "*nix" as "incapable for the desktop" and ergo fall into the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
The BSD license beats the tar out of the communist GPL.
That poster I have of Richard Stallman puffing on a hand-rolled Havana with Che Guevara kinda tells it all...
You youngsters all go shoo now. Git! Git!
I wonder if the NRA uses BSD? Hmmmmm...
Can we please have a car analogy?
I use FreeBSD on a daily basis, I have FreeBSD servers, a FreeBSD development machine, and a FreeBSD daily use desktop (irc, email, web browsing, im, etc.) As it stands now yes, FreeBSD has both the newest versions of KDE and Gnome, and as far as I know the newest version of all the bigger window managers. However, as it stands now FreeBSD is not really a viable desktop in the same way that Linux is. This is because of the two major 3rd party softwares, neither of which are open source. Flash on FreeBSD is rather a joke, which is not to say that the people who work on the flash ports aren't doing well, but going to any flash site is a gamble. Pandora and Google Video, both sites that I go to regularly, lock up Firefox completely. And then there's Java. Java is marked restricted in the ports because of licensing issues, is non-redistributable (hope I spelled that right). Java is a real pain in the arse on FreeBSD. In my experience, the chances of a successful build are about 50/50 at best. You have to download several larger files and move them into the distfiles directory, start the build and cross your fingers and wait.. many hours.. There are other problems as well, for FreeBSD as a desktop os like Linux, but these are the major two... everybody expects to be able to browse the web on a desktop OS with little to no trouble. And as it stands now FreeBSD is unable to deliver an easy to use, out-of-the-box solution for desktop use. I hope this doesn't start a flame war, just adding my two cents.
The "wild west" feel to working with Linux. In fact, Linux is getting too mainstream; I'm going to switch to OpenBSD.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
We at our company have 13 persons using linux. 11 of them use KDE, 1 Blackbox and 1 Windowmaker guy.
I use FreeBSD on all my server machines I run for personal use. Love it, wouldn't consider changing.
If it wants to run at the desktop market my suggestions would be:
a) Graphical setup
b) Better hardware autodetection (both during install and post install)
c) A GUI by default that is tight and looks good.
d) A more easy to use graphical interface into the ports system.
THat's a start, get those and we'll talk desktop.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
That being said, my advice is to take this as a hint and forego dealing with Gnome. Besides, (here's the flamebait) Gnome pails in comparison in usability to KDE; never have I hated a software application as much as I have hated Windows, until I have had to use Evolution for my email client. It just does some of the stupidest things I can imagine.
Sub-Preface: Gnome, and its applications, have one saving grace: features not found it KDE applications; like proxy use for IM in GAIM and an Exchange plugin in Evolution. Come oooon KDE, get those features soon!
That said, if I choose a signiture from the drop down menu (which I have told the preferences multiple times to use a default sig but it doesn't care what I think - which is either a Fedora Core 4, Evolution, or Gnome problem), and if for some reason I wish to edit that signiture and happen to need to delete a letter, everything after the cursor gets deleted also. Ctrl-z fixes what delete should naturally do, but NOOOO Gnome can't make an application that works as expected.
GAIM is another nightmare. One of the worst things about is that if I 'signoff', which means from all IM channels, and 'signon' again it will only signon one channel and not all of them. What in the world kind of functionality is that? It sucks and I have come to believe Torvalds' "Use KDE" rant; it is sadly accurate.
Seeing as GNOME is developed by the FSF and is part of GNU, you'd expect them not to care much about porting to other OSes. Stallman has said again and again that freedom is more important than popularity. He could probably care less if GNOME or any GNU program will run on anything other than GNU, be that GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD, or even GNU/Hurd.
I use many of the Gnome wallpapers on my KDE desktop.
Forgive my ignorance of things FreeBSD.
How is the hardware support? Does it support the variety of devices that Linux supports? (honest question)
For a desktop (vs. a server) a wide variety of hardware support is important. Desktop users have a huge variety of hardware.
Whenever I hear talk of any other non-Linux OS, the hardware question is the first one that pops into my mind. Nevermind the micro/monolithic kernel debates, when someone proposes a different OS kernel, my first question is always: Hardware support?
Now just to really wander off topic: maybe something that would be of really long term benefit to FOSS is, not only a driver binary interface standard, but a driver binary interface standard that was designed to be supportable by existing and future OS kernels.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
One of the big problems with any flavour of Linux that I've used is the laptop support. Even though I've always specifically bought laptops with very good linux compatibility, it's still hit and miss. A large chunk of the computers sold in retail stores now are laptops and they're getting more and more popular as the price of them continues to drop. Suspend and wifi needs to Just Work.
What I would like to see is a small core list of laptop models that are essentially "certified" to work. Pick the most popular lines, get them working 100% then add more and more models without breaking support for the laptops that worked previously. Ubuntu in particular seems to have a shockgun whack-a-mole approach to supporting laptops and it's maddening.
You won't get too far against linux with that license, buddy.
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
I realize this article is about the ports tree, but FreeBSD's main source *has* been moving at a blistering rate of development the past few years. Recently there was an article about linux 2.6 getting buggier - and unfortunately the same is true of FreeBSD 5.x and 6.x ... Some things to consider:
* 6.x came out shockingly fast after 5.x
* 4.x was orphaned correspondingly quickly (despite being arguably the only stable freebsd branch left)
* vinum (software raid) support, among other things, was broken thanks to the introduction of geom around 5.1, and gvinum is finally beginning to approach stability as of 6.1
* The new scheduler, ULE, was introduced in one 5.x release and then abandoned when it proved to be completely unstable.
* As a reaction, one of the lead developers forked dragonflybsd off of the last truly stable freebsd release, the 4.x branch. Others have just given up.
* Bugfixes are getting left on the floor in favor of adding features ( just look at a relatively old release such as freebsd 5.3's TODO list: http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/todo.html - note that most of these problems are *still* not fixed in 6.1 )
People choose the BSD's for stability - or at least, they used to. FreeBSD has been going down a features at all cost route in some kind of effort to play catchup with their perceived rival linux for some time. In doing so, it is losing what makes it unique, and it needs to stop, or else people will abandon FreeBSD for other BSDs, linux (which is now more stable IMO), and even mac os.
