wblock@ said:Suspend works for some systems on amd64 10-STABLE and later now. I agree that it's important, but have hardly tested it. Is it absolutely required for a "desktop" (as in GUI) system?
As a power user I sit at my computer all day long and only find such things an irritation when they shut down while I'm thinking. My computers stay on all the time so it's not value to me and I know people who feel the same but ... meh.AzaShog said:If you're a power user, I'm sure you'll find the inability to suspend or hibernate your workstation a real PITA.
It has turned away from the philosophy of Unix and is trying to be more Windows like. The users have wanted that for years and turning its back on Unix definitely no means it is no longer a Unix-like system. I've said elsewhere that, if you don't want to say it's Windows-like, then you can say it's now just Linux; not resembling any other OS and is Linux unto itself.I disagree. As long as the majority of its ecosystem is open source, and as long as the shared lib model is prevalent, Linux will never be Windows-like.
Unless there is. On reddit (and oh how I loathe reddit), there's a sysadmin trying to educate people about how systemd has affected people like him in the real world of a large Linux center. A "trials and tribulations" story. Things he never had problems with are now major headaches. So moving away from and "not being Unix-like" is OK unless it's not something as good or better. From what I read, it's definitely not been better.There is nothing wrong about Linux evolving into something that is not UNIX-like any more.
Durden said:wblock@ said:I disagree. The things that make FreeBSD a great server also make it a great desktop. There are two difficult things about creating a desktop system out of FreeBSD. The first is installing and configuring all the desktop software. That's not impossible, just annoying. The second is an automatic update that is robust enough to be run automatically. That is more difficult.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. FreeBSD in my nearly 20 years experience is an absolutely atrocious desktop. I say this as a FreeBSD advocate and long time user. I wouldn't use FreeBSD as a desktop, unless I was working on nothing but FreeBSD servers all day and just needed a terminal to work from. Even then I would be far more productive on anything else, including Windows from a PuTTy shell.
FreeBSD lacks pretty much everything that a modern desktop requires and is quickly falling behind even Linux as far as desktops go. FreeBSD will likely not see Wayland and with GNOME and KDE and all the others signing on to Wayland, FreeBSD will soon be stuck in legacy hell with XFCE (which really isnt developed anymore) and plain Jane Window Managers.
If you don't use a desktop for anything productive then FreeBSD is fine. Most people however could not use it on a day to day basis, and by most people I'm talking 99.99%. The people on this forum could, most could not.
hashime said:You can always try PC-BSD. It is basically FreeBSD with a GUI installer and some extra (half/not working) applications.
GNOME on GNU/Linux is doing much better.Durden said:FreeBSD lacks pretty much everything that a modern desktop requires and is quickly falling behind even Linux as far as desktops go. FreeBSD will likely not see Wayland and with GNOME and KDE and all the others signing on to Wayland, FreeBSD will soon be stuck in legacy hell with XFCE (which really isnt developed anymore) and plain Jane Window Managers.
How can you say such a thing? In CLI you can build a FreeBSD desktop with KDE. Hopefully soon spreading to the FreeBSD system GUI.Durden said:FreeBSD lacks pretty much everything that a modern desktop requires and is quickly falling behind even Linux as far as desktops go. FreeBSD will likely not see Wayland and with GNOME and KDE and all the others signing on to Wayland, FreeBSD will soon be stuck in legacy hell with XFCE (which really isnt developed anymore) and plain Jane Window Managers.
Besides, that Linux is becoming less UNIX-like is not really a bad thing. There's plenty of options if you need UNIX or UNIX-like OS, namely the BSDs. There is nothing wrong about Linux evolving into something that is not UNIX-like any more. Does it have to be? And it's really not becoming Windows either. But I agree, at some point, saying that Linux is a UNIX-like system will have to stop.
The only thing I'm currently missing is Skype, but I still have my Mac so I don't really care about that too much.
pkg install
and build a few from ports. And most of the functionality of others that are not up to Linux versions can usually be duplicated with others from the same category. And quickly found and tested. One using Linux may do this quite a lot slowlier and settle for less in the long term. Not always, but often enough. Not to mention grub breaking too often (in some distributions) and other impending steep technologies.Not to mention grub breaking too often (in some distributions) and other impending steep technologies.
The one I follow daily is a rolling release. The forum... two or three "booting broken by update" daily lately it seems. Not (I apologize) wishing to name it, persons reading this post may have better use of their time probably than reading its forum everyday like I do, most of them anyway.
Oh so it's not your experience at all, but you're making assumptions based on some forum titles? So, by that logic, FreeBSD and especially ZFS are broken too often just by looking at the frequency of titles on this forum?
To be fair
That's not being fair at all. To begin with, I was talking about Grub.
And as for Arch, it is a bleeding edge rolling release distro. It is by design bound to break often because they don't do weeks or months of package testing before they roll them out. That's not a fault or flaw, that's the design of it. Something breaks, users report it, it gets fixed. That's the cost of running a bleeding edge rolling release distro.