Find the answer to your Linux question:

View Poll Results: Do you think PC-BSD is a great idea?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    13 59.09%
  • No

    9 40.91%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
Hi, I have installed PC-BSD for few day and I see one big disadvantage: there is only few applications prepared for this system (with extension .pbi). However it looks very ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #21
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    5

    Hi,
    I have installed PC-BSD for few day and I see one big disadvantage: there is only few applications prepared for this system (with extension .pbi).
    However it looks very nice, maybe it could be faster

    The one thing I disliked about PC-BSD 0.7.8 is that a Distro this new doesn't support something as common as an USB mouse. My T40 laptop doesn't have a PS2 or Serial port and I can't stand using the trackpoint.
    I have also USB mouse on my laptop (hp 9020nx) and it works fine. Maybe check mouse from diffrent producent.

    Regards

  2. #22
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    826
    Quote Originally Posted by milosz
    Hi,
    I have installed PC-BSD for few day and I see one big disadvantage: there is only few applications prepared for this system (with extension .pbi).
    Use the FreeBSD Ports and Packages systems instead if you want access to more applications.
    Quote Originally Posted by milosz
    However it looks very nice, maybe it could be faster
    Don't use KDE and it'll be fast as lightning.

  3. #23
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    542
    I use BSD for BSD. If you want fancy GUIs with pretty colors and such then go use Windows or Xandros. But I use BSD for power and speed. That's what it's meant for. Dennis Ritchie never wrote UNIX intending it to be used with pretty icons and nice colors that remind you of Kindergarten... he wrote it for power and precision. And it works for me. FreeBSD might be hard to use, but it has a much bigger payback than Windows or something like Mandriva. I've never had it crash on me. It likes all of my hardware. That's something I can't say for Windows or PC-BSD. GUIs can ruin your computer experiance because they suck up resources like a vacuum. Sure, it took me twenty days to configure everything. But really that's what makes it better. I use Windows a lot too and haven't really had any problems (with XP anyway, it's a much different story with 9x) but I didn't learn anything by using it. REMEMBER people, BSD doesn't need to be easy to use because the corporate administrators don't need it to be. They need it to be FAST and STABLE.
    The PC-BSD people should work on Linux instead. BSD was never meant for the desktop. Linux is what we present to the world because remember, BSD is not Linux. It shouldn't be treated like it.

  4. #24
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by chopin1810
    Sure, it took me twenty days to configure everything. But really that's what makes it better.
    You and I have very different ideas of "better."

    The PC-BSD people should work on Linux instead. BSD was never meant for the desktop. Linux is what we present to the world because remember, BSD is not Linux. It shouldn't be treated like it.
    That's much the same argument I offer to folks who want to make Linux into MS Windows. Don't insult us because we like GUIs. You don't, fine. You like spending a week getting things configured? Fine. But don't come in here acting high and mighty because you choose to spend your time doing things that a lot of us simply don't have the desire or free time to do. To each their own.
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  5. #25
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    826
    Quote Originally Posted by chopin1810
    I use BSD for BSD. If you want fancy GUIs with pretty colors and such then go use Windows or Xandros. But I use BSD for power and speed. That's what it's meant for. Dennis Ritchie never wrote UNIX intending it to be used with pretty icons and nice colors that remind you of Kindergarten... he wrote it for power and precision. And it works for me. FreeBSD might be hard to use, but it has a much bigger payback than Windows or something like Mandriva. I've never had it crash on me. It likes all of my hardware. That's something I can't say for Windows or PC-BSD. GUIs can ruin your computer experiance because they suck up resources like a vacuum. Sure, it took me twenty days to configure everything. But really that's what makes it better. I use Windows a lot too and haven't really had any problems (with XP anyway, it's a much different story with 9x) but I didn't learn anything by using it. REMEMBER people, BSD doesn't need to be easy to use because the corporate administrators don't need it to be. They need it to be FAST and STABLE.
    The PC-BSD people should work on Linux instead. BSD was never meant for the desktop. Linux is what we present to the world because remember, BSD is not Linux. It shouldn't be treated like it.
    What about all of the developers that put thousands of hours of work into porting KDE to FreeBSD? There must have been some incentive to do all of the porting. If people want to use a graphical user interface such as KDE on *BSD, let them.

    This is a more extreme version of my previous post. If the free software community wants to challenge Microsoft, PC-BSD is not the way to do it; Linux is the way. But I have no objection to letting the PC-BSD project developers do their own thing -- I respect their effort.

    *BSD and GNU/Linux are both modelled after UNIX. How can you say Xandros, a Linux distribution, can have "fancy GUIs with pretty colors" but *BSD can't? I understand that many BSD derived operating systems are best suited for server use but why not let developers make software that their users want to use?

  6. #26
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    542
    That's much the same argument I offer to folks who want to make Linux into MS Windows. Don't insult us because we like GUIs. You don't, fine. You like spending a week getting things configured? Fine. But don't come in here acting high and mighty because you choose to spend your time doing things that a lot of us simply don't have the desire or free time to do. To each their own.
    I never said I liked doing it, I never said spending days to get a single internet connection up and running was fun, I'm just saying I learned more from doing it. High school is hard and it sucked for me, but long term I'm glad I didn't drop out because the benifits far outweigh the negatives. I LOVE GUIs. They're the greatest creation sinced sliced bread. You just need to be careful as to which one you use. And I'm just saying that something as industrial as BSD should stay industrial. It was never meant for the desktop. It should stay that way because it really performs better on a CLI than on a GUI.
    Now we should actually start talking about the TOPIC of this thread instead of going into ramblings. Is this a political forum or a Linux support forum???

  7. #27
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by chopin1810
    Now we should actually start talking about the TOPIC of this thread instead of going into ramblings. Is this a political forum or a Linux support forum???
    When you make broad proclamations like this one:
    Dennis Ritchie never wrote UNIX intending it to be used with pretty icons and nice colors that remind you of Kindergarten... he wrote it for power and precision.
    ...
    Sure, it took me twenty days to configure everything. But really that's what makes it better.
    Don't expect us to roll over and take it. I agree though, lets move on.
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  8. #28
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1
    Isn't Mac OSX based on BSD too ?

    I believe that PC-BSD is a great ideea. It's about some people who wanted to dedicate their time for developing a stable OS with an included GUI (which is kind of playing with fire but anyway). Everyone should be alowed to spend their time the way they want and choose to.

    I think it all comes down to options: the more options we have the better. I don't think that best solutions come from one or two alternatives for OSes. Diversity seems to be a winning ticket. It works in genetics, it works in telecommunications, why not in OSes as well ?

    My message to the guys at PC-BSD: Keep up the good work! As for FreeBSD I hope it will continue to develop as it did so far and not be seduced by the ideea of integrating GUIs, at least not yet, since such moves make systems unstable and FreeBSD is too dang good to go down the scale.

  9. #29
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by wrban
    Isn't Mac OSX based on BSD too ?
    Yes. It's a Mach Microkernel with pieces of BSD:

    http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  10. #30
    Banned Richard_The_Lionhearted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Here, where else?
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by techieMoe
    Quote Originally Posted by wrban
    Isn't Mac OSX based on BSD too ?
    Yes. It's a Mach Microkernel with pieces of BSD:

    http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html
    Linux is also sometimes compiled with pieces of BSD. You see Linux itself is just a kernal. Sometimes developers use parts of BSD to make the Linux OS. Of course this varies from distro to distro.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •