Yes, I am aware about TrueOS case. But I express my feeling (better to have choice in FreeBSD instead of have two different project with 99% of the same base).Hakaba In case you aren't aware, TrueOS is not part of the FreeBSD and is a completely different organization owned by ixSystems.
TrueOS is FreeBSD and is not a "distro" like those Linux systems you mention which package the Linux kernel to form an operating system. FreeBSD is a complete operating system unto itself.
> and it is pretty sad IMO, because, I believe, FreeBSD may be much better desktop OS than
> GNU/Linux is, but, unfortunately, this isn't true for now.
I am not sure that FreeBSD or any of the BSDs, are a better desktop OS than Linux is (I don't
use the term "GNU" because I actually consider it to be a misnomer that RMS propagated).
When I refer to "Linux", I refer here to the whole of Linux. That includes the various distributions,
including those that are, as far as I am concerned, closer towards the BSD model (Gentoo,
VoidLinux etc...); but also oldschool variants (Slackware in particular) and last, but not the least
important, at the least to me: LFS/BLFS (Linux from Scratch / Beyond Linux from Scratch).
I think if you refer in particular to all of these, but LFS/BLFS most above all, then you have
a flexible philosophy that can be quite close to the BSD model.
For example, ports-based compiling is not so different from the LFS/BLFS model that you
can use. You could use a package manager on top of that too; or you could use versioned
AppDirs such as GoboLinux would do (and NixOS to some extent, although they use
those ugly hashes as part of the directory name; NixOS is quite advanced from a conceptual
point of view, though - I think it may be the only distribution that also focuses on a reproducible
system from the core).
Anyway, before I digress too much from the quote - I think if you include all these different
distributions too, and source-based installation models, then the differences between Linux
as a whole, and all the BSDs as a whole, aren't that different - since you can do almost the
same in either variant. Including compiling literally everything from source, which I do too
(excluding a few large programs that tend to be a bit annoying to compile, such as
libreoffice; here I usually just download the .deb from their website and use it on my slackware
But to conclude - I think at the end, one of the real big difference is what the kernels offer.
Hardware support in particular. To some extent also stability of a system too, of course.
I think that both Linux and the BSDs are quite stable so this point will not be a huge difference
but when it comes to hardware support, what I always read in general is that the BSDs may
lag behind here or there. Now IF this is the case - and mind you, I write IF - then it makes the
claim that BSD is better than Linux as the better desktop OS sort of mood, since it may well
be the only real difference that ultimately matters to an end user. I think most end users want
to get their hardware to work on the OS they are using. For Windows this is obviously quite
easy since there will be drivers written (as some hardware requires these drivers in order to
So I think that whenever we compare which OS may be better, we also have to include an
objective "is this hardware supported on BSD and/or Linux" too.
- In the thread there was a reference to systemd and BSD not having a systemd variant (other
than perhaps a shim, such as we may have when it comes to pulseaudio, such as via
I also know of threads where Linux people switch to BSD because they dislike systemd.
I do not like systemd at all but the good thing is - I do not use it. Neither do I need it but this
is another point. I can avoid systemd without a problem. The only thing that may not work
is ... GNOME, which is no surprise since Red Hat is the driving force behind systemd and
GNOME. But even for GNOME, a Gentoo dev wrote patches to patch out systemd from
GNOME and the gnome desktop works, according to him (I was too lazy to test it for
myself but I have no reason to not trust him; I mostly use KDE plasma or mate-desktop
I think this should also be kept in mind. Just because some corporation is pushing its money
rain towards certain changes, does not mean that everyone will be following the "leader".
(LFS/BLFS "solved" this in a good way, in my opinion, by providing instructions for both
systemd and systemd-free paths. It's still unfortunate that Red Hat decided to split
the linux community but there is no need to follow what Red Hat or any other company
imposes onto a community downstream, even though I understand the problem of
paid corporate hackers versus hobby contributors).
- Patrick A Lima wrote that he may stay on Linux. I myself tried out various BSDs over the
years (I switched to Linux in 2003 as my main OS). Now I don't want to offend the FreeBSD
folks too much so I won't write too much that is controversial.
The biggest thing for me to not use any of the BSDs was actually that the advantages of
using BSD, as opposed to Linux, were too little. This may be my lack of knowledge but to
be honest .... after so many years on Linux, on the commandline just about daily,
literally compiling everything from source ... I think it may not "just" be me. It may be that
Linux is a really good OS; and in order for BSD to appeal to more people, if the BSD were
to have such a goal that is, it would have to offer more real incentives and advantages. And
I am not sure this is the case.
If, however had, there may be a single area where you, as the whole of BSD (so not just
FreeBSD but also the other BSDs), could probably improve the most, aside from smaller
usability improvements and so forth, then I think it would be hardware support. It would
be a HUGE thing if we could have a point where we could say that hardware works equally
well on both linux and the BSDs. That would be really really great - I think for everyone,
too, since nobody minds if more hardware is supported (if stability remains the same of
course). But that is all just my opinion - my real tinker days are gone. These days I am
mostly fine to just have an OS (any OS really) that works and allows me to "get things
done", which is usually very basic anyway (browsing, writing documents, doing a bit
of terminal work or write some code, mostly in ruby).
The point of drhowarddrfine was this is not the TrueOS, Trident, or DandyOS site and not the place to discuss it. If you have recommendations on their sites they are the ones to tell about it, not us.But my point was : TrueOS website is not for developer, but TrueOS is about development. Trident project website is not for customers, but Trident project goal is to convince customers...
Reaction score: 434
While I'm sure it's working ok, when using these distros,OPENRC works just fine in Debian and Arch.
Sorry, I thought that with an example my point will be clearer.
In the interest of inclusiveness the FreeBSD website could be Fluid, a forum Profile option...Is it a he? Or a she? Are you sure?
While it does state:So to be clear, I really thing freebsd.org can not be a sexy marketing website as the audience is not new user that want to know why FreeBSD is the greatest OS in the world (this is a marketing sentence...)
If FreeBSD want a sexy website, a good idea is to create a new website only for the marketing purpose.
I don't know when sexy or "FreeBSD is the greatest OS in the world" was considered part of their marketing campaign, though I do have an image of a sexy daemon girl on my index.html page as part of mine.
While I have never suggested a more "sexy" website I have made recommendations and am tempted to ask a pointed question to get your opinion as a marketing-meister, but I digress...I work in the "digital marketing" (as tech leader) since more that 10 years, and I have to share my opinion...
Reaction score: 19
I've never understood why people make claims that FreeBSD is not "desktop" ready. Why haven't they discovered the ports or package system? What is preventing them from installing a desktop environment? I think the assumption is that, since it's not pre-installed, and they have only had some light exposure to a mainstream linux distro, that this OS doesn't support it at all. Yikes.Yes I saw, I was very happy and sad at the same time. The system is improving, but nothing on the desktop yet. I have been working on my project for a long time and because I can not reach some resources I think I will migrate to Linux and wait for the day FreeBSD will support 100% Desktop.
What does this even mean? Computers and networking have been around for quite some time and still follow the same rules they always have. Vulnerabilities in software still follow the same principles. There's nothing "new" to adapt to. New "webtech" doesn't mean the fundamentals change, it usually just means something might be easier to accomplish, or be shinier and easier to reach.new webtech is coming in quite fast
I believe the part about only having light exposure to mainstream Linux discos sums it up.I've never understood why people make claims that FreeBSD is not "desktop" ready. Why haven't they discovered the ports or package system? What is preventing them from installing a desktop environment? I think the assumption is that, since it's not pre-installed, and they have only had some light exposure to a mainstream linux distro, that this OS doesn't support it at all. Yikes.