Re: Linux user interested in *BSD
From: jpd (read_the_sig_at_do.not.spam.it)
Date: 12/09/03
- Next message: jpd: "Re: kernel panic on install! [was:install doesn't work on current]"
- Previous message: Tamouh H.: "Re: suggestions on Kernel crash"
- In reply to: Manuel Treitinger: "Re: Linux user interested in *BSD"
- Next in thread: Will Hartung: "Daemon Book still viable? (was Re: Linux user interested in *BSD)"
- Reply: Will Hartung: "Daemon Book still viable? (was Re: Linux user interested in *BSD)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:52:03 +0000 (UTC)
In article <3fd6024c$0$37394$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at>,
Manuel Treitinger wrote:
> I just think that newbies should be able to ask every question in a
> newsgroup they want (as long as it belongs to the topic). If the more
> experienced useres won`t tell them about pros / contras, who else will do?
Do their homework, first?
Oh, sorry about the dirty word.
I already pointed out that with _specific_ questions there's much more
chance of a useful answer. And there's a reason the respective projects
have a /web-presence/. Why duplicate that for every silly person that is
too lazy to read that site on their own?
[snip]
> I don`t know if Net, Open and Free are still using them same codebase... of
> course, it`s BSD, but they are using adpated versions, aren`t they? (Feel
> free to correct).
They're all 4.4BSD-lite(2) derivatives, so they share a common heritage
and codebase. After that, a lot of things changed, changed back, got
cross-ported, got modified...
The *BSDs do learn from each other now and then.
> The don`t even have the same ELF format, do they?
There's bound to be some different magic, but no structural changes to
ELF AFAIK. Maybe someone else can fill you in on that?
[snip]
> I`m still using 5.1 Generic and sometimes it causes my PC to hang... I know
> I should geht the newer sources and set up a new kernel.... I will do it
> when I have the time for it.
.oO( ... )
>> And since quake3 is /obviously/ the killer app for computing equipment,
>> no OS can ever be taken seriously without. Hence the demise of OS/2 and
>> VMS.
>
> No, but there are also people who want to use their PC as a multimedia
> workstation. I like having Dolby Surround, MPlayer, nice alphablending
> skins etc.... and playing Quake3 Multiplayer. Surely, it`s not important,
> but without this features something would be missing. You certainly won`t
> need it if you`re setting up an OpenBSD server but for everyday use...
If you run N servers every day, it is much more efficient to have them all
on serial console with a N-port serial console server than to have N screens
and keyboards and mice all sitting next to the machines in the rack.
> there are many UNIX purists out there telling us they don`t need GNOME /
> KDE or something like that, some even saying they don`t need X at all, but
> this is the minority.
Ah, don't be so quick in judging that.
I can, for one, live without X. I do use X, in a very basic configuration.
Basically it's used for browsing and primarily lots and lots of xterms.
The wm and (lack of) environment reflect that. Turns out a great many
people feel exactly the same.
I'm not saying nobody needs gnome or kde, I'm saying _I_ am happier without.
In that light it is really annoying to see lots of applications `kdeified'
or `gnomified' for no good reason. This is annoying because it means that
the ``improved'' application now needs several hundred megabytes extra just
in libraries for stuff you don't want or need.
[snip]
> A OS does not need a GUI to be taken seriously,
> but a workstation will be useless without a bit of multimedia.... Using
> Quake3 also includes working OpenGL accelration etc... Things which are
> also very important for some commercial equipment.
This is entirely dependent on what you define as ``work''. I do not define
playing quake3d as ``work''. YMMV.
For some scientific things you want a fast processor and lots and lots of
memory, but a nice screen isn't needed: the answer you seek may consist
solely of a single number. No point in graphing that.
[snip]
> The basic interface drivers (USB etc.) work and all the stuff a server needs
> (SCSI, RAID...) too, but consumer products like graphics adapters
> (accelrated ones),
Usually not an issue of FreeBSD, per-se. More something in the realm of
XFree86. Unless, of course, $vendor decides they think they're too l33t to
disclose programming specs and only provide binary drivers -- and don't
bother to include FreeBSD drivers.
> soundcards or even some OnBoard chips are simply not
> supported or in a very limited way (which is normally manufacturer`s
> fault).
Indeed.
>> [snip]
>
> I don`t try to force anyone, but if someone wants to hear something about
> BSDs pros and cons because he WANTS to try... why not?
True, true. Then again, there is some groundwork to be done before asking,
like reading basic website blurbs. Has something to do with courtesy toward
the people that answer these questions in their free time.
[snip]
> Just an experience from my Gentoo Linux days... there`s not much sense in
> making most apps just avaiable in source form. Yes, I have crappy hardware
> (1000 Mhz pentium III, 256 MB), but I cannot afford anything better as a
> pupil.... and it`s fast enough for working on my projects.
Hm. Well, My home system still is a 200MHz pentium-one, and I still build
the base system and most apps from source there. I don't use insanely big
things like kde or gnome though.
[snip]
> PS: Sorry, If i got something wrong, but, as you already noticed for sure,
> my English is not the best.....
As another poster elaborated upon in minute detail, there was a popular
reference hidden in there. A bit a bland one because so many people have
quoted this particular author that people really started disliking the
too-often occuring references to his work.
-- j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
- Next message: jpd: "Re: kernel panic on install! [was:install doesn't work on current]"
- Previous message: Tamouh H.: "Re: suggestions on Kernel crash"
- In reply to: Manuel Treitinger: "Re: Linux user interested in *BSD"
- Next in thread: Will Hartung: "Daemon Book still viable? (was Re: Linux user interested in *BSD)"
- Reply: Will Hartung: "Daemon Book still viable? (was Re: Linux user interested in *BSD)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
