I guess the short answer is that I use Linux because I just don't want to spend the time after installing *BSD to make it work and act like... Linux!
I can NOT believe the moderation this blatant piece of flamebait has gotten.
First off, all of what you are saying about *BSD as a desktop is pure, 100% FUD. Perhaps if your only experience with the desktop pc is setting it up, and you confine yourself to mandrake...you might have a point. Once you talk about parameters, or what difference there is beyond set up...your flamebait^H^H^H^H^H^H^H argument breaks down.
*BSD is great if you're running a headless server, but Linux has made *nix a viable out-of-the-box personal computing platform, as much as people like to bash Linux's desktop prowess when compared to Windows.
Set up debian as a desktop OS and then set up FreeBSD and THEN come back and tell me which one is more 'viable' (WTF?) "out of the box"...or is/stand/sysinstall on your system not working for some reason? *smirk*
Sorry, I've used FreeBSD as a desktop for four years now, and once you get past the installation phase, *nix is *nix is *nix is *nix. And there is ZERO time difference between setting the two up as a desktop. (again, compared to anything other than mandrake...which I don't have the exprience to comment on.)
Linux embodied the "One Smart Guy Takes On The World", and "Everything Is Changing" ideals that drove the economy a few years back. To think that Linus, a single guy, with a rag-tag group of developers, with their sandals and freakishly stylish hair, could make an OS that would compete with the biggest and best offerings from Sun and IBM.
I agree and I think it's important to not overlook the "rags to riches" (sic) angle. With Linux, you have one charismatic/personable leader, with *BSD you have...Theo DeRaadt (!?!?)or (at best) the "Core Group" (quick-name 5 core members you read about *outside* of the mailing lists).
It's also worth mentioning that the tannenbaum (sp?)/torvalds flame war helped to paint Linux as an underdog too (imho).
But, as Netscape discovered, it's very difficult to compete with a product that free.
Who says they have to?
Really, what kind of future does Linux (or BSD) face once intel and AMD ship (in the next year or so) with their TCPA/Palladium features?
Then there will be no competition. Just windows Uber Alles.:(
I think it's highly illuminating that the same story only garnered twelve responses over there.
Still, after reading it; I don't think that the slashdot/activewin comparision is accurate. I read through articles and did not see a single 'fp'.
Slashdot Mirror
We already read about this here two weeks ago.
for not mentioning 'fp' anywhere in my previous post. In my own defense; I figured it was implied. :)
Yes!!
I can NOT believe the moderation this blatant piece of flamebait has gotten.
First off, all of what you are saying about *BSD as a desktop is pure, 100% FUD. Perhaps if your only experience with the desktop pc is setting it up, and you confine yourself to mandrake...you might have a point. Once you talk about parameters, or what difference there is beyond set up...your flamebait^H^H^H^H^H^H^H argument breaks down.
Set up debian as a desktop OS and then set up FreeBSD and THEN come back and tell me which one is more 'viable' (WTF?) "out of the box"...or is
Sorry, I've used FreeBSD as a desktop for four years now, and once you get past the installation phase, *nix is *nix is *nix is *nix. And there is ZERO time difference between setting the two up as a desktop. (again, compared to anything other than mandrake...which I don't have the exprience to comment on.)
*groan* I'm sure there must be dozens more; but that doesn't mean we should recite them. ;)
I think it's highly illuminating that the same story only garnered twelve responses over there. Still, after reading it; I don't think that the slashdot/activewin comparision is accurate. I read through articles and did not see a single 'fp'.