--On March 29, 2011 7:27:26 PM +0200 Michal Varga <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 11:43 -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
FreeBSD is first and foremost a server OS.
Could you support your claim with some examples, please?
Seriously? Visit Netcraft.
Desktop support is lacking when compared to the other major OSes
(Windows, Mac and Linux).
Here too. How is "desktop support" on FreeBSD lacking?
Just getting Xorg working correctly can be a challenge. Installing a DM
adds another layer of complexity that some find daunting.
Flash, Java, Youtube - all take extra work and in some cases (amd64) don't
work very well at all. Check the questions archives for innumerable
examples.
For a new user, printing can be difficult to get working correctly. So can
figuring out how to use a CD.
The graphics are not up to par with Windows, much less Mac OS.
I have used and continue to use numerous OSes; Windows (every OS since
Workgroups 3.0), Mac (every OS since 6.x), Ubuntu, RedHat, Slackware,
Gentoo, CentOS, OpenBSD, AIX, Solaris and FreeBSD (just to name a few), and
I can assure you that FreeBSD's desktop system is not on the same par with
the others with the exception of OpenBSD, AIX and Solaris.
I ran FreeBSD as a desktop system on my primary computer for about three
years and through several in-place upgrades (from 6.2 to 8.0) without ever
formatting and reinstalling. I've used Gnome, KDE and xfce and played
around with wm during a minimalist phase.
You can make it
work, if you want to, but that's not what its primary function is.
Where can I find some detailed information about what is FreeBSD's
"primary funtion" and what does that even mean in the first place?
Don't you think you're being a little silly here? I've used FreeBSD as a
server OS for over ten years and it is hands down the best OS for that
function that I have ever used. But as a desktop, it is less than stellar.
I am *not* being critical of the folks who make FreeBSD what it is, but
it's obvious to anyone who uses it that the desktop functionality is not
the primary focus.
I *love* FreeBSD. I'm a port maintainer, so that should show you the level
of commitment that I have to the OS. But a desktop OS, it ain't. It can
be made one by a skilled user, but even I got tired of having to constantly
tweak it. Upgrade Xorg and all of a sudden crap stops working again.
(Remember hal? Then hal goes away....) Upgrade KDE and it breaks
functionality. Then you troubleshoot, figure out what went wrong and get
it working again.
I now use a Mac and run FreeBSD in VMWare Fusion. Much less hassle.
If you want a user friendly desktop OS, FreeBSD is probably not your
best choice.
Why? How is KDE, Gnome, XFCE or some potential other desktop environment
different from the literally exactly same one running on, say, Linux?
If you are really serious, install Ubuntu. Then tell me you can get the
same results from the FreeBSD installer without tweaking. Launch a browser
and run flash. Try to get Java working on all web pages. Go to Youtube
and see if you can watch a video. Ubuntu does it out of the box. FreeBSD
only does it after you tweak and tweak and tweak and google and google and
google.
--
Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
are my own and not those of my employer.
*******************************************
"It is as useless to argue with those who have
renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson
"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very
intelligent person could believe in them." George Orwell
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
