A curiosity question

If bsd was not exist and you didn't like linux witch os you would install?
I was using one of this 3
Solaris
Opensolaris
Minix
Nexenta (based on solaris)
Maybe haiku (but is not giving me the opinion of a unix os and also not recommended as primary os!)
I am asking just because i am curious.
 
Microsoft Windows. Seriously, I ran to that from Linux. (Until I decided to give FreeBSD a go.)

Although I think I'd start longing after a Unix (-like) system soon. I'd probably go with OpenSolaris first. Or Mac OS X, if I had the money. Other than that, I don't know. Minix might be an option, but I don't know just how useful it is -- I should try it one day just for the kicks of it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
For a few weeks i tried the Hurd, but it was quite difficult (i couldn't get X up and running). Too much work for me.
Not sure what to think about plan9, i couldn't even shut it down again.
Someone posted about Haiku. I once tried it but couldn'T remember, so i tried it again. It looks interesting but i am pretty busy with finding my way in BSD. So: no haiku for me.
 
I have tried haiku. Is good :) but not as primary os
I cannot imagine my life without unix.
To be real i am computer user about 3-4 years on my all life. (i bought my fist pc after the school)
Before i had idea even how to open it
The first year i was using windows. All the others unix.
There is no way for me to go back on windows. I prefer to stop using computers. Seriously.
I don't believe that bsd will stop to have the problem to search for an alternative os.
Just doing conversation.
But i could give a try to solaris or opensolaris.
Also chrome os, revlin os. Even colibrios :p
BUT NO WINDOWS
 
I don't like OS X too much. The reason is that is not free, and of course not flexible
I could not change nothing except the defaults
Plan9? What is this?
 
Actually Plan9 is mainly a research platform. It's based on UNIX (was originally developed by Thompson), it's a distributed OS, all resources are nodes in the filesystem (they invented /proc) and has native support to utf-8.
I found it interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan9
 
windows + cygwin looks very good.
I could never try out freebsd if cygwin was more integrated into windows, have had an utf8 support, etc; and if windows disk system was not that ugly c: d:; and if windows has had a good file system; if it had good tiling window managers.. (Oh, wait. Too many if's: so that could never happen. And too many kludges over kludges over kludges.)

If to choose from current OS without huge design changes - definitely solaris. I use it sometimes due to work, and i find it kind of complicated; but well, if there was no bsd - the only real choice is it.
All the other variants are
a) non-desktopish, closed and very expensive
b) 'experimental', e.g. good for an idea like plan9, but bad for actual usage.

And a little fix: if there was no FreeBSD, but others were here - OpenBSD would be my choice.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
; if it had good tiling window managers..
It's not tiling (as far i know), but a good replacement for the windows-shell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BbLean
There is a link to an article about other Windows-shell replacements
I tested some, but would say the blackbox for windows stuff is the most reliable one.

I never have to deal much with windows, so i am ok with it the way it is (cause if i want fluxbox/blackbox-style i also might boot into a Unix-like box).
 
Irix in the early 90s -> Slackware Linux -> Solaris/Slackware Linux -> since 5-6 years FreeBSD, since 2-3 years OpenBSD/FreeBSD/Slackware Linux. If I could turn time back, I would certainly use Irix again. I don't hate the Linux kernel, I just don't like certain distros. Apart from that: kill fanboyism, be more productive.
 
Apart from that: kill fanboyism, be more productive.
That's not fanboyism as for me: linux just works like crap on my hardware. (plenty of problems with hdds & network) May be if i would dig deeper - that problems could be avoided (except for iowait bug, that could be fixed only by zen-kernel compilation, and i totally hate reconfiguring and compiling linux kernel), but well, if another variant works faster and overall better, why should i care?
E.g.: because of that bugs, each of what look like 'wtf how could this even happen' - i dislike linux.
If to look overall, and to take the best-linux-hw-available - every distro that i've tried out was crap by some reason (mostly due to distros package management system), and i do not like to choose the best crap in the pile of available crap.
I could end up using linux, if i've had the skillfull administrator that would install & maintain my best-for-linux-with-no-hw-bugs-that-annoy-me-machines. In this case - i see almost no difference between linux and fbsd.


upd on windows opinion: i will never use that by the free will. Just to do some very basic text-editing work without cygwin, i need to click tons of crappy buttons. This totally sucks.
 
I would say QNX, but I don't think it would exists without BSD.

But if BSD never existed that might mean that everyone went to VMS instead so I'd be running OpenVMS on my quad-core dual DEC Alpha EV200 AlphaStation!
 
roddierod said:
I would say QNX, but I don't think it would exists without BSD.

But if BSD never existed that might mean that everyone went to VMS instead so I'd be running OpenVMS on my quad-core dual DEC Alpha EV200 AlphaStation!

I doubt it, QNX was a new operating system, developed in 1980 for IBM personal computers.
 
sk8harddiefast said:
If bsd was not exist and you didn't like linux witch os you would install?

Hard to say. I might have lost interest in computing and looked for a career change.

It's nothing short of amazing how much one can learn (e.g. about service management, networking, encryption, et al.) with a well-designed FOSS OS.
 
Top