Well that's an important point!Because you don't need all of them. It allows building smaller jails, OCI images, VM's, etc.
Well that's an important point!Because you don't need all of them. It allows building smaller jails, OCI images, VM's, etc.
Says who? The difference between a server and a desktop? Come on, software-wise, it's completely negligible. In fact, in Microsoft, the difference is just a few registry edits to properly take advantage of available hardware. And an empire was built around that, with all the different editions and different prices for those editions. Apart from those registry edits, the decision to run specific software (or implement certain prohibitions) was completely arbitrary.It’s really not. You can use OSX as a server. and you can use FreeBSD as a desktop. That doesn’t change what they really are.
You’re missing the point and I suspect you don’t have the capacity to debate it.Says who? The difference between a server and a desktop? Come on, software-wise, it's completely negligible. In fact, in Microsoft, the difference is just a few registry edits
Yeah, the point that Microsoft's Marketing department already made like, 20 years ago.You’re missing the point and I suspect you don’t have the capacity to debate it.
Why's it difficult to understand? FreeBSD has what some users want exclusively as a Command-line server, while it has what others want as a desktop that other OS's don't have.You’re missing the point and...
It’s really not. You can use OSX as a server. and you can use FreeBSD as a desktop. That doesn’t change what they really are.
s/what they really are/what YOU THINK they really are/
I probably don't have the capacity to debate the 'is it a server or a workstation argument' in this century as I missed the point that Barney was making. My own views on the subject changed when I started to use UnixWare 1.0 .Yeah, the point that Microsoft's Marketing department already made like, 20 years ago.
Oh, I just took a look at https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:amd64/base_latest/ and I am instantly disappointed. I was a fan of the idea, but seeing how they decided to make one package for each item is a massive bummer. Why would you split it up this way?
I finally get the push behind the fragmentation of base. It's to create minimal containerized installsI don't want to run dumb images (OS or languages) that cut me off from diagnostic tools.
I understand that need and I find that option important. However, that's when someone would proceed to building custom packages in the same way its done for ports. If need to customize my FreeBSD installation I can use Poudriere to build a custom base package that has only what I want.To have a minimal install for what you need and - more importantly - automatically install more of base exactly if and when it is needed (as dependency of other packages).
Personally I don't really need it. I am fine with a "minimal" base that includes all the commandline utilities, cron and a C compiler. It is useful for diagnostic, workarounds and the like. Compare to Common Lisp, where you always drag around a full Common Lisp compiler in the on-disk image. Wasteful? Maybe. But I want it. It is useful for diagnostic, workarounds and the like.
I don't want to run dumb images (OS or languages) that cut me off from diagnostic tools.
You can say my name. You don't have to be shy.Some people want multiple monitors with a different terminal on each screen for configuring their server. Multihead monitors require X and a window manager, no matter how basic. Multiple monitors are useful for using a reference material on one monitor, and configuring on the other, or for working on related configurations in different directories.
I dislike Rust but I dislike some anti-Rust trolls even more that they may be pushing me to try the language, but I'm not my 20's and Rust is not a psychedelic.So where is this Rust-written KDE wielding installer?
It wasn't about you. Wasn't thinking of your name. It was a category of users, also how OpenBSD and NetBSD now come with a window manager by default. I've moved on to using a full screen window manager, which shows the same output on both monitors, both terminals and graphical applications. when I want a larger desktop of two monitors for expanded output or multihead, I switch to a different light WM.You can say my name. You don't have to be shy.
It's always about me. It's all my fault. I'll try to do better.It wasn't about you.
RUST never sleeps, or so they say.I dislike Rust but I dislike some anti-Rust trolls even more that they may be pushing me to try the language, but I'm not my 20's and Rust is not a psychedelic.
Cheaper? Meaning, they will actually pay me to use their system? FreeBSD is free of charge, y'know...Yes, you can use FreeBSD as a workstation, but you’re foolish to do so. Because there are better, cheaper options that require less effort.
When I say a MAC is not a server, it doesnt mean you can’t make it into a server.
Thanks for calling me foolish twice, as I have both my main and test workstations running FreeBSD. One is an i7 that I paid around 400€ new a couple of years ago and the other is a 15 year old laptop that barely runs with Linux and Windows and just flies with FreeBSD.you can use FreeBSD as a workstation, but you’re foolish to do so. Because there are better, cheaper options that require less effort.
LolSo where is this Rust-written KDE wielding installer?
I use freebsd as workstation and "local server".As in politics, parsing words matters.
When I say a MAC is not a server, it doesnt mean you can’t make it into a server. You can run apache and ftpd and say it’s a server It’s not primarily designed as a server. Apple doesn’t care if it can handle 2 million RPS, because that’s not what it is.
Yes, you can use FreeBSD as a workstation, but you’re foolish to do so. Because there are better, cheaper options that require less effort.
RUST never sleeps, or so they say.