Windows dies. Microsoft just ports office to Mac. Businesses will lap it up. there are far too many shitty little MS Access databases involved in many, many business critical reporting systems out there for Office to just die overnight.
Yeah, IE4 killed netscape 4 fair and square. Well... not entirely fair, but from a reliability standpoint, and by shipping with Windows 98 and Communicator being a downgrade, yes...
Yeah, comparing a typical Linux distro to FreeBSD is a little bit "unfair" for lack of a better word, unless the distro is LFS or Gentoo stage 2 (? its been a while).
If you're going to compare Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint, etc. the better comparison is PC-BSD as they are aimed at similar users.
Whilst Linux has a bunch of interesting work, so does the FreeBSD code-base - capsicum, dtrace, zfs, grand central, clang, beadm, etc. Also, for a light-weight multi-platform box, FreeNAS 9.1 plus jails = awesome. Point and click jail generation = far lighter weight than virtualization and most of the benefit - and your entire jail is able to be snapshotted/rolled back/etc. with ZFS.
And yes, looks like the parent poster has a heap of gripes about FreeBSD because it doesn't work the Linux way. ZFS with gpart is entirely usable, and no you don't need to grep through dmesg. However, expecting FreeBSD to work like Linux, or Linux to work like FreeBSD will just end in tears. They are not the same and never will be.
Bash = GNU, and therefore not in the default install. it is available as a package, just like it is on Linux (the Linux package just happens to be installed by default).
Other points... Xorg is available as a package (no you do not need to compile), VMware does not yet support FreeBSD 10, ZFS is NOT recommended for use in a virtual environment.
If you're setting up a desktop, you're better off with PC-BSD anyway.
On the contrary, I just (last night in fact) installed PC-BSD 10 pre-release (2014-01-25 nightly build) on bare metal on my Core i5-4430 with GT760 NVidia card and everything was detected and worked out of the box. It was essentially the same experience I had with Ubuntu 13.10, except I got root on ZFS out of the box.
I never said "you're doing it wrong". Just that for the 99% use case of FreeBSD, USB3 is entirely irrelevant, hence effort is put into things that are MORE relevant. Thus, "wake me up when it supports USB3" or whatever is just being a dick for the sake of it.
Where are DEC now? The effects of the Microsoft / IBM deal are still being felt today. Sorry but you're either incredibly short sighted, or just plain don't know what you're talking about. The specifics of that deal with IBM ensured Microsoft were carried by the PC revolution through the 80s and early 90s for essentially free (you can't tell me there was any significant DOS development since the 80s).
Exactly. It's nothing to do with the technology involved, Microsoft basically fucked IBM and that one deal was a critical factor in turning Microsoft into the largest software house in the history of computing. I hate Microsoft's software as much as the next guy, but there is no denying how much of a win Microsoft had over IBM with that. The computing landscape today would be very different if the specifics of that particular deal were in IBM's favor.
More to the point he lost to a 23 year old guy who was a grand master at 13. By the time Gates was ~25 (i.e., similar age) he had stitched up IBM in probably the biggest ever deal in the history of software (for DOS). Meh.
Yes and no. If you use network drives, they aren't loaded for about 5 MINUTES after the desktop becomes available. No i am not joking with that time. It delays reconnection for some fucking idiotic reason, probably related to winning boot to desktop benchmarks.
That said,.0 releases in FreeBSD do not get supported for as long as the other point releases, and the.1s generally tend to get longer support than the rest.
LLVM/CLANG is superior in many aspects because they don't have political ideology driving development. GCC is actively hostile to the notion of being linked to an IDE for example.
The other benefit to the BSD license is that if someone DOES use BSD software in a commercial product then the resultant software is likely to be less buggy, as the code is more well tested and the smaller amount of new code (the closed source bit) is easier to develop and test. BSD results in better software for everybody. GPL puts additional hurdles in the development of non-GPL software and results in more expensive, worse quality results.
And? What's your point. If you do not like the TOS, you are totally free to NOT BUY IT, and take the BSD source that apple took from the community and build your own. The non-open additions that Apple made to build a usable product are, and should be their property. Not yours. They charge for them because they cost money to write. The open source code Apple used to build their products is still available to everybody.
Because it hit the scene when BSD was involved in a legal dispute. I believe Linus himself is on record as saying that if BSD was available at the time he would not have started Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Firefox OS is a major segment of the market...
Uh.... Microsoft is making plenty out of Azure thanks. in fact, iCloud runs on top of it.
Windows dies. Microsoft just ports office to Mac. Businesses will lap it up. there are far too many shitty little MS Access databases involved in many, many business critical reporting systems out there for Office to just die overnight.
