FreeBSD has (or used to?) an option for the GNU '387 math co-processor emulation in the kernel, which is disabled by default for precisely the reasons you describe...
I'm a *system* admin, who uses the best tool for the particular job.
I don't believe in becoming a specialised "unix" admin or a specialised "Windows" admin, because to be honest, *most* environments will require you to get involved with both.
However, given that, I'd much rather be a unix admin than a Windows admin - I pretty much started out with Unix services first, and it really does require that you know a lot more about how things actually *work* - a unix admin can usually stumble their way through Windows NT/2k due to the required knowledge on a Unix box. In my experience, a windows admin who has been able to stumble through the same job on a 2k/NT box usually finds hacking unix config files to be a little more difficult.
What stands out in my mind: better documentation, cleaner code, more structured filesystem layout, less distribution fragmentation, more informative kernel/log/error messages, "base" OS seperated from packages better.
BSD gets some things first, Linux gets other things first. IMHO, more often than not, when the BSD stuff comes out later, its generally because it was done the "right way" rather than the "quick and dirty way" and then re-written with an incompatible interface 3 months later:D
Fact: Everything 'cool' happens to Linux first.. Have you looked through the enhanced security stuff in recent kernels? Ever took a look at Gentoo Linux's Portage? Ever tried to do 'multimedia' stuff on a BSD box? Ever played 'Enemy Territory'? IS there even hardware accelerated graphics support on a BSD?!?
Like Jails? Like hotplug USB? Like ports (less broken than portage, more logical commands). There's sound and 3d accelerated video drivers for BSD, and linux apps often run faster on FreeBSD due to the better C library.
Don't even get me started on documentaiton - FreeBSD actually keeps the docs up to date with the software - not much more annoying under Linux than dealing with docs that are about 5 versions behind the codebase and are now broken.
disclaimer: Posted from Kubuntu. Linux user for 10 years, FreeBSD user for 6.
When Theo has an OS that I can purchase software for, run openGL windows games on, and download an iso for, burn and be up and running in 30 minutes, then he can talk.
Theo's distinct lack of social interaction skills is *the* major factor holding back openBSD's adoption, imho.
Every now and again, i'm tempted to give it a shot, then he makes another outrageous talking out of his arse comment, having a cry about other people, and i'm reminded of why I've tried just about every other OS i can get my hands on, other than NetBSD as yet:D
Real soon now, i'm releasing a full featured, stable graphical operating environment thats 100% compatible with Windows, half the price, and 50% faster.
Don't buy windows!!
Really!!
MS tries to jump onto yet another bandwagon, 3 years late. (the other one being the internet:D)
Now compare the house model to Gentoo Linux. Gentoo has releases, but for the most part you can ignore them
And this is why gentoo will never succeed in the corporate world.
No releases = no consistency between PCs supplied on different dates.
Reinstalling an OS is no huge hassle. Tracking down random problem you haven't seen before because someone decided that today they're going to make major changes to the OS and you just happened to have upgraded yesterday, whilst bob is upgrading today is a pain in the ass.
For corporate acceptance, you need an OS to have releases, so any problems can become "known issues" that can be worked around.
For definitions of "friendly" meaning "brain damaged, backstabbing pain in the arse", perhaps...
I don't think it was ever slashdot's agenda to be "taken seriously" by people who won't "get" the borg icon. Those people are suits, and don't belong here.:)
I was in the same boat, and today (at home at least) I finally ditched Windows completely and installed Kubuntu - then bought a Cedega subscription for the few games I play.
Happy as the proverbial pig in shit at the moment:)
There's issues to sort out before this be possible at work (will not happen in a long time, entrenched AD domain, etc) - but eventually I reckon most applications are going to become thin-client based, and OS will be irrelevant anyway:)
Fact is, windows 2000 machines with any recent version of office will do everything you need in a business environment.
Only reason you'd replace a Win2k workstation really, is if you were rolling out new PCs - in a corporate environment, XP has very little to offer over 2k.
Sure, some of the features are nice (firewall, cleartype), but some are a liability (universal PnP service, etc) - and *none* of them are really "must haves".
At home - Win2k will run any games windows XP will run... so no huge benefit there really either. Again, the firewall is nice, but most AV packages (which you do need) include one anyway...
Or, as JWZ just decided, simply run OS/X on a mac:D
Time taken to buy a Mac? 10 minutes. Time taken to bugger around with all those things? You tell me:D
Yes, there's solutions to virtually all of the problems with desktop linux. People shoudln't have to jump through hoops to get a workable desktop though, particularly when there's a usable alternative:)
Hell, I've been using Unix/Linux/BSD for only 10 years, don't have a family, and I agree with you 100%:D
If you want to play sysadmin and cut your teeth on the "unix way" go ahead. Its a great learning tool.
