chrcol said:The 2 top complaints I heard from datacentres as to why they dont/stopped supporting FreeBSD.
1 - Hard to use installer.
2 - Fussy on hardware, hangs on bootloader are common.
My view on hardware compatability and drivers, well for a long time on realtek cards linux was better, the reason I got from FreeBSD when I queuried was its poor hardware so tough luck, rather than ok we will try and get our driver as good as linux driver. (...)
Mel_Flynn said:No, it's a security disaster. Uptime actually means you didn't patch, it doesn't have any real relation to stability.
Weinter said:That is were you are wrong
Market share give controlling power so companies have to consider FreeBSD as a platform to roll out their ports
...
thortos said:If we were talking about Windows (which needs a reboot with almost every security update) or Linux (which has lots of kernel updates requiring reboots because they cramp everything into the kernel), I'd agree. But actually I cannot remember any vulnerability in the FreeBSD kernel that's affected us in the last five years or so. Edit: Of course, our machines all run on customized (read: stripped-down) kernels, so YMMV.
Mel_Flynn said:http://security.freebsd.org/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-08:03.sendfile.asc
http://security.freebsd.org/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-08:04.ipsec.asc
http://security.freebsd.org/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-08:07.amd64.asc
http://security.freebsd.org/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-08:08.nmount.asc
http://security.freebsd.org/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-07:01.jail.asc
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
...That is were you are wrong
Market share give controlling power so companies have to consider FreeBSD as a platform to roll out their ports
I can't agree with u more
Weinter said:...
Maybe the dumbing it down maybe PC-BSD's job
But ultimately hardware support will still fall flat on FreeBSD shoulders as PC-BSD is not doing anything about it...
snes-addict said:There is nothing wrong with the FreeBSD Project focusing on servers. Looking at the recent improvements that the team has made, we see lots of talk about SMP and the new scheduler. Performance improvements such as these are absolutely vital for FreeBSD to remain a top contender for the best server OS, and with many desktop users on multi-processor machines, they also happen to benefit the desktop as well.
Also, one of the aspects of FreeBSD which I have always liked has been the cleanliness of the system on an initial install: the included software is simple and doesn't bloat. Seeing as how desktop users typically have everything from word processors to web browsers to video games, the addition of extra software to meet those requirements would make the FreeBSD cumbersome and particularly unusable for the server and cluster guys.
FreeBSD is already the best OS; perfect for servers, and (with the help of ports) is a great choice for the desktop.
tomh009 said:Hmmm. I have had my issues with Linux, and much of it related to installation. First, with Linux, none of the distros I tried (SuSE, Fedora etc) documented what hardware was actually supported -- the only way you would find out is by installing and then noticing that Linux didn't recognize your RAID card. Yes, there were other drivers out there, but the Linux installers didn't give you the option of inserting a floppy or CD with additional drivers. A day of messing about with this stuff, and I was already fed up with Linux.
Later ... the redundancy of the RAID array was foiled by the much-vaunted EXT3 filesystem corrupting its journals twice. (I since downgraded to EXT2, and it seems to have been OK.)
This server will shortly return home, with a clean install of FreeBSD 7.0 (I was hoping for 7.1, but it seems not imminent), and I will most definitely not miss Linux. Otherwise all our servers run FreeBSD (though some of them really do need to migrate from 4.x to something more current).
But 100 million Elvis fans can't be wrong, can they? :\
It is a good idea in some ways, but it may give people the impression that KDE is a sort of default desktop for FreeBSD. Some of you are apparently comfortable with that idea, but many of us are not.Mel_Flynn said:This is why putting the effort in PC-BSD is a good idea.Barnie said:I think that FreeBSD has all components, tools, drivers and quality for desktop use! It's only the last step that is missing... setup/configuration for desktops.
I don't see how providing a canned desktop setup would change the focus of the project. Practically all users of FreeBSD - even those who complain about the silliness of GUI - use at least X with one of the simple window managers. So let us make a canned desktop setup with one of those window managers. This approach might even attract the interest of many of the real experts, who for the most part use simple window managers themselves. Such a setup done right would also be a neat way to answer a number of questions that keep recurring on forums and mailing lists.Mel_Flynn said:This thread is about changing focus of FreeBSD itself and I don't think it's good for the project.
No. It's the desktop that is easier to make and keep working correctly. Donate resources if you wish another desktop.softblur said:It is a good idea in some ways, but it may give people the impression that KDE is a sort of default desktop for FreeBSD. Some of you are apparently comfortable with that idea, but many of us are not.
I don't see how providing a canned desktop setup would change the focus of the project.
Hem... PBIs are not a must. You can furthermore use the original ports and packages. So this is not a real argument against PC-BSD.sremick said:PBIs and the choice of KDE is what keeps me off PC-BSD.
I'm aware. But a lot of the value-add of PC-BSD are the GUI tools for PBI management. My point is, I would've preferred the same tools, interface, and infrastructure built up around a standard ports/packages type configuration, versus a wholly separate method that runs contrary against standard Unix-style software installation philosophy.Barnie said:PBIs are not a must. You can furthermore use the original ports and packages.
ninjaslim said:What is a canned desktop setup? I'm in favor of FreeBSD adding additional common sets to make desktop setup faster (I did not say easier for a reason).
Yes.Eponasoft said:But in all reality, folks...would you really WANT FreeBSD to be a "mainstream" OS?
Eponasoft said:But in all reality, folks...would you really WANT FreeBSD to be a "mainstream" OS?