-DH
We got a dead man walking here!
Competition drives innovation. One of the reasons why I think KDE vs. GNOME is a great idea.
On a sidenote, what the end user sees is not Linux, FreeBSD, Ubuntu, Fedora or Windows for that matter. They see Luna, KDE and Gnome.
I heard KDE even runs on Windows. So when I tell someone I can install a new system on their computer I tell them it is either KDE or Gnome.
"Well, this *IS* bsd.slashdot.org after all. It isn't that hard to imagine a place on slashdot where people are actually civil and mature."
So you're insinuating that BSD people are "civil and mature" and others aren't? That's real mature of you.
I, for one, welcome our new GnomeLSD overlords!!!
Sorry but VMware is my lifeblood. Although I wouldn't mind running FreeBSD, it ain't gonna happen unless all the software I need is available.
The FreeBSD/Linux problem is similar to the Linux/Windows problem. Linux has less stuff available than Windows (but enough for me) and FreeBSD has even less than Linux.
If only it would:
/dev/dsp, rather than one app locking access to that device to the exclusion of all others. Linux does this via ALSA, but FBSD has no similar, new audio architecture to replace OSS (as ALSA finally has). KDE's artsd + artsdsp is available, but we all know that the entire arts package sucks horribly.
* Mix multiple audio inputs to
* Have better Java and Flash support. Ever try to get native Java working on FreeBSD? First you have to download the Linux Java distribution, install it, then download the FBSD patchset for native Java, build and install it. This takes a day, even on my 2.4GHz, 768MB laptop. And Flash? Don't make me laugh. Flash support is attemptedly enabled via a wrapper, but the Flash version that is currently stable is 5. I'm running 7 on the Gentoo install I'm typing this on, and that's behind the Windows world's Flash version 8.
* Similar to the Java problem, too many apps in FBSD require Linux support. If I'm going to run a Linux app on FBSD, why not just run Linux? Moreover, if parallel FBSD and Linux binaries are necessary (as with Java), then this is going to be a monster waste of HDD space.
* Make compiling the kernel easier. Yes, configuring the kernel is doable by hand, but as any newbie programmer should be able to tell you, the more opportunity you have for human input, the more opportunity there is for failure. More typing/manual config means a higher probability that some piece of kernel functionality goes missing in the build. Why not an ncurses interface with basic (but I must emphasize, also imperfect) dependency resolution, like Linux has?
Look, I love FreeBSD and prefer it to Linux. Its overall design is more sophisticated, saner, and better-organized than Linux, and I find the ports system to be better-designed and more-useful than Gentoo's portage (where are the descriptions of each port in portage guys? I want to know if what I'm about to install is really what I want, and I don't want to have to go google it first!). All that, and FBSD exists under a free-as-in-freedom, rather than free-as-in-communism license. I've run it on my server for years, and with the huge, disappointing exception of the 5.[01] days, it's very stable (current uptime with 6.0-RELEASE is 159 days).
But over various times in the last 6 years, I have tried it as a desktop, and every time I have, there has always been some FBSD-specific behavior that has caused me to switch back to Windows or Linux. FBSD 6.0 is certainly the most usable desktop release yet, and it's thisclose to there for me. But still, not quite. (Frankly, I want an OSX box, and my next laptop will almost undoubtedly be a dual-core MacBook. Then I can have the best of all worlds: a FBSD userland, compatibility with most OSS *nix apps, and commercial-ware app availability. But until then...)
So, I'm happy with FBSD maintaining its role as a rock-solid server OS. Let's not assume everything is a nail when holding a hammer here...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
dont these retards understand its not the OS that making sure noone switches to freebsd and linux as a desktop its the bloody programs that can be USED for it, im a gamer, i also love ubuntu, does that mean i can spend even 1% of ym time on ubuntu while playing lineage 2 or something along those lines, fat chance, they shouldnt be pushing themselves they should be pushing 3rd party developers, i dont care if there are non OSS games because frankly thatll make so i never have to use the proverbial bluescreen generator endorsed by a fucking CEO WHO THROWS CHAIRS!!!! and if you mod this dont mod it funny mod it insightful, i want to use Linux so much more than whackdows for everything but when i dont have the compatibility it really bites in the ass...
-Noc
Based on statistical analysis of slashdot, yes! :P
Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
12 Dec 2005 - Linus Torvalds states that "only idiots will use [Gnome]".
20 Apr 2006 - Linus claims "that [...] FreeBSD [People] are incompetent idiots."
12 May 2006 - The FreeBSD folks announce a tightly integratin of GNOME with FreeBSD.*
* You didn't click that link, did you?
If the FreeBSD wants to compete with GNU/Linux on the desktop they're going to have to do something about installation.
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
funny that these days obvious facts get modded as troll...
FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux guys are idiots... so is Steve @ Microsoft... only Steve @ Apple gets it and then only by accident. Nobody cares about a fancy GUI or even legacy apps... to re-phrase Steve @ MS... it's DRIVERS, DRIVERS, DRIVERS, DRIVERS! If it won't work with your hardware, you won't use it. The entire open source community should switch gears and focus on nothing but DRIVERS for a whole year... then Jan 1st, Microsoft would shut it's doors. Done.
FreeBSD is simply not an Enterprise Grade OS. It is fine for small business and hobbyists that need a crappy little web server to run apache, or a DNS server, or maybe an MTA.
If you need someting Enterprise Grade you need to look at Solaris, HPUX, or Linux.
Let's face it, until Theo is purged from BSD, nobody will ever take any BSD seriously.
What I find rather peculiar is this competitive behaviour that's constantly being exercised by *BSD crowd. GNU/Linux camp regard *BSD Unices as the sister OS(es), something they're in some sort of "friendly competition" with, while the *BSD guys continue to look down on Linux and its users, telling on their official pages/blogs/birthday parties... how inferior Linux is in regard to software installation, OS management, security... This superiority complex of theirs is really annoying, especially given it is not based on facts. Compete against Windows damn it - that's the enemy, you morons...
