|
FreeBSD General Other questions regarding FreeBSD which do not fit in any of the categories below. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Maybe I should have used _blank_ instead of X.
__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14) |
|
|||
But, aren't all the *BSDs (and even all *nix) server operating systems?
__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14) |
|
||||
I don't think so. The BSDs and GNU/Linux distributions are multipurpose operating systems that have predominantly been used on servers in the past because they were originally intended as F/OSS replacements for proprietary Unixes, which were also predominantly used on servers. As time passed, the userbase of at least the BSDs and Linux diversified because of how far-reaching F/OSS is. Inter-Unix portability is outstanding, so I think any Unix can be used as a fulfilling desktop operating system. However, some are better than others, depending on what the user(s) expect out of their system.
__________________
"UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity." MacBook Pro (Darwin 9), iMac (Darwin 9), iPod Touch (Darwin 9), Dell Optiplex GX620 (FreeBSD 7.1-STABLE) |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14) |
|
||||
Now, I really don't mean to be rude (especially since I don't have time to read every post twice across both pages).
But I think everyone should forget the distinction between "Server OS" and "Desktop OS", it doesn't matter. Server: Must be stable Must be easy to work with Must be secure Must run owners services Desktop Must be stable Must be easy to work with Hopefully considers security Must run owners applications FreeBSD is a unix like operating system, so it is portable, multi-tasking and multi-user. One could argue that the level of multi-user features present in unix like systems is overkill for a "desktop" --> Coming from a Win 98/XP background I find it superior to comparable features in the leading desktop OS. FreeBSD furfills the needs of *both* server and desktop well, so does GNU/Linux, so does OSX, so does Windows Vista. The proper question to pose, is "can I use X system as Y?". I need decent clients for smtp, imap, pop, http/https, and ftp (e.g. a MUA, WWW Browser, and 'ftp'). Plus vim, instant messengering for the major networks, pdf/ps and image viewers, a type setting system that can yield PDF/PS documents (e.g. *tex /or groff), and playback support for many audio/video formats. With strict requirements for decent multi-tasking capability, >=20GB of file system, and obeying my concept that a "reboot means something huge" and not a fresh coat of paint. Thus I can use just about any operating system that has the ability to display images. Some people have different needs, who knows, maybe someone *must* have some advanced program for chemical analysis or something; that means they need a system that meets there needs and supports that software. Some peoples needs for a desktop OS might still fit on a PDP-1, others might be beyond mans current reach.... But it's not the operating system that makes a server or a desktop, it's the purpose it serves. What system is used, depends on need and choice. If you can do the same things on OSX as you can on Vista, choose the one you like... There isn't *that* much difference, as far as regular users are concerned. (Point of reference/hypocritic note: I do know a few people using windows server installs as a 'desktop os', for one reason or another.... and personally find it strange)
__________________
My Journal Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest ``foo'' someone someday shall type ``supercalifragilisticexpialidocious''. |
|
|||
Quote:
.... back to regular programming .... |
|
|||
I personally find the XP/Vista limitation to a single user to be absolutely maddening. Presumably the server version does not suffer from this limitation.
|
|
|||
I use FreeBSD as a desktop, and so far it does what I need. I keep an XP drive in my system mainly for a few games, but as things like Wine/Crossover/Cedega mature more and more, the need for XP is becoming less. Especially since each install of XP I've done becomes unpredictable (some set-ups are fine, while others crash on trivial common things.)
The things I look for in a desktop set-up are (in no particular order): -Ability to surf the Internet -IM client -Multimedia player -Af ew good games -Customizablilty (wallpaper, sounds, icons, etc) -(Optional) Eye-candy -Fast performance Flash is optional for me, but preferred (newgrounds.com & youtube junkie) And I have also heard of a few people using Windows Server as a desktop. Someone a month or two ago posted a comment on Distrowatch.com saying the server 2008 was "the best desktop OS I've ever used." I might check that out in the future...maybe. |
|
|||
I'm aware of people using Windows server as a desktop, too. Until just a few weeks ago, I had been using fbsd as my desktop for over a year. I'm compiling programs for someone elses linux server right now so switching to Ubuntu was convenient but I do find it inconvenient not being able to play flash on fbsd.nk
I said this elsewhere. If I had some time, I'd port it myself. |
|
||||
Well, you can do three things:
o Stop looking and the OS and start looking at the applications, the OS isn't *that* important, applications are, and many applications for UNIX just plain suck. o Stop complaining about FreeBSD that ``must'' do X, or ``should'' implement feature Y and start working on it, either by programming, recruiting, raising funds, whatever ... Just sitting and complaining isn't constructive and a waste of time. o If you're not prepared to start working on it, then suck it up or use another OS. There is a point where helpful criticism stops, the flash player issues comes back again and again and again and again, if we were to put all the flash threads on the various forums/lists in one place I fear it would collapse in on itself and start to absorb light. Quote:
But it's not very good, no, you can't just quickly ``su'' to the Administrator account, which is why I (And almost everyone else) just give their main account Administrator privileges.
