In the end, I recommend trying out each one in a virtual machine and seeing what suits you best. Personally, I like running Debian on my laptop and PC-BSD's server edition on my servers.
Disagree. Linux is definitely not as stable as FreeBSD. I think, but am not too much into details, that Xorg is the weak spot. Applications run in a window manager can and do easily freeze or crash a Linux system. This might depend on the application, of course
There is something wrong in this discussion. I don't understand what's wrong with running a desktop on FreeBSD. The reason I say that is that currently I've got the best desktop I've ever had with any OS (since desktops were invented) and I'm running FreeBSD.
There is something wrong in this discussion. I don't understand what's wrong with running a desktop on FreeBSD. The reason I say that is that currently I've got the best desktop I've ever had with any OS (since desktops were invented) and I'm running FreeBSD.
That's just wrong. No idea where you heard that, has not happened to me once in the last 10 years. FreeBSD runs the same Xorg and Gnome/KDE as all the Linux distributions btw.
There are two reasons, why FreeBSD is not suitable:
1. Important software cannot be run.
On a server, you hardly run across software not available. Apache, qmail, bind, NFS, samba, everything there. But on a desktop, I might have to run some Windows only software or a program that has been ported to Linux, but cannot be run under the FreeBSD compatibility layer. What will you tell your boss? "Sorry but I can't make that xyz-thing for you, my OS is not able to execute the program for it"2. Your hardware is not supported
There is something wrong in this discussion. I don't understand what's wrong with running a desktop on FreeBSD.
There are two reasons, why FreeBSD is not suitable:
1. Important software cannot be run.
My hardware is well supported. Perhaps because I bought it myself (and I know what I'm doing there), or perhaps because FreeBSD runs on most hardware just fine.2. Your hardware is not supported
My experience is not like that with FreeBSD."Updates are horrible with PC-BSD and package-manager do not work together properly"
I admit that I have encountered some problems from time to time, but I've gotten good help on this forum. In the last few years the problems have not been with the OS, but rather my lack of skill with it.If I have the choice among spending three days to install a FreeBSD with a lot of compiling and searching and stuff, and spending two hours installing PC-BSD every two months, because an update breaks my whole configuration, I know what to pick
There are two reasons, why FreeBSD is not suitable:
1. Important software cannot be run.
On a server, you hardly run across software not available. Apache, qmail, bind, NFS, samba, everything there. But on a desktop, I might have to run some Windows only software or a program that has been ported to Linux, but cannot be run under the FreeBSD compatibility layer. What will you tell your boss? "Sorry but I can't make that xyz-thing for you, my OS is not able to execute the program for it"
What's "wrong" here is that when people refer to a particular platform as a "good desktop operating system," what they mean is that it's an operating system that a lobotomized baboon on PCP could operate with its tongue while bound and blindfolded. These constant niggling debates over whether this OS or that is a "good desktop OS" drive me insane. What people mean by "good desktop OS," in the end, is "Can any moron used to Windows learn how to use it in two minutes?" The answer will always be "No," and so the answer to whether Linux and *BSD are good desktop OSes will always be "No."
The barrier is not and has never been the operating system, but the people using it. People are creatures of habit who will fight to maintain their bad habits, deny their own ignorance and blame others for their failures until fate or death compel them to change or stop. In the minds of the vast majority of people--the people who don't understand the distinction between a computer and an operating system, and are used to doing things one way and will never, never, never change their habits--*nix will always and forever be a "bad desktop OS." For everyone else--the people willing to learn and try new things, who are aware of their own ignorance and willing to do something about it--*nix is whatever the hell you want to make it. The debate over what is or is not a "good desktop OS" is insoluble and idiotic. Let it die, already.
[Typed from my FreeBSD laptop running GNOME 3.]
What's "wrong" here is that when people refer to a particular platform as a "good desktop operating system," what they mean is that it's an operating system that a lobotomized baboon on PCP could operate with its tongue while bound and blindfolded. These constant niggling debates over whether this OS or that is a "good desktop OS" drive me insane. What people mean by "good desktop OS," in the end, is "Can any moron used to Windows learn how to use it in two minutes?" The answer will always be "No," and so the answer to whether Linux and *BSD are good desktop OSes will always be "No."
The barrier is not and has never been the operating system, but the people using it. People are creatures of habit who will fight to maintain their bad habits, deny their own ignorance and blame others for their failures until fate or death compel them to change or stop. In the minds of the vast majority of people--the people who don't understand the distinction between a computer and an operating system, and are used to doing things one way and will never, never, never change their habits--*nix will always and forever be a "bad desktop OS." For everyone else--the people willing to learn and try new things, who are aware of their own ignorance and willing to do something about it--*nix is whatever the hell you want to make it. The debate over what is or is not a "good desktop OS" is insoluble and idiotic. Let it die, already.
[Typed from my FreeBSD laptop running GNOME 3.]
It is kind a funny you mentioned that as that is exactly the reason Windows is not usable to me. Imagine you need to edit 350 pages book, create some index, do words replacement or similar. On my OpenBSD machine I fire up nvi, sed, and needs be Perl and 15 minutes later TeX source is ready and book is ready for printing. On Windows unless you know how to use Cygwin you will be clicking that 350 pages word document 3 months and it is still going go look like a crap. I guess moral of the story is that very few Windows users write books. I hope that at least they read them
I don't understand the point of all these forks. Why not just gather a team of maintainers for each DE, like with GNOME 3/KDE. GhostBSD could easily just be the FreeBSD MATE team with their own FreeBSD oriented tweaks.
Ubuntu is a good example of this.