Ever try to get native Java working on FreeBSD? First you have to download the Linux Java distribution, install it, then download the FBSD patchset for native Java, build and install it. This takes a day, even on my 2.4GHz, 768MB laptop.
/. thread on FreeBSD is full of trolls!
h tml
For fsck's sake, it really seems this
Didn't you read the news, the FreeBSD Foundation negotiated with Sun and now there's a native Java on FreeBSD so stop trolling, because installing it is as easy on any, e.g. Debian-like system (simply #pkg_add diablo-jdk-freebsd6-1.5.0.06.00.tbz)
http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/downloads/java.s
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
If FreeBSD is going to compete they need to get their act
together with implementation of virtualization (Xen) - which is
going to be extremely important in the future.
From what I've read, I think that might be because some developers on the Linux camp have been a factor of irritation when they produce Linuxisms is C code, foresaking portability.You see this phenomenom mentioned in what regards GNOME in the article. It almost sounds as if GNOME developers are a clique that don't give a shit about other projects.
0 305.html
s g00052.html
s g00002.html
Another famous little war was Linuxers resistance (glibc maintainers, to be exact) resistance against the safer strlcpy and strlcat functions from OpenBSD's libc:
See these amazing threads that illustrate prejudice against the OpenBSD developers. After 2 or smth years, they finally gave in and the OpenBSD functions are part of glibc. But here's my sample:
Here's a Debian developer calling on GNOME developer's biased and prejudiced views against OpenBSD's innovation for safer C programming:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/03/msg0
Here's the guy that sends the patch for glibc: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2000-08/m
Here's the amazing answer from the glibc's maintainer Ulrich Drepper, a real insight into strong software engineering principles. No wonder Linux boxes got so rootkitted:
This is horribly inefficient BSD crap. Using these function only
leads to other errors. Correct string handling means that you always
know how long your strings are and therefore you can you memcpy
(instead of strcpy). http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-01/m
Theo's take:
TdR: They're still not in glibc. They're everywhere else. They're in Solaris. We invented them two years ago. They're showing up in vendor operating systems. We made a convincing argument why these things are necessary. http://www.ddj.com/184404914
Look at CERT's list for "glibc" vulnerabilites here. Please draw comparisons with BSDs. Answer honestly: who's got bragging rights?
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
/*
h tml
Ever try to get native Java working on FreeBSD? First you have to download the Linux Java distribution, install it, then download the FBSD patchset for native Java, build and install it. This takes a day, even on my 2.4GHz, 768MB laptop.
*/
Nope - you need to keep up. Native Binaries are now out from Sun - the announcment was April 5, so thats old news that you didn't care to look for. So either correct your knowledgebase or (if this was a troll) find another troll point, I hear that Netcraft still has ones people recycle.
FYI, here's the link: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/downloads/java.s
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Stallman, and even the FSF, has fuck all influence when it comes to GNOME, so it doesn't matter what he thinks. He tried to run for the GNOME Foundation once, and nobody voted for him.
I wonder if the NRA uses BSD? Hmmmmm...
Get some of those BSD CDs.
Pull!
Blam!
This superiority complex of theirs is really annoying, especially given it is not based on facts.
So, basically, you consider Linux superior to BSD in all areas? So who is it with the superiority complex again?
Funny that these days people mistake their opinions for obvious facts....
Ever try to get native Java working on FreeBSD? First you have to download the Linux Java distribution, install it, then download the FBSD patchset for native Java, build and install it. This takes a day, even on my 2.4GHz, 768MB laptop.
Last year about this time I spent six weeks trying to get the right version of Java, Tomcat, and a half a dozen components working on Linux. We had to use an RPM based system, so I don't know if Debian would have been better, but if I didn't have a FreeBSD system to start with so I could just "cd" to the right Port directory and type "make install"... and six hours later it was all done. On a PIII/800 desktop (I suspect your laptop hard drive is why yours took so long).
Yes, I had to download the Java by hand. But I had to do that for Linux, too... that was what Sun required, regardless of your OS.
Yes, it crunched for a few hours... but it just worked once it'd finished crunching.
Most people? Care to cite this claim?
I think only Slashdotters are obsessed with KDE, while everyone else recognizes KDE as a huge, bloated mess, infrastructure-wise and interface-wise. The devs never met a sidebar they didn't like.
"Sufferin' succotash."
BSD's partitioning scheme is the standard Unix way, which was there long before IBM and Microsoft came up with that piece of shit known as the IBM PC. Log into a Solaris/AIX/IRIX box some time, you'll see the same partitioning. Linux is the only OS that has broken partitions due to its i386 origins.
Didn't you RTFA? BSD is now only for desktops. The NRA needs a server OS, so they use Red Hat:
Resolving www.nra.com... 206.207.85.33
Connecting to www.nra.com|206.207.85.33|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response...
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 18:34:00 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.46 (Red Hat)
Vary: Host
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 140
Keep-Alive: timeout=3, max=10
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Length: 140 [text/html]
Maybe you missed this from April 5th: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/20060405-PR release.shtml
FreeBSD got an official download already.
I've run Eclipse and Azureus on my laptop and work PC running FreeBSD, and both work great (albiet the root issues with Azureus up-patches).
But as said, you don't need Java for a decent desktop OS, especially for most web browsing. I need to check out what's this flash issue is about.
FreeBSD has a fast threading implementation already called libthr by David Xu. Kicks the pants off KSE by 2x in speed and is just as good as Linux threading because it's 1:1, and quite stable.
/etc/libmap.conf.
Just too bad it's not the default threading library for pthreads, but you can fix that that with
Betting on the wrong horse there. Gnome is such an utter piece of shit (ask Torvalds - d'oh!) that all BSD will do is ensure that nobody ends up using it on the desktop. Same thing as redshat and the other gnome distros. Unless someone here really believes that a return to the System 7 Finder with all that window clutter is a good idea? Or that Gnome's file browse dialog is anything other than a useless piece of shit with the most important information hidden from the users (like "where am I right now?")... but really, gnome should just quit before they prove the impossible by sucking worse than they already do.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
I'd say the users are pretty evenly divided (this is definitely what I see at work).
