*BSD users

[carey]

[move]Doesn't or Hasn't anyone used Beastie? ???[/move]

Pray, tell all your experiences with the little quiet imp!

I tried NetBSD, a very simple OS, and FreeBSD, one of the fastest most adaptable desktops around!

Not going to OpenBSD, because I don't have any nuclear secrets to hide. ;D

But it's a good alternative for those that can't let the penguin swim or M$ flutter in the wind.

Uhmm ... learning curve is the same as linux, and some (un)installs are pretty weird.

I still can't believe that it's file system works faster that ext2fs (reiserfs is the fastest!)

BTW is 'reiser' pronounced 'razor'?

[CKnight]

i say "rise-er". never asked anyone though

[BlackCryptoKnight]

How are the BSD's different from Linux?

What are the differences between the BSD's themselves?

[igodit]

Linux is a completely new implementation of the UNIX standards. Linux has succeeded where commercial UNIX failed for more than ten years, in bridging the gap between the technical capabilities of UNIX and the expectations of users brought up in the age of PCs. Linux has good support for multimedia hardware and can even emulate network clients from Microsoft, Novell and other companies. Linux contains some very new and forward-thinking operating systems research, and so it doesn't have the history of continuous small refinements and torture-testing of its stablemate, BSD

BSD stands for ``Berkeley Software Distribution''. Its source code can be directly traced back to UNIX of the early 1980s. From a technical viewpoint, this makes BSD genuine UNIX rather than a clone, though BSD does not have the right to the UNIX trademark. The original implementation of the Internet protocols (TCP/IP) was developed on BSD, and the BSD networking stack, continuously worked on for twenty years, is very highly regarded for its stability.

The kernel (or core) components of both BSD and Linux are UNIX-compatible. This means that if an application runs on commercial UNIX such as Sun Solaris or Hewlett Packard's HP-UX, then it will probably run on Linux and BSD with a simple recompile. In fact Linux has achieved such a presence that applications are often developed on in the first place.

The Linux and BSD kernels need applications to run in order to be useful. The central group of key applications for both contains many contributions from the GNU Free Software Project.

The applications that are normally supplied with these operating systems are identical between Linux and BSD. There are about ten thousand open source packages, including graphical user interfaces, web servers, mail servers, file servers.

Which is better? Both! ;D
Microsoft has showed us what happens if too much reliance is placed on any one operating system.

The world's number one and number two computing hardware companies, IBM and Fujitsu have made far-reaching committments to Linux. A smaller number of companies with specific needs or staff with BSD experience have used BSD to great effect, including Microsoft Hotmail and Yahoo.

You will find that BSD users dispise Linux users, depending on what you read out there about BSD vs Linux. But the fact of the matter is they both are based on UNIX standards. BSD users would be the "I can get allong with everyone" group and describe the Linux users as "Microsoft and Commercial software killers".

But do your research and not just take my word for it.

"I love penguins"

[carey]

It's a pity that all that research is going to pleasing those migrants of Winnie. I bet the first devastating virus will be hitting linux at the end of next year.

Everybody wants to have it easy - without having to read (documentation). Come on! >

Ask pigeonflight and those guys where i started from and you'll see that the Windows way of doing things spoils many a software.

For example, why can't i just type a command, like /usr/bin/zsnes and X pops up with the interface instead of going into X, opening a Term and typing that command. I bet many people don't know that someone can hook up to your Xserver and watch everything you do (through port 6000+x(the virtual display #)).

The demands by users to have this and that integrated into etc. software makes life hard for programmers and therefore non-free software comes to be... because the programmer busted is head so much coming up with novel ideas that he actually has to have them patented and therefore has to sell them to others. I am sure conexant/rockwell modems were fine in there simple state till faxing and voice were requested.

OSs are masterpieces and what's notice is that the very thing that people ask for is already present, they just don't want to RTFM. They want it the point and click way.

I am all confused right now. Mandrake is giving me a hell of a time to keep installed. There is always something to change. Even did the minimalist with urpmi and still had to take off stuff. I am going BSD for a while until I can find a Gentoo-like with hardware configuring tools, lets me choose what i want, and configures X properly for my Pine 3D Phantom X2800 AGP VGA .

For now my favourite game will be Fortune. K.I.S.S.

[igodit]

No offence, but for a minute there I had no idea what you were getting at. Actually, I still have no clue. You may want to shorten that little, sounding like you were ranting, but I'm not sure.

:

*Oh yeah did my LPI today, got myself a stuffed Tux, which kinda made my day. Now I got two of 'em.

[stan]

Did u get it because u passed ?

[carey]

<I am sorry.> Didn't even know I was ranting. :-\
Thing is the Linux distros that autoconfigure all your hardware also decide what software is and is not compulsory, even for a minimal install e.g. I can't use Vim so I use Joe, but install keeps throwing Vi at me.

The thing is if I don't install X from alpha I can't setup my GUI. That's snafu.

And why do you have to have mailx? Can't work without sendmail?

The installation would go fine if they just give you the basic kernel system files and tools, then make there recommendations like they did in Mandrake 8.x. Why should X not work without me installing iceWM. I don't like (or hate) IceWM. I love Blackbox and Fluxbox and Twm.

In short, the installations are still messy because not all computers/users react the same to some programs. ???

There i am ranting again. </I am sorry>

[ParaDoXx]

[quote author=newtoo? link=board=8;threadid=1938;start=0#msg21808 date=1067906213]
I bet the first devastating virus will be hitting linux at the end of next year.

[/quote]

I highly doubt that. The way the linux kernel is written, and how it is setup, it is much harder for programmers to write viruses for linux. But dont take my word for it...TheRegister did a very nice article on it
http://www.theregister.com/content/56/33226.html

And be even more enlightened to why Windows sucks.....

[jamrock]

In short, the installations are still messy because not all computers/users react the same to some programs

You have made some valid points. When I do a minimal install of Red Hat 9, I still have to remove things like telnet, ftp and sendmail from the list. The minimal install loads stuff that have known vulnerabilities.

I don't load X on servers because it would mean loading a whole lot of other stuff that I can't track.

Here is the rub. Makers of Linux have conflicting mandates.

On the one hand they have to continue making Linux secure, scalable and robust for the hard core technical users. On the other hand, the need for increased acceptance by less technical users requires changes that will make it more user friendly and easier to set up.

Windows took the world by storm because it was pretty and easy to use. To many users in small companies without internet access, security was not an issue.

Security has become an issue because of wide spread internet use in companies of all sizes. Worms, virus code and spam have made people more aware of the dangers of insecure systems. Never the less, the market wants pretty, easy to use and secure software.

How do we resolve this contradiction? Feel free to rant. ;D