As you say, if you've got more important things to do, like oh, lets say *get some work done*, OS/X would definately be the way to go.
If Ubuntu doesn't work as a decent hassle free Desktop for me over the next few months, I'm jumping ship to MacOS myself (for desktop, my servers will remain bsd/linux as appropriate):)
Re-read the grandparent post, and you seem to be agreeing with me on several points.... but ask why JWZ is complaining.
I guess its because of all the distributions/linux fanboys claiming Linux is ready for the desktop, when it clearly *isn't* quite there yet for most people who just want to use the OS as a *desktop* tool, rather than something to play system admin with.
And before said linux fanboys fire up the blowtorch... I plan on giving Ubuntu a good run over the next few months, after a cursory evaluation last month it seems to have made great strides in this area. Yes, Linux is a great OS, but as a general purpose desktop, its still got a fair way to go yet.
Yes, most of my servers run Linux or FreeBSD. Have done since 1995. Thats not what this is about:D
Why is this bad? Because he's using a desktop machine, and Linux simply doesn't compare for *desktop* use?
Yes, you can configure it that way. Yes, perhaps he should know better.
However, if there's a solution out there that *just works*, and provides basically everything that you get with a Linux desktop and more as far as *desktop* functionality goes - what sane person wouldn't switch, if what they want is a usable desktop?
You shouldn't NEED to have a system administator background in order to control your *desktop* OS, or configure it for basic *desktop* tasks.
I've been a Linux/BSD geek since about 1995, but I'm seriously considering a Mac for exactly the same reasons... also because virtually all Free software runs on a Mac, but it also has decent commercial support.
Like some poster said yesterday - computers are tools. Use the correct tool for the job. BSD/Linux for servers, OS/X for desktop. Don't go trying to nail shit to a wall using a screwdriver...
No, seriously... if you want a computer for gaming, you buy a PC or a console.
Claiming that "but ppc mac owners won't get games!" as being a downer is irrelevant - there's barely any Mac games for PPC as it is anyway, compared to any other market.
Does anyone else see how this could end up with Microsoft effectively having no good reason for the average person to leave XP unless they buy a new PC? Why would a business want to move to Longhorn if it is a warmed over rehash of Windows XP?
Move from XP? I went back to 2K at home just recently, because XP holds nothing of interest/practical use for me. 2k uses less ram, has less "behind your back" crap going on, and is quicker.
However, MS will get people to move, eventually, by breaking compatibility with old OSes in new applications.
Eg, you need XP installed to be able to run the Win2k3 admin tools on a workstation. Excuse me? Why?:D
I believe that much of the "speed improvements" in XP are due to driver updates - personally I haven't seen 2k run slower than XP at anything, other than boot time, but thats moot, because 2k is stable enough to just leave running for months. XP leaks memory a little bit in my experience.
Slashdot Mirror
smash
smash.
I don't believe in becoming a specialised "unix" admin or a specialised "Windows" admin, because to be honest, *most* environments will require you to get involved with both.
However, given that, I'd much rather be a unix admin than a Windows admin - I pretty much started out with Unix services first, and it really does require that you know a lot more about how things actually *work* - a unix admin can usually stumble their way through Windows NT/2k due to the required knowledge on a Unix box. In my experience, a windows admin who has been able to stumble through the same job on a 2k/NT box usually finds hacking unix config files to be a little more difficult.
smash.
If you're bothering to compile your own kernels, etc - you should be on the kernel digest mailing list.
smash
What stands out in my mind: better documentation, cleaner code, more structured filesystem layout, less distribution fragmentation, more informative kernel/log/error messages, "base" OS seperated from packages better.
BSD gets some things first, Linux gets other things first. IMHO, more often than not, when the BSD stuff comes out later, its generally because it was done the "right way" rather than the "quick and dirty way" and then re-written with an incompatible interface 3 months later :D
smash.
Don't even get me started on documentaiton - FreeBSD actually keeps the docs up to date with the software - not much more annoying under Linux than dealing with docs that are about 5 versions behind the codebase and are now broken.
disclaimer: Posted from Kubuntu. Linux user for 10 years, FreeBSD user for 6.
smash.
Theo's distinct lack of social interaction skills is *the* major factor holding back openBSD's adoption, imho.
Every now and again, i'm tempted to give it a shot, then he makes another outrageous talking out of his arse comment, having a cry about other people, and i'm reminded of why I've tried just about every other OS i can get my hands on, other than NetBSD as yet :D
smash.
Don't buy windows!!
Really!!
MS tries to jump onto yet another bandwagon, 3 years late. (the other one being the internet :D)
smash.
No releases = no consistency between PCs supplied on different dates.