Then you'd be completely wrong. It is typical for the Gnome fanboy to claim even division amongst users but in survey after survey after survey, KDE is the preferred DE by far. While only one of many, here are some facts that you requested.
Linux is simply not an Enterprise Grade OS. It is fine for small business and hobbyists that need a crappy little web server to run apache, or a DNS server, or maybe an MTA, hell it even can be your router.
....
If you need someting Enterprise Grade you need to look at Solaris, HPUX, or Open/Free/NetBSD.
Let's face it, until Linus is purged from Linux, nobody will ever take any Linux seriously.
CORE DUMP>>>>
You could try the LinuxQuestions.org Awards - I think it's the closest thing to a proper annual survey of the free desktop users' community there is. OK, it's self-selecting and the users who vote in the polls obviously care a bit more about their desktop than most, or else they wouldn't be at the site voting. Still, it's the best there is so far.
And the result for the 2005 poll (taken late 2005/early 2006)? KDE: 64.86%, Gnome: 25.67%.
It's been this way for several years, and indeed, KDE has been consistently increasing its lead each year. Note that the voters aren't rabidly pro-KDE: Gnome-related apps do quite well in the individual app categories, e.g. Gaim gets more than double the vote of the second-placed Kopete in the messaging app category.
Just to put forward my own anecdote, where I work 4 out of 4 Linux/BSD desktops (as yet it's only the sysadmins who have migrated, the developers are still resolutely sticking with XP and it'll be years before we're ready to migrate the non-technical users) use KDE, including one used by a guy who used to post pro-Gnome trolls on Slashdot... he switched shortly after KDE 3.4 was released.
All the Linux guys I know (which isn't impressive since I'm talking about 3, and one of them is actually a Linux girl) use KDE and when I'm using a Linux or FreeBSD system, I use KDE.
I used to try Gnome out with every new release (at least up until 2.10 which was about the time I stopped using Linux for my desktop machine) but it was the same disappointments over an over. The number one being Nautilus. Talk about crapsville for a file manager. It's weak. With Konq and kioslaves there was little I couldn't do. Pathfinder on the Mac is cool in its own way and Directory Opus on Windows is sweet too. One thing KDE got right over everyone else (Apple included) was the inclusion of a highly customizable and flexible file manager. On Windows and Macs I can get a replacement, but unless something new has risen in the last two Gnome releases, your choice is still a single crapshoot file manager.
Kparts is the other reason I love KDE.
I could go on, but... what's the point? Gnome isn't even very good at doing what it says it's focusing on. It feels dated and claustrophobic to use.
As some one who has spent the last year fixing up the systems the FreeBSD admins left behind, I feel qualified is stating that FreeBSD is a terrible business-level operating system. When I started at my company, a bunch of previous admins replaced many core pieces of infrastructure with FreeBSD. One of my core requirements when I got hired was to get them onto Red Hat Enterprise, and part of the reason they threw a lot of money at me was I knew both systems, and I could easily take stuff from a FreeBSD environment.
First, and I must say this, I don't "hate" FreeBSD. Life is too short to argue which operating system is the best overall (I still cringe that I did this sort of fanaticism with Atari and Amiga back in the day, and learned a valuable lesson about what really matters). FreeBSD is a great, tweakable, DIY hobbyist OS done for those who tinker with those sorts of things (which is how I learned it). But FreeBSD in the business enterprise is like hiring a bunch of guys who work out of their basement to do your IT work: may be good in some instances, but is a poor long-term strategy.
Why? Here are some of the problems:
- Hardware support. This is my #1 problem. You want FreeBSD to run on some of those new HP DL380 G4's with the dual Xeons? Oops... sorry. The special scsi blade won't run well with them when you need RAID5. But wait, there's a guy in the Netherlands who has a driver that sort of works... but his website hasn't been updated since 2002, and it's still considered alpha, and compiling it with the specialized kernel breaks...
- Software support. Almost neck and neck with #1. Let's leave out the scant vendors that support the BSD kernel, because FreeBSD fanatics always go, "Oh yeah... what about XXXX...?" For every example that some major vendor that supports FreeBSD that some gives me, I can give you ten examples of companies that don't. And those that do always patch or update their FreeBSD as an afterthought. "New FooPack 3.00 has been released! BSD? Um... yeah, in our FTP site the 1.24 version may still work, but it's EOL and unsupported." Then the stuff about ports is stupid. I don't want to keep my ports tree up-to-date and then have to recompile all the time.
- Finding anyone who knows about BSD is rare. Too rare. Last time I said this, some snide person commented that, "Well any person who worked on Sun systems should know FreeBSD." No. No, they don't. First, most Sun admins never worked on FreeBSD if they have even heard of it, and even if the "translation is easy," most Sun admins know they have Sun to support them when things go terribly wrong. FreeBSD is all community-based, except for a few small unheard-of enterprises, and neither one looks like a good strategy when mentioning them to management.
- FreeBSD community is very RTFM. Fine. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Except when people don't have time to RTFM. Your server is borked, and you don't know why, and you don't have the luxury of scanning bulletin boards, dealing with mailing lists, and snide FreeBSD gurus who say, "Look, we can't do this FOR you," like they have read, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" too many times.
The UNIX admins who forced FreeBSD on my company are gone. Most of them were considered foul-tempered and uncooperative zealots. Management had to go to the boards, and found much of the same reactions from the FreeBSD community. We had serious issues with these systems, and me and 2 other admins had to bail them out over the last year. Sure, we pay for Red Hat and Windows licenses, but FreeBSD gave us so much grief, that mentioning it to anyone is either done so as sarcastic humor or an insult:
Admin1: Hah! I totally fixed this.
Admin2: What did you do?
Admin1: Aw man, I don't have time to explain.
Admin2: Heh. Don't FreeBSD me, document it! Share the love.
Admin1: Ouch, man. Just was uncalled for.
Admin3: What did he say?
Admin1: He pulled the FreeBSD card on me.
Admin3: Dude, not cool. That was harsh.
Again, I don't hate FreeBSD as a concept. I just know it's not right for the business environment.
