Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, SecretSquirrel, notfred
moresmarterthanspock wrote:I tried PCBSD on one of my towers. It configured itself and worked with all of my hardware, except my sound card. Of course that is an OSS flaw. I've found OSS 4 to be much more robust than PulseAudio or Alsa. I read somewhere that the reason Linux dropped OSS support was because of licensing issues, not inferior technology. PCBSD is pretty cool, and I would swtich to it from Linux if the hardware support was better. I ran it on my machine for almost a week, and rarely ever had to reboot. PCBSD takes forever to boot, but once it's up and running, it's way way way faster than Windows or any flavor of Linux I've used(even with the Liquorix kernel). I would like to see PCBSD pushed as a serious contender in the desktop OS arena. But maybe I'm wrong. I only used it for about a week. Maybe there are some serious flaws with it.
moresmarterthanspock wrote:Now I do know that FreeBSD or PCBSD isn't as, shall we say, open-source and free to change as Linux, but at least they are more honest. ... I would like a good alternative, even if it is more strictly governed, as long as they are honest about it.
just brew it! wrote:I think it is pretty safe to say that OSS is an "also ran" at this point though... ALSA and PulseAudio are the path forward.
notfred wrote:The BSDs typically have fewer resources developing them than Linux so they tend to lag behind Linux in functionality and features.
I'm surprised when you say it was faster than Linux. Most UNIX variants are good at getting out of the way of the user program and letting it run, unless you are talking about desktop responsiveness - that may be due to the smaller amount of stuff and fewer wizzy effects running in a BSD desktop compared with a Linux desktop.
notfred wrote:The BSDs typically have fewer resources developing them than Linux so they tend to lag behind Linux in functionality and features.
moresmarterthanspock wrote:If apple would lower their prices, I would consider getting a mac. However, anything you can do with a mac, you can do with Windows or Linux. You just do it differently. I can't justify spending so much money on a mac, when all it is is a PC with a chip in it so OSX will know it's a Mac. Yes, Mac's are nice to use, but they are wayyyyy overpriced.
Flatland_Spider wrote:I tried OS X, but FreeBSD and Linux worked more like I thought a Unix should.
moresmarterthanspock wrote:OSX is pretty tightly tuned thought. Log into the terminal in OSX, and it's easy to break your install. I was always reinstalling OSX on my PowerBook G4, because I was always messing around in the terminal. I did find a way to get rid of the apple logo during boot and watch all of the services start up, just like in Unix. Of course, Apple, didn't design OSX to have people tinkering around in the terminal.
moresmarterthanspock wrote:If apple would lower their prices, I would consider getting a mac. However, anything you can do with a mac, you can do with Windows or Linux. You just do it differently. I can't justify spending so much money on a mac, when all it is is a PC with a chip in it so OSX will know it's a Mac. Yes, Mac's are nice to use, but they are wayyyyy overpriced.
Buub wrote:I disagree. A MacBook Pro may be more expensive, but it is literally the best notebook hardware on the market, and not by a small margin. The build quality of the unibody chassis is better than any of the plastic models available, which is pretty much the entire PC market. And there simply is not a better trackpad on any other notebook, period. Plus all the little things, like the backlit keyboard with auto-dimming, the auto-dimming display, the magsafe power adapter, etc. Put it all together, and it's clear that it's built out of higher quality components, which justify a higher price.
Now, I totally understand cost-benefit analysis, and if a PC fits your bill for a cheaper price, then that's perfectly sensible. But MacBook's are not THAT much more, and they have a clearly evident superiority in build quality that justifies a higher price.
bthylafh wrote:Flatland_Spider wrote:I tried OS X, but FreeBSD and Linux worked more like I thought a Unix should.
OSX is a Unix, though; it's got the certification and everything.
malicious wrote:...they don't hold up as well over time compared with well-constructed plastic laptops. Bumps and dings that are inevitable for computers on the go accumulate on aluminum until seams no longer line up perfectly and corners are noticeably distorted while composites flex and bounce back into shape.
malicious wrote:The "unibody" MB Pros do look sleek, svelte, and beautifully built brand new but from what I've seen, they don't hold up as well over time compared with well-constructed plastic laptops. Bumps and dings that are inevitable for computers on the go accumulate on aluminum until seams no longer line up perfectly and corners are noticeably distorted while composites flex and bounce back into shape. Granted, with some of the examples I'm thinking of, their owners aren't the most careful types but, still, a more expensive machine should look at least as good as cheaper ones a couple years down the road without any special treatment.
For what it's worth, I own a 15" MacBook Pro of the current design and a pair of Windows laptops.
Flatland_Spider wrote:just brew it! wrote:I think it is pretty safe to say that OSS is an "also ran" at this point though... ALSA and PulseAudio are the path forward.
The path forward for Linux.
It seems financial decisions by Novell, RedHat, and now, Ubuntu, seem to be driving Linux development, instead of true freedom. Now I do know that FreeBSD or PCBSD isn't as, shall we say, open-source and free to change as Linux, but at least they are more honest.
just brew it! wrote:...and when it comes to Open Source *NIX implementations, Linux appears to be the path forward.
What BSD doesn't have is the large (and still expanding) community of users and developers, or *any* device driver support to speak of for new devices from hardware manufacturers. Other than OS X (which is essentially a proprietary fork...) BSD will find it very difficult to ever get more than a tiny slice of what is already a niche market.
bryanl wrote:It seems financial decisions by Novell, RedHat, and now, Ubuntu, seem to be driving Linux development, instead of true freedom. Now I do know that FreeBSD or PCBSD isn't as, shall we say, open-source and free to change as Linux, but at least they are more honest.
This sort of ideological distraction isn't helping things much, IMHO. I'm not so sure the assertions would stand much inspection, either. I don't know what is meant by "true freedom" in this context, either, but I do know that "true" in front of things like freedom ranks up there with "people's republic" as something worth close inspection and scepticism.
BSD lost out because, at the time, it was too 'proprietary' and Linus couldn't pick it up and run with it.
I think it would be also a good idea not to forget the GNU project and what it contributes to both. There is the kernel and then there is all the stuff that makes it useful and provides a common set of capabilities and functions in a consistent manner. In many respects, the BSD vs Linux issue is really only a minor part of the entire software set being compared.