proof that Linux ***

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eye candy

ahavatar said:
Well, maybe I should have offered a better example than an eye candy like rotating a 3D cube while playing a video. I chose it because it was an easy example to make others understood.

The real issue is when you mix 2D and 3D on the same desktop, without proper kernel support, it can't be cohesive, synced and flicker free. It has nothing to do with the performance of the machine. And some people need to display 2D and 3D on the same desktop not for an eye candy but for a real work.

Rotating cubes and high-level eye candy consume high resources... And high electric bills :p
 
What's up and all?

Okay.

(Personal opinion here; you're free to argue against it.)
Utility and equipment are the first determinants of operating system base. From here, one can choose aesthetics or performance. If it is aesthetics, then cost and commonality are the deciding factors. When performance directs choice, we can progress to the argument at hand.
Generally, the populace of users want to transition more easily to a more secure solution. Professionally supported distributions of Linux+GNU-userland become the easiest selection. Be aware that nothing can change humanity's complacency, impatience, and other limitations except the individual from which it originates. Curiosity may drive another to choose a different operating system.
What was stated earlier in this thread holds true to some degree. People are not locked into Linux; they don't know or don't care how to learn another system. The standards for base applications are nearly parallel to the development and use of words. Most of us at this forum speak at least two languages, and many of us understand the differences between dialects. Try looking at the Linux-BSD choice argument the same way.
 
Linux sucks, but:
1. The only OS even remotely close to Unix that I can use on my laptop is Linux, because of lack of GMA HD and Broadcom drivers for any other UNIX or UNIX-like OS than Linux.
2. My parents are not really tech-savvy. When they bought a separate computer for themselves I was told to "make it work well" (translation). I could install Windows for free (I have Technet subscription), Linux, or BSD (Mac was out of choice since I'd have to meddle with Hackintosh). I chose Ubuntu, because Windows has a lot viruses and BSD isn't really suitable for such people (even PCBSD). Ubuntu is just the most simple OS I've ever seen, perfect for them.
 
pkubaj said:
I chose Ubuntu, because Windows has a lot viruses and BSD isn't really suitable for such people (even PCBSD). Ubuntu is just the most simple OS I've ever seen, perfect for them.

If you were to set up a FreeBSD/PC-BSD desktop using the same DE as Ubuntu - I don't know what it is Gnome or KDE I assume - with the same features and applications. What would be the difference to a "normal user". And by normal, I mean a person that calls "some that knows computers" when the font is too big.
 
roddierod said:
If you were to set up a FreeBSD/PC-BSD desktop using the same DE as Ubuntu - I don't know what it is Gnome or KDE I assume - with the same features and applications. What would be the difference to a "normal user". And by normal, I mean a person that calls "some that knows computers" when the font is too big.

Could be a big difference. If the normal user has a recent Intel or radeon HD GPU (or an laptop with nvidia's Optimus), they are left using the vesa driver on FreeBSD.

And, trust me, there's a big difference between non-accelerated Xorg with vesa on FreeBSD, and the performance this normal user would see on Ubuntu.

Adam
 
NetworkManager isn't supported in FreeBSD. AFAIK there's no tool available for FreeBSD that does that kind of job (central profile-based network management regardless of protocol (Ethernet, 802.11, Bluetooth)). A lot lesser consumer peripheral hardware support. You need to manually load kernel modules for devices.

GNOME desktop relies on Linux-specific mechanisms that aren't normally used on FreeBSD. Linux kernel has more hardware support than FreeBSD. Installing Ubuntu's GNOME shell on FreeBSD won't give you same functionality.
 
roddierod said:
If you were to set up a FreeBSD/PC-BSD desktop using the same DE as Ubuntu - I don't know what it is Gnome or KDE I assume - with the same features and applications. What would be the difference to a "normal user". And by normal, I mean a person that calls "some that knows computers" when the font is too big.

I haven't tried with PC-BSD as I don't know it enough and I made my father migrate from Ubuntu (which use GNOME by default) However as I was configuring his Toshiba laptop I realised a couple of things that might a big difference for a "normal" users

For one, the WIFI configuration on FreeBSD is far from being use-friendly. If you want to share folders with a windows computer (with SAMBA) you can't use the GNOME interface to do so, you have to use either configuration files or SWAT (as far as I know).

It's not all that much but if you travel just a little with your laptop (like my father) ubuntu might come easyer to use
 
@Zare
I did not mean to use Ubuntu version of gnome on FreeBSD but to, use what is available in FreeBSD to do the same things as Ubuntu.

I guess for me, I never think of graphics when I think of normal desktop applications users so the intel, radeon driver may be a problem, but then again I remember when CGA was bleeding edge.

I have found this far easier than the wi-fi configuration utilites on my daughters Win7 laptop.

http://opal.com/freebsd/ports/net-mgmt/wifimgr/
net-mgmt/wifimgr
 
roddierod said:
If you were to set up a FreeBSD/PC-BSD desktop using the same DE as Ubuntu - I don't know what it is Gnome or KDE I assume - with the same features and applications. What would be the difference to a "normal user". And by normal, I mean a person that calls "some that knows computers" when the font is too big.