Yeah, modded "insightful" by GPL fanboys. Look, factually speaking, you're wrong. Apple has contributed code to FreeBSD.
w s&file=article&sid=938&mode=&order=&thold=
Read this:
Since Mac OS X v10.0 was released in 2001, Apple has been filtering BSD code in and out of their kernel, userland, and libraries. This code then makes its way back to FreeBSD.(...) By the time Apple released Panther, their contributions back into FreeBSD had amassed into a new FreeBSD milestone, the 5.x branch. http://osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Ne
OpenBSM is derived from the BSM audit implementation found in Apple's open source Darwin operating system, which upon request, Apple relicensed under a BSD licence (wikipedia citation) OpenBSM: Open Source Basic Security Module (BSM) Audit Implementation http://www.trustedbsd.org/openbsm.html
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Mr. Jobs wanted Mach so he could control its development, but he also wanted Apple marketing to be able to scream UNIX! in everyone's faces. BSD was their "We're Open Source" beachead. For all I know, the only BSD in OSX is code in Mcalc or something.
And by the way Steve, I bought OS 10.0 for my father-in-law and YOU owe me a C note and a fuckin' huge apology.
The reason for my surprise is that FreeBSD is much kinder to the people that make all the applications - the developers.
I'd cite:
* documentation - the man pages and the handbook in FreeBSD are a dream of clarity and completeness.
* API's - stable and (again) well documented. Including the kernel API's.
* Solid driver support - eg my wireless link runs roughly 2x the speed on FreeBSD vs Linux since FreeBSD-4.x days (and, yes, I'm up to date with my Gentoo linux machine).
* The code - the kernel code in FreeBSD is logical, neat, elegant and just makes sense.
Compare Linux - the documentation is a mess frankly, albeit a lovable mess. It's all over the place and incomplete.
The linux API's are a complete nightmare - Linus HimSelf famously proclaims and maintains his right to change any kernel API as and how he sees fit. For a driver developer that's a nightmare, even if the kernel team keep the current kernel-supplied drivers up to date with the ever-changing API. Third-party kernel driver developers (I was one for 7 years on Linux, SCO (!), AIX, HPUX, Solaris and FreeBSD) shudder at that - anyone care to remember the kiobufs DMA fiasco around Linux 2.4.12???
As for the huge monolithic kernel source, Linux is getting close to really, really, really needing to be broken up into a microkernel architecture, just for maintainability issues alone.
As for Gnome (shudder) just look what they did with documentation (man pages anyone - forget it!) never mind supporting the command-line properly (who gave them the right to obsolete the good old-fashioned, universal X "-geometry" etc options).
All that said, FreeBSD is not ahead as most of the posts here testify. So why is that?
Technical inferiority? I don't think so... I can only think it must be the license. Commercial interests should surely like the FreeBSD model better but the GPL just "Keeps Them Honest" and prevents the balkanization that commercial UNIX always suffered.
BTW - as a hint to any FreeBSD developers out there, some things that would really help Linux'ers to have the confidence to explore FreeBSD would be:
* a decent disc format that can be properly shared with Linux - ext2 just about works but can't be exported by NFS on FreeBSD - and when I boot back to Linux I invariably get heaps of file system corruptions to fix up - not nice. While I'm at it, what about ext3? Maybe my ignorance here - perhaps there is JFS or XFS available and compatible on both - but people need to be sure that they can dual-boot a FreeBSD system and still see their data and be _sure_ it's safe. Don't bother me with Reiser - too many scars on that one.
* a live-CD version of FreeBSD, like Knoppix - I started my FreeBSD adventure with Freesbie, a 4.x (now -5.3) live-CD. Anything like that for 6.1?
Umzle... You can actually replace Nautilus with another file manager. I for a while was running Gnome with ROX-Filer, for instance, and you could just as easily replace Nautilus with Konqueror, if you can actually work out how to use it. This has been the case for ever as far as I know.
Look out!
I just can't wait for FreeBSD to be more commonly supported without needing to root around with Linux emulation - I wholeheartedly agree that the BSD system is more logically laid out, the base-os is a known quantity that is independent from the packages, and the documentation is just infinately better than you get with Linux.
And i've used both - Linux since 1996, and BSD since around 2000. I also currently have both installed on various machines that I maintain.
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Question for BSD people:
What's the current state of something like Debian's apt system and repositories for BSD? Is there a system for single command installation of applications and all the libs on which they depend? Does it work 99.9% of the time like Debian's repositories? 95% of the reason I use Debian primarily instead of the other Linuxen I have used extensively (RedHat, Ubuntu, Mandrake, Xandros) is the flawlessness, breadth, and depth of Deb's repositories. If BSD has something substantially similar, I'll give it a go.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
KSE was not implemented to design
When I first proposed KSE, my proposal was that all system calls become asynchronous - you dispatch the system call. Then, if you wanted POSIX semantics, you suspended yourself until the result was available.
The intent was to implement all of the POSIX blocking semantics at the Libc layer, and all the operational semantics at the kernel layer, and to permit any number of dispatches to occur concurrently.
The way you implement multithreading in this environment is to use call-conversion scheduling: you trade a normally blocking system call for a non-blocking system call plus a context switch. This basically gets you multithreading for free.
The intent of this approach is to utilize your full process quantum, rather than giving it away and suffering an unnecessary context switch overhead, while you still had work pending that could be done in user space within the same process.
In one posting, I put it like this: "If a kernel gives me a quantum, it's *my* damn quantum, and I'll use as much of it as I can, and if I can't use any more,*then* I will yield to a voluntary context switch".
The way you obtain SMP scalability (which was *NOT* the original reason threads were invented in the first place, BTW, since they predated commercially viable SMP system by a long ways) is by permitting multiple processors to return to user space on completed async system calls.
Intelligent readers will not that by not giving away the quantum you were given, you basically get a form of CPU affinity thrown in for free, without any modification to the kernel scheduler, up to the point where you would context switch to a process other than yourself, and cache-bust/TLB-shootdown anyway. This was not a bad idea.