__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
On the larger topic of what to do when the OS does not support something what you want, there are also the options of waiting until it is fixed (which does happens -- VMware or VBox will make it one of these days to FreeBSD) or working around it. I have enough computers that I keep some windows boxes running. Then I don't really need a VM, though it would be nice. Flash9/Firefox/Wine also works OK, though it is no replacement for a Linux version and lpw. |
|
||||
Quote:
That brings me to the next ponit. Whether an application sucks or not depends on the user because each user's required feature set will be different from another's.
__________________
"UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity." MacBook Pro (Darwin 9), iMac (Darwin 9), iPod Touch (Darwin 9), Dell Optiplex GX620 (FreeBSD 7.1-STABLE) |
|
|||
FreeBSD is an operating system - period.
It happens to excel at being a server platform. With a little due diligence on the user's part - it makes a fairly decent desktop platform, esp. for developers, sysadmins and unix fanboys. You want a great BSD desktop - Steve Jobs owns this little company called Apple and had the foresight to move to a BSD-based OS dubbed Darwin, atop which they slapped a pretty darn slick GUI. Right tool for the right job, I say. If I want to play Bioshock, I boot into XP, if I want to do dev work or do infosec research, I boot to BSD. Besides, the desktop persona of BSD is in the hands of the folks developing Xorg, Gnome, KDE and all the desktop apps and not necessarily within the control of those at FreeBSD. My workstation (at work) is a BSD desktop (Xorg/Gnome) but due to the nature of business environments, I also have a notebook running XP Pro since I have to admin servers of all kinds. I think BSD makes for a good desktop platform, but I'm willing to put the work in. A slightly easier route but still unix would be Debian (IMO). |
|
|||
I am not computer educated but I use computers. I started with DOS and it works for me than came OS/2 which was very good OS IMO and BTW I started to use Star Office (now OpenOffice). Than I changed OS/2 with Linux. It was hard to installed this time but I stay with Linux. KDE, I think version one, was good for my desktop computer. But I was scared to install FreeBSD but not so long ago I put FreeBSD beta on my desktop computer and it worked and works very good. What about Flash? I use gnash and it works for me. There are also many free programs for genetics which are very good and at work and at private life I recommended FreeBSD to everyone for the desktop computer.
Mitja -------- http://starikarp.fotki.com |
|
||||
Quote:
Linux is trying to be a jack of all trades, like windows. |
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
||||
These discussions have been seen in bsdforums at least few times. Although the time passes, but some close to heart features as flash, WLAN, USB automounting are still not the shiniest side of FreeBSD.
The people talking that FreeBSD is server OS are right. In my opinion. If you are just willing to learn new things, you will discover that you can avoid significant pain by avoiding either broken hardware or just trying to run everything (!) on one OS or box. For example, I have stopped to try running BSD on my laptop. It is time Consuming! Note the capital letter. Instead, I have found Ubuntu or even Mac OS X better suited for this. Yes, the FreeBSD hasn't received much attention from software developer side as linux has, but it is rock solid! These are not just loud words. The surveys (I found the Netcraft's) says that most hacks ever done by percent are done on linux-driven boxes! Even the Microsoft is behind. The BSDs are one of the strongest ... however, also they are secure as you make them. The operating system and on the other side - service/daemon/application/(whatever) security are NOT equal!!! No OS except BSD can accept tremendous loads received on very responsible web servers. Not linux, not IIS ... ))) but BSD! Yes, you guessed! I am FreeBSD fan... if FreeBSD will keep basic traditions as true UNIX, it will stay my only server OS. Last edited by coppermine; 22nd August 2008 at 12:43 PM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can I start using FreeBSD as desktop machine | paragkalra | FreeBSD General | 4 | 19th July 2008 05:20 PM |
32bit freebsd 7 on 64x2 system for desktop | cysquatch | FreeBSD General | 9 | 15th July 2008 12:08 PM |
FreeBSD KDE/GUI DESKTOP HELP | rave_mystery_inc | FreeBSD Installation and Upgrading | 5 | 5th July 2008 06:18 AM |
Problems with 1000baseTX on Intel Pro 1000 desktop PCI card [FreeBSD 7.0 RELEASE] | asmo | FreeBSD General | 0 | 28th June 2008 07:12 PM |
Can't start KDE desktop in FreeBSD | bryancostanich | FreeBSD Ports and Packages | 9 | 11th June 2008 10:47 PM |