There would be no difference (they have old Geforce, no problem with support), but there would be a huge problem with updates. Ubuntu can update itself without any doing, but FreeBSD can't. Of course, there's cron, but many updates still must be done manually. They don't need to have the newest software, but security updates are the must, since they've already had their social website accounts hacked. And they need Skype and their webcam working well. I myself still haven't got Cheese to work properly (they need it) and there's no official Skype, except for some old version for Linux. So no, Ubuntu is really the best
 
I don't see what's so bad about "some old version for Linux." for skype though, as long as you get voice chat (No idea about webcam as I don't have one) ;)
 
My two cents

I am a "Windows User" who switched to FreeBSD and is loving every minute of it!

Before I ever installed FreeBSD on my desktop successfully and kept it there... I tried a few Linux distributions. Some that I recall specifically are: Slackware, Redhat, Mandrake, Debian and Gentoo. All those were great but what I really didn't like was having so much pre-installed software. Then realizing each distribution has a different take on installing software/dependencies. I thought the whole idea of using linux/unix as your desktop OS was to experience a completely custom setup system based on your needs (software, license, hardware, budget). It's my personal opinion to say Linux is all about marketing to new users with simplicity which is a great. I choose FreeBSD because it's a whole operating system not just a kernel and a bunch of third party add-on's and I can install just what I want.
 
What made me choose FreeBSD and install it on my father's laptop was FreeBSD's OSS which, ihmo, is so much better then PUlse/ALSA :e
 
I think we're starting to copy already existing topics more and more here, so I advise everyone to make their closing statements on this topic.
 
Simply be care full: The fact that you bought laptop with certain Linux preinstalled doesn't necessary mean, that you will be able to upgrade or reinstall it.

That's what I learned
 
killasmurf86 said:
Simply be care full: The fact that you bought laptop with certain Linux preinstalled doesn't necessary mean, that you will be able to upgrade or reinstall it.

That's what I learned

I don't think ubuntu is really ready for prime time yet. Though I am amazed how far it's come since the project began since 2004. I'm sure the growing pains will stop eventually with the upgrade process. Even Apple and M$ has had their mis-fires in the past with incremental upgrades here and there as well as dealing with cruft. OSX wasn't primetime for almost 4 release cycles.

I guess this is where FreeBSD benefits from a step by step semi automated single user mode driven upgrade process for world and separation of OS and third party ports. But I digress, FreeBSD suffered some issues as well during the 5.x era so nothing is infallible.

Shuttleworth announced that their goal is to build a user base up to 400 million in the next several years. It will be interesting to watch them attempt to hit that target. If it does how much does that offset M$ monopoly on consumer grade desktops. If anyone is interested here is the first bug report for ubuntu posted by Shuttleworth:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1
Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace.
This is a bug, which Ubuntu is designed to fix.

Non-free software is holding back innovation in the IT industry, restricting access to IT to a small part of the world's population and limiting the ability of software developers to reach their full potential, globally. This bug is widely evident in the PC industry.

Steps to repeat:

1. Visit a local PC store.

What happens:
2. Observe that a majority of PCs for sale have non-free software pre-installed.
3. Observe very few PCs with Ubuntu and free software pre-installed.

What should happen:
1. A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software like Ubuntu.
2. Ubuntu should be marketed in a way such that its amazing features and benefits would be apparent and known by all.
3. The system shall become more and more user friendly as time passes.

The laptop I just bought has certifications in linux under Redhat, Novell, and Ubuntu. Though I had no option for those OSes and was forced to pay the M$ tax per say.

It is cool that they market with the open source community in mind. Would also be nice if FreeBSD was on that list. Do we have a hardware certification program? Especially for laptops where changing out parts is not really an option.
 
There is a scene in "Around the world in 80 days" where they run a train over a weak bridge fast enough that the bridge collapses only after they are trough. The current linux way of releases and design reminds me of this. They try to go as fast as they can but sacrifice their ability to step back and rethink the result in that process because whatever they just did and what is now behind them is crumbling in some chasm behind them. This may leave them on some remote place, stranded.

The fast pace makes abandoning of old structures mandantory, as they would serve as the 10. circle of hell for configuration management when you try to keep all the balls in the air at once. You would get stuck in the web. As one linux advocate had put it, it is fun to simply code away and not care. You have to not care or you would not get anything done.

On the other hand, if something you threw overboard in, say, version 1.3 suddenly would be better now due to changes in the infrastructure, you have a hard time getting it back.

What i see on the *BSD side is the other approach which goes slower, but is more steady. How long did it take for the 4BSD scheduler to be officially replaced by the new one? Would some ten-fold increase in code complexity of it be worth the benefit of the improved performance and the time to get it as solid as the simple one? (This is only an example, I want to state that before I get flamed for this.) On Linux, you likely can not go back 2 or 3 versions because the rest of the other subsystems you used to depend on have changed and what did not change for you now depends on some aspects of the new solution. A good engineer tries to avoid that.

Thinking of this, would it be a good idea to strip the disc block elevator from the I/O queues for SSDs? These were put there to reduce head movement for "spinning rust" type of storage, but I think on SSDs they will more likely add latency to the IOPS.

Yes, I do not like the current way of the Linux development, and I prefer the BSD way. But on the other hand I see how it has come to pass, and I can not blame them.

How is that as a closing statement from my side?
 
pkubaj said:
[...]And they need Skype and their webcam working well. I myself still haven't got Cheese to work properly (they need it) and there's no official Skype, except for some old version for Linux. So no, Ubuntu is really the best

Well apparently they updated the port for skype and we have the last version of skype too now =)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top