-
What happened instead was an implementation of SA (Scheduler Activations). They kept the KSE name. I came up with it initially - "Kernel Schedulable Entitites" - because I didn't want people to be thinking about solving the problems we intended to solve in a way that was constrained by the ideas that would carry over from using words like "activations" or "threads" or whatever. Semantic loading constrains free thought on technical issues a heck of a lot more than people give it credit for.
But SAs fell far short of my intended vision for the original implementation, a vision I could not implement on my own without buy in from the rest of the FreeBSD community.
-
Once we got buy-in that we were going to do *something* in this area, we had a big meeting. It was hosted at Whistle Communications, where Julian and I and others worked, and where we tended to host BAFUG meetings. Jason Evans and others attended.
I was unfortunately unable to sell my async call gate approach to the problem ("too many changes"), and a compromise was worked on scheduler activations, and a user space thread scheduler that would cooperate with the kernel scheduler.
Compared to what we ended up with, the changes required for the async call gates would have been a lot less code. But I fully admit: my suggested approach would have been impossible to implement incrementally - it would have been all or nothing, and stepping over that threshold would have cost a lot. I failed to sell it adequately, and can only fault myself.
-
Realize that this was not a bad compromise, given the technology at the time: context switches were murder, and crossing the user/kernel protection domain was a heck of a lot more expensive than it is on todays hardware. Also, the vast majority of SMP Intel boxes available in 1996/1997 were at best 2 processor boxes (I still have my dual P90 ASUS box).
Later, the expense of scheduler activations became plain, but it was still not too bad, until things like TLS - "Thread Local Storage" - and other POSIX semantics changes started to make things more painful.
-
Meanwhile, FreeBSD got thread reentrancy work done in its kernel, and a separation of address spaces and contexts, that it would have needed to have, no matter what threading approach was used. So KSE's, even implements as the were, instead of how I had originally envisioned them, was well worth it.
-- Terry
IMPRESSIVE!!!
Overall it was the easiest install ever. Not the greatest Desktop, but impressive non the less. Didn't install the nvidia video drivers thought.
At this point even windows install looks complicated.
On the same computer WinXP SP2 requiers network settings&drivers to get internet connection, but the Desktop BSD was all done and ready when I started the browser. (DHCP through router)
The first thought was "IMPRESSIVE" (I swear I heard the voice from Mortal Kombat saying IMPRESSIVE!!!)
I remember the famous quip:-
"FreeBSD is what you get when a group of UNIX hackers sit down to write a port of UNIX for the PC. Linux is what happens when a group of PC hackers sit down and write a UNIX clone for the PC."
For starters, read this. Linux isn't simply decentralised; it's unplanned. There's a very large difference. (Debian users/developers, I acknowledge you as an exception, here)
Secondly, go and get a copy of bsd.port.mk, read it and some sample makefiles. Compare this with rpm, and some of the spec file examples you can find from Mandrake and a few of the other distributions that use it. Note your conclusions.
It also needs to be pointed out that lack of comparitive lack of hardware support should not be considered an indictment of an operating system, in itself. Unfortunately, hardware support exists as part of a vicious cycle; if more people use the system, more hardware will become supported because of the increased demand. Linux has experienced its' own problems in this regard.
Linux is more popular because:-
a) If anything, FreeBSD's developers are actually *more* strongly technically oriented, and hence more obscure. I've repeatedly read the claims about Theo de Raadt being difficult to work with, but my own theory on that is simply that Theo is possibly someone who genuinely is unusually intellectually gifted, and hence finds himself becoming deeply frustrated at times when he is unable to communicate his ideas to others in a manner that they can understand. I've considered it as tragic as anyone else when UNIX users in general behave in a manner which suggests that they feel superior to their fellow man; however, the reality is that this superiority complex is genuinely justified in most cases.
b) Richard Stallman has, I believe, expended a large amount of effort to discredit the BSD license and discourage its' use as thoroughly as possible.
c) Yes, the BSD license *is* incompatible with corporate greed. Might we be honest here however and admit that that is more an indictment of corporate moral degeneracy than it is the BSD license? The other thing is...I suspect that the only reason why the BSD license even exists as such at all is actually because other licenses do. In other words, originally there existed a scenario where in software authors' minds, software being devoid of ownership was something known/thought of at an instinctive or barely conscious level. If you look at bsd.port.mk, Jordan Hubbard's statement there is that the file is in the public domain. Not "free as in freedom." Just plain free, in every possible sense of the word, all at once. In Richard Stallman's case, the definition of freedom has become perverted and distorted, and looking at the BSD and some of the Creative Commons license can show us why that is so.
I remember reading another quote:-
"Freedom is the only law that genius knows."
It's also the only law that true genius needs. What we now call FOSS originally came from a place where some abnormally intelligent, deeply spiritual people wrote and saw software as simply one part of an entire world that they wanted to live in; a world where it is understood instinctively that humanity is an intimately connected, genetically related group, and that each additional human being who exists has priceless value as a means of that group being able to express itself in a unique and previously entirely undiscovered way.
Contrast that to the type of vision that groups like Microsoft, WIPO and the RIAA have, and you might begin to understand why the BSD license hasn't become as popular. It is surprising that they tolerate even the GPL, watered down though it is.
The BSDs have been dying for years. I have never heard of anything taking longer to die. Since I will probably die before they do, does it really matter if they're dying?
I've run both off and on during the past 8 years, and I have to say that during that time I've noticed KDE getting more and more useful to me, and gnome... well, not really.
The last time I had a "wow, that's cool" moment was with KDE, and drag/drop MP3 ripping. Before that, it was with FISH.
I haven't had one with gnome in a very long time, if ever, that I can recall.
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I suppose I should have clarified myself a little. Sure, I could use Konq in Gnome (and I actually did for a little while). I even used Konq in XFCE (which kinda defeats the purpose of a "light" DE, but I digress). However, when I use either Gnome or KDE, with the possible exception of GAIM (about 8 months ago when I still ran a Linux desktop, I liked it A LOT better than Kopete) and Firefox (I like Konq better as a browser, but I make it a point to have more than one browser) I try to run a homogeneous widget setup.