Reinstalling an OS is no huge hassle. Tracking down random problem you haven't seen before because someone decided that today they're going to make major changes to the OS and you just happened to have upgraded yesterday, whilst bob is upgrading today is a pain in the ass.
For corporate acceptance, you need an OS to have releases, so any problems can become "known issues" that can be worked around.
smash.
All the "enhancements" I've seen lately, other than the firewall, have been a pain in the ass :D
smash.
I don't think it was ever slashdot's agenda to be "taken seriously" by people who won't "get" the borg icon. Those people are suits, and don't belong here. :)
smash.
Happy as the proverbial pig in shit at the moment :)
There's issues to sort out before this be possible at work (will not happen in a long time, entrenched AD domain, etc) - but eventually I reckon most applications are going to become thin-client based, and OS will be irrelevant anyway :)
smash.
Only reason you'd replace a Win2k workstation really, is if you were rolling out new PCs - in a corporate environment, XP has very little to offer over 2k.
Sure, some of the features are nice (firewall, cleartype), but some are a liability (universal PnP service, etc) - and *none* of them are really "must haves".
At home - Win2k will run any games windows XP will run... so no huge benefit there really either. Again, the firewall is nice, but most AV packages (which you do need) include one anyway...
smash.
Time taken to buy a Mac? 10 minutes. Time taken to bugger around with all those things? You tell me :D
Yes, there's solutions to virtually all of the problems with desktop linux. People shoudln't have to jump through hoops to get a workable desktop though, particularly when there's a usable alternative :)
smash.
Those who couldn't make a chipset to save their life, and the reason the K8 has an onboard memory controller so that "even VIA can't fuck it up".
Buy broken hardware, what do you expect? :)
smash.
My guess is his cpu time is too valuable to waste recompiling his OS all day.
smash.
He didn't put any *people* down.
Anyone who takes offense to his post is pretty fucking fragile, and has serious self esteem issues, imho.
smash.
If you want to play sysadmin and cut your teeth on the "unix way" go ahead. Its a great learning tool.
As you say, if you've got more important things to do, like oh, lets say *get some work done*, OS/X would definately be the way to go.
If Ubuntu doesn't work as a decent hassle free Desktop for me over the next few months, I'm jumping ship to MacOS myself (for desktop, my servers will remain bsd/linux as appropriate) :)
smash.
I guess its because of all the distributions/linux fanboys claiming Linux is ready for the desktop, when it clearly *isn't* quite there yet for most people who just want to use the OS as a *desktop* tool, rather than something to play system admin with.
And before said linux fanboys fire up the blowtorch... I plan on giving Ubuntu a good run over the next few months, after a cursory evaluation last month it seems to have made great strides in this area. Yes, Linux is a great OS, but as a general purpose desktop, its still got a fair way to go yet.
Yes, most of my servers run Linux or FreeBSD. Have done since 1995. Thats not what this is about :D
smash.
Yes, you can configure it that way. Yes, perhaps he should know better.
However, if there's a solution out there that *just works*, and provides basically everything that you get with a Linux desktop and more as far as *desktop* functionality goes - what sane person wouldn't switch, if what they want is a usable desktop?
You shouldn't NEED to have a system administator background in order to control your *desktop* OS, or configure it for basic *desktop* tasks.
I've been a Linux/BSD geek since about 1995, but I'm seriously considering a Mac for exactly the same reasons... also because virtually all Free software runs on a Mac, but it also has decent commercial support.
Like some poster said yesterday - computers are tools. Use the correct tool for the job. BSD/Linux for servers, OS/X for desktop. Don't go trying to nail shit to a wall using a screwdriver...
smash.
In reality, its more like "we want you to upgrade to XP" :)
smash.
They predicted that he would be the one to restore the balance.
He was. It was *VADER* who killed the emporor (throwing him into the death star core), not luke.
smash.
MacOS no good for gaming. Film at 11!
No, seriously... if you want a computer for gaming, you buy a PC or a console.
Claiming that "but ppc mac owners won't get games!" as being a downer is irrelevant - there's barely any Mac games for PPC as it is anyway, compared to any other market.
smash.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that had more to do with Mac market share dwindling during 1996 than any CPU change.
What was there before '95? DOS? Real competitor to MacOS that was... :)
smash.
Move from XP? I went back to 2K at home just recently, because XP holds nothing of interest/practical use for me. 2k uses less ram, has less "behind your back" crap going on, and is quicker.
However, MS will get people to move, eventually, by breaking compatibility with old OSes in new applications.
Eg, you need XP installed to be able to run the Win2k3 admin tools on a workstation. Excuse me? Why? :D
I believe that much of the "speed improvements" in XP are due to driver updates - personally I haven't seen 2k run slower than XP at anything, other than boot time, but thats moot, because 2k is stable enough to just leave running for months. XP leaks memory a little bit in my experience.
smash.