Yeah, IE4 killed netscape 4 fair and square. Well... not entirely fair, but from a reliability standpoint, and by shipping with Windows 98 and Communicator being a downgrade, yes...
The mac version of IE was an entirely different code-base to the Windows version and far more standards compliant.
In the vein of one of the comments below: do you have paintings on your cave?
Yeah, comparing a typical Linux distro to FreeBSD is a little bit "unfair" for lack of a better word, unless the distro is LFS or Gentoo stage 2 (? its been a while).
If you're going to compare Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint, etc. the better comparison is PC-BSD as they are aimed at similar users.
Whilst Linux has a bunch of interesting work, so does the FreeBSD code-base - capsicum, dtrace, zfs, grand central, clang, beadm, etc. Also, for a light-weight multi-platform box, FreeNAS 9.1 plus jails = awesome. Point and click jail generation = far lighter weight than virtualization and most of the benefit - and your entire jail is able to be snapshotted/rolled back/etc. with ZFS.
Oh and by the way. USB3 is supported in FreeBSD 10 anyway, just checked my box's dmesg. I hadn't noticed because I don't have any USB3 peripherals.
And yes, looks like the parent poster has a heap of gripes about FreeBSD because it doesn't work the Linux way. ZFS with gpart is entirely usable, and no you don't need to grep through dmesg. However, expecting FreeBSD to work like Linux, or Linux to work like FreeBSD will just end in tears. They are not the same and never will be.
Yup, gpart list. Maybe the documentation needs updating.
Bash = GNU, and therefore not in the default install. it is available as a package, just like it is on Linux (the Linux package just happens to be installed by default).
Other points... Xorg is available as a package (no you do not need to compile), VMware does not yet support FreeBSD 10, ZFS is NOT recommended for use in a virtual environment.
If you're setting up a desktop, you're better off with PC-BSD anyway.
On the contrary, I just (last night in fact) installed PC-BSD 10 pre-release (2014-01-25 nightly build) on bare metal on my Core i5-4430 with GT760 NVidia card and everything was detected and worked out of the box. It was essentially the same experience I had with Ubuntu 13.10, except I got root on ZFS out of the box.
I never said "you're doing it wrong". Just that for the 99% use case of FreeBSD, USB3 is entirely irrelevant, hence effort is put into things that are MORE relevant. Thus, "wake me up when it supports USB3" or whatever is just being a dick for the sake of it.
Where are DEC now? The effects of the Microsoft / IBM deal are still being felt today. Sorry but you're either incredibly short sighted, or just plain don't know what you're talking about. The specifics of that deal with IBM ensured Microsoft were carried by the PC revolution through the 80s and early 90s for essentially free (you can't tell me there was any significant DOS development since the 80s).
Exactly. It's nothing to do with the technology involved, Microsoft basically fucked IBM and that one deal was a critical factor in turning Microsoft into the largest software house in the history of computing. I hate Microsoft's software as much as the next guy, but there is no denying how much of a win Microsoft had over IBM with that. The computing landscape today would be very different if the specifics of that particular deal were in IBM's favor.
Network is. Mapped drives do not get re-mapped until well after log in - they are OFF LINE.
I dunno, ask Zuckerberg.
More to the point he lost to a 23 year old guy who was a grand master at 13. By the time Gates was ~25 (i.e., similar age) he had stitched up IBM in probably the biggest ever deal in the history of software (for DOS). Meh.
Yes and no. If you use network drives, they aren't loaded for about 5 MINUTES after the desktop becomes available. No i am not joking with that time. It delays reconnection for some fucking idiotic reason, probably related to winning boot to desktop benchmarks.
That said, .0 releases in FreeBSD do not get supported for as long as the other point releases, and the .1s generally tend to get longer support than the rest.
BSD people do not consider closed-source BSD software re-use as abuse. It is an intended consequence of the license.
LLVM/CLANG is superior in many aspects because they don't have political ideology driving development. GCC is actively hostile to the notion of being linked to an IDE for example.
The other benefit to the BSD license is that if someone DOES use BSD software in a commercial product then the resultant software is likely to be less buggy, as the code is more well tested and the smaller amount of new code (the closed source bit) is easier to develop and test. BSD results in better software for everybody. GPL puts additional hurdles in the development of non-GPL software and results in more expensive, worse quality results.
And? What's your point. If you do not like the TOS, you are totally free to NOT BUY IT, and take the BSD source that apple took from the community and build your own. The non-open additions that Apple made to build a usable product are, and should be their property. Not yours. They charge for them because they cost money to write. The open source code Apple used to build their products is still available to everybody.
Because it hit the scene when BSD was involved in a legal dispute. I believe Linus himself is on record as saying that if BSD was available at the time he would not have started Linux.