For the most part I think of KDE and Gnome as two different platforms and treat them as such.
I never found a GTK2 based file manager I liked much at all. Nautilus sucks. For the longest time I continued used Midnight Commander (though, in those days it was not so much about usability as it was that Nautilus was so slow "back in the day.")
So, KDE has Konq. Windows has Directory Opus. Mac has PathFinder. Gnome has...? Nothing native. Granted, you don't have to be as anal as I am and can mix and match to your heart's content, but it's not something I like doing at all. KIOslaves makes Konq cooler anyway. Using it to sftp and have all my KDE apps treat those like local files without mounting anything was a major point of happiness for me.
Even now, it's a feature I miss on my PowerBook.
False: Need drives innovation.
Competition drives plagiarism and sabotage.
G'day Smash. I'm afraid you've missed my point (as I apparently missed the grandfather's!).
I intended to say nothing about the innovation of Gnome versus KDE, and I didn't really want to defend Gnome at all (I've replaced the file manager & panel with ROX-Filer, the window manager with Sawfish, the session manager with ROX-Session, the web browser with Galeon, the text editor gvim, the PDF viewer with Xpdf, and many other parts besides, so I don't even claim to defend or like or, um, use Gnome).
My purpose, instead, was to correct a perceived mistake in my parent post: It is possible to replace Nautilus with another file manager.
I did, admittedly, get in my opinion of Konqueror, but I've never been impressed with a file manager that tries to do anything besides manage files. The fact that I dislike KDE, however, does not in any way imply that I like Gnome.
Look out!
Well ... the fact that there's not a GTK 2 file manager that you like isn't really a failure of Gnome, it's just a personal preference, and is the domain of third-party software, not the Gnome devs. I love ROX-Filer and can't imagine using my computer without it---in fact, it's a big part of the reason I've installed GNU/Linux on my iMac G5 (by now replacing, not augmenting, Mac OS X), even though I lost the fan control, accelerated graphics and sound. ROX-Filer is GTK. Still, some people like tree views or whatever or filesystem emulation. Damned if I know why, but that's up to you.
... I think there's a new Xfce file manager in development that is obviously GTK 2 native, and I think from its screenshots and screenshots of Directory Opus, the interface looks a bit similar. Doubt that's enough seeing as you're on a Mac nowadays but maybe it's more like what you want...
:)
(Also, I got the impression that kioslaves are a part of the KDE architecture, and not the file manager i.e. KDE applications use it, not programs started by Konqueror to open files. But I've never really been able to feel comfortable with Konqueror, so vlrock.)
However
Probably though I say nothing new to you and/or repeat myself and/or missed your point again. So never mind.
Look out!
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb04/articles/mir rorimage.htm
They're planning to use Ardour, Rosegarden, JAMin through JACK which uses ALSA.
I found in KDE good replacements for BLOATED gtk programs:
.. even have webcam support! .....- K3B burner .....- Quanta Plus web development .....- Scribus
Mozilla Firefox - Konqueror
Mozilla Thunderbird/Evolution - Kontact/Kmail
Gaim - Kopete
OpenOffice - Koffice
XMMS - amaroK not really comparable cos xmms is a joke, but anyway.
and so on....
Or she sees Windows as the kind of bacteria that turn sewage into fuel.
First off let me say that I am a fan of all open source, even as I type this on my Windows box. Commercial apps like Photoshop, Sony Vegas, and others keep me from switching, however the new intel mac's are looking attractive. Anyhow to get to my point is that I find the family of BSD's less confusing than linux. I think the fact that there are 18 zillion different flavors of linux out there hurts it more than anything. I have played with several distro's but everytime I hear about another distro I think to myself "Maybe that is better" so its almost like you can never decide. When you need help, I find the FreeBSD documentation to be levels above anything I have seen for any free linux distro, although redhat does have a pretty good KB....but seriously the FreeBSD handbook is top notch. Then comes the issue of updating and installing software. The ports system is just slick, it just works, and I have never been in dependency hell. I know more recent linux distro's are getting better in this department but I still think the ports work better. Now I am not a hardcore programmer or anything like that so I cannot comment on specific kernel level things, however I use FreeBSD on both servers, desktops, and my laptop and I don't have any issues. Performance, uptime, security, and hardware support are all satisfactory.
To address it not being an "Enterprise OS"...I think thats crap...and if a major vendor like Oracle came out with support for BSD, I think you might find a shift in people giving BSD more serious thought.
That Mac OS X is the most eyecandy OS in the world is a fact, not an opinion. No production OS today does such shadows, transparencies and animations in that way.
I wasn't talking about the eye candy statement.
I'd argue that a good file manager that's customizable is crutial to any DE and as such I'd say it's a failure of Gnome. (Explorer is a failure of Windows and Finder is a failure of Apple, so I'm certainly not just pointing a finger at the Gnome guys.)
Screenshots of Directory Opus can be very misleading because the thing is SO customizable. This is an area that Directory Opus and Konq really have the rest of the world beat. (At least in my experience.) Pathfinder is kind of there... but it happens that what can be done in it is the kind of stuff I already like. However, it is, by no means, as flexible as the other two I have mentioned. I'll have to check out Xfce again if they have a new File Manger, since that was the one that that disappointed me about it before.
KIOslaves is part of KDE as a whole, but the area you'll see it used most of the time is in the file management world. Gnome has tried to do the same thing with their VFS, but unless it's seen some MAJOR improvement in the last two releases (like FTP that actually works), it's pretty pitiful. (And still better than Apple's way of doing things.)
To be honest, I've never used ROX Filer but most people who like it swear by it. By the time I had heard of it the world of GTK2 was out and I had no interest in dealing with something like that. I like "pretty" interfaces. I like smooth fonts. Even if it makes me sound like a twit, those are things *I* can't live without. If ROX starts using a modern toolkit, then I'll give it a try. (Although, I should probably check out the functionality anyway just so I can understand what all the fuss is about!)
I'm on a Mac for most of my work right now and I love it. However, I've never been strictly wed to any platform or OS. Commercial apps (Adobe Illustrator in particular) are one of the things keeping me on a Mac. I was still dual booting in Linux or using another machine for certain tasks. That got annoying. (Crossover Office worked pretty darn well though.)
I just set up one of my clients on a Mac Mini running Parallels so he could run XP inside to deal with the apps he HAS to have. After setting that up I totally wanted a MacBook (whenever they come out). The thought of running multiple virtual machines makes me super happy. I know it can be done via other applications on other platforms, but I do love OS X despite its flaws.
This is NOT true! And your post fails to address the other two major short comings.
I'm on a Linux system right now.
I'm on a FreeBSD v5 system right now too.
And I'm on a Solaris 9 box right now as well.
SSH is so handy.
solaris has a half-decent system. hard drives and ethernet interfaces follow standard numbering.
linus uses standard device numbering.
FreeBSD still does not. When attempting to add a new hard drive, there is no way to know what the device is going to be. until AFTER you fully reboot, at which time it's too late. you need to change the config, and reboot again.
then you have even more problems. trying to use the standard tools, it's a mess.
I tried to move a freebsd v4.2 drive to this system. it can't read it. wont even mount it.
from another freebsd v5 system it complains about "wrong magic number" whatever the hell that is.
so, all the points remain true.
"fdisk" in freebsd prints out the SAME standard dos partition layout, no matter what system I'm on, or how it's setup.
fdisk in linux is actually useful.
Hmm... Well I think the whole point of Gnome is that it's not overtly customisable. It's customisable in its own way, and it can enable alternative paradigms like spatial vs non-spatial or sloppy vs click-to-focus, but if you want to do something really strange I think it's better to use a tool that's more suited to the job so you swap out the tool and use something different that has that aspect as a primary concern. I don't think that's a failing, I think it's a win, even though the "win" means I don't use Gnome because I don't like most of its tools. I suppose I'm a bit "morally relativist" in terms of judging my file managers, and you're absolutist, even though we both agree we dislike Nautilus.
:)
... if you were using a Qt-centric distro, perhaps they put no effort in, but something like Debian or Ubuntu should be fine "out of the box". GTK+ 1.x was awful, of course, but GTK+ 2.x is another story.
Still, I obsess about customisable window managers. That was really the thing I couldn't stand about the Mac. I can't live without focus-strictly-follows-mouse-and-vice-versa, and Sawfish is about the only thing that can give you that
("crucial", btw.)
You'd hate ROX-Filer, I think. It manages files, and it manages them well, but it doesn't do a whole lot else. No VFS layer.* No tree view. Basically each window shows just one folder a bit like the spatial paradigm, but you can get it to have multiple views of the same folder in different windows and they don't remember where they were (unless you ask them to) and stuff. Its customisation (which is close to Gnomish levels than KDEsque ones) is more focussed around accomodating rather than changing. Its intelligent file type detection behavior, its focus around avoiding using the mini file pickers in Open and Save As dialog boxes and the fact that single-click-to-run is the default (and much better supported in ROX then elsewhere) is what keeps me there. AppDirs are a boon too, but of course a ROX desktop uses them less thoroughly then a Mac desktop because there's only a limited amount of ROX software. But really, there's nothing innovative; it just does one thing, and does it well.
[* Which is one thing I *strongly* agree with. I can't imagine limiting myself just to one DE's apps; I want XMMS, Xterm/Zsh, Vim, Xpdf etc. to see the same as my file manager, so any VFS layer's gotta be at file-system level.]
I don't understand what you mean by GTK+ 2.x not being "modern", not being "pretty", not having "smooth fonts". It has as smooth fonts as anything on GNU/Linux does, which is different from Windows, but if you coped with KDE's smoothing, then GTK's is exactly the same. Perhaps your distribution didn't configure it properly?
Look out!
I'm not sure, if it's better but why aren't there OS for specfic purposes?
They all seem to be able to do this, that, those, whatever a casual user can think of.
When it comes to OS, it is very different if it's used on a server or on a desktop.
On a server, you don't need to see a CD icon pop out on screen when you insert a CD, hell, you never insert a CD when the server is running.
But on server, you don't say, 'damn, my mail server crashed again, let me relaunch', while maybe 1 mail application might just crash once every week on desktop.
Besides, being a little unstable at the cost of getting the greatest and nifiest feature on a desktop OS won't hurt, because a crash won't cost you a money, unless you lose a big document, you somehow haven't saved for the last hours are left open at the crash. But on a server, a crash costs. You do have redundancy but if the OS crash like an ass, you need to spend more money so even some of them go down at same time, the whole operation won't go down.
I really want an OS that is only usable for a server, but shit solid with no GUI desktop that takes minimal CPU/Memory at the most efficient way to handle incoming requests, plus less code leads to more secured code naturally.
For desktop OS, there's plenty already... Windows, Mac, Linux, FreeBSD or even OpenBSD for that matter. Be buggy and nifty all they want with desktop OS, but for server, please make us something what it's supposed to do best.
Just adding GUI code would triple or even more the amount of code needed to run a GUI-less terminal...
I'm not a kernel hacker so, I'm just whining without doing much, but you get the point.
the only thing 'lacking' for the *bsd's is native oracle instant client libraries. forced back into linux just to support lazy dba's....
I'll go along with that.
Kernel configuration/build/install on FreeBSD is so non-intimidating compared to the Linux process.
The kernel has grown quite a bit since the 4.x days; and I miss the old thorough LINT. It's still not an eternal drudge like answering a bzillion text-based questions or running a gui-based menu config process.
I think FreeBSD's popularity suffers from very subtle causes.
1) FreeBSD users are not evangelistic. They are happy but don't feel the need to proselytize.
2) Linux kind of got a jump-start as an alternative OS way back when BSD was in court with AT&T.
3) FreeBSD's name isn't all that catchy. It sounds like cussing. Linux has a cool-sounding name. That may sound trite; but how many of us have ever been in a conversation about operating systems. One guy says he likes Linux. Everybody nods. Somebody says, "How do you like it? My brother runs Linux and he really likes it." You say you run xxxBSD and you get glassy-eyed stares. Maybe a cricket chirps nearby. Somebody says, "What's that?"