Are these criticisms of Linux valid?

[Kernel Sanders]

http://forums.pcbsd.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1354&start=0

Hmmmmmm.........

[Dixon Bainbridge]

"LL of them had unstable and unreliable package managers. I'd get dependency hell, system breaks, and try "updating" all your packages off repositories, and I guarantee you that most likely something will break. "

I can say, hand on heart, that has never happened to me in 6 years of linux use, and certainly has never happened to me with ubuntu. Sounds like another BSD ****-baby.

[gletob]

Complete and utter crap

[billgoldberg]

I haven't read the whole thing, but it they seem to be sugar coating their own OS and exaggerating linux distros shortcomings.

Like the above poster said about packaging.

Apt is great, never had any problems with it.

--

I'm also pretty sure the bsd kernel hasn't got the hardware support the linux kernel has.

[R_T_H]

I've never had problem with Ubuntu and related derivative, but I've had package hell with Vector Linux (using Gslapt), a Slackware derivative.

[chucky chuckaluck]

the only problem i ever had with a linux package manager was the sabayon package manager taking forever. it was like going to an inn in rural scotland and ordering roast chicken. right after he takes your order, the owner of the inn goes out to the barn and tries to catch one of the birds.

[mike1234]

Eh, What do they know? :) I used Free bsd pc whatever once or twice. The .pbi installer just plain sucked. Not supported very well and is a "work in progress", without too many programs to choose from. I didn't notice any speed improvements over Linux. I'll take .deb packages anyday! Although it is true Unix. Big deal. Microsoft is real Windows too.

M.

[Bachstelze]

I'm also pretty sure the bsd kernel hasn't got the hardware support the linux kernel has.

It doesn't have the root exploits either, though. But anyway, this thread turned into a BSD-bashing thread, which is just as bad as a Linux-bashing one. Closed for further staff review.

[KiwiNZ]

I have reopned this thread . Please do not make this a anti BSD bash fest.
Please make mature critiques of the exampled thread.

If this turns into an anti BSD bash fest it will be closed.

[hessiess]

LL of them had unstable and unreliable package managers. I'd get dependency hell, system breaks, and try "updating" all your packages off repositories, and I guarantee you that most likely something will break.

with slackware, maby...

Slackware's package management system can install, upgrade, and remove packages from local sources, but makes no attempt to track or manage dependencies, relying on the user to ensure that the system has all the supporting system libraries and programs required by the new package. If any of these are missing, there may be no indication until one attempts to use the newly installed software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slackware

[Kernel Sanders]

This in particular has peaked my interest:


From a quality-control standpoint, Linux might as well be UNIX manufactured by Microsoft. My experience with Linux is consistent with that of other users here. Whether RPM or Debian, every Linux distro I've tried eventually folds over on itself, resulting in one or more major components becoming completely non-functional. Synaptic, KPackage, dpkg, apt-get, etc. make it easier to deal with the package management cesspool that is Linux, but it's still a cesspool.


Is package management really a proverbial "cesspool"? Also, even though I have not used linux as much as i'd have liked (still a n00b feeling my way around), I haven't experienced a major componant "breaking" over time. Have any of you?

[swoll1980]

I installed pcbsd a few months ago and I have to say it was faster and more responsive all the way around the only reason I'm not using it now is because I'm a gigantic gnome junkie, and I can't handle a KDE desktop environment

[gn2]

the only problem i ever had with a linux package manager was the sabayon package manager taking forever. it was like going to an inn in rural scotland and ordering roast chicken. right after he takes your order, the owner of the inn goes out to the barn and tries to catch one of the birds.

I like the sound of this restaurant, whereabouts in Scotland is it, I want to eat there if the produce is so fresh.

[buntunub]

ALL of them had unstable and unreliable package managers. I'd get dependency hell, system breaks, and try "updating" all your packages off repositories, and I guarantee you that most likely something will break.

If he was referring to Red Hat/Fedora, then he would be mostly correct in this statement. He is absolutely dead wrong if he is referring to Debian and its derivatives.

For me, the issue was ease of use and reliability.

Agree to an extent. However, this statement is far too obscure to be valid. This poster needs to be more specific when throwing about that kind of criticism. Most (if not all) of us HAVE HAD some issue or another when using Linux. Everyone has had issues when using Windows (95, 98, ME, XP, etc.), and everyone I know who has used MacOSx has had some pretty major issues with that as well. The BSD's are certainly far from user friendly, and comparatively, are not on par with the scope and robustness of Linux Development. Case in point with this is Hardware Support. Often, what ends up being very well supported in Linux, can be shoddy in BSD. Wine is another area with alot of issues in BSD. In most cases these days, the BSD's have to play catchup to Linux when porting new things over or when supporting existing functions from Linux.

With FreeBSD, we can trust that the product has been heavily tested. FreeBSD has been known to be one of the most stable, if not the most stable OS out there. It's designed to be a system as a whole, rather than a kernel with a bunch of packages bundled together.

And there it is. This is the statement that ties the whole thread together and what ruins any chance of it ever being objective. While it IS true that BSD is a bundled system, it is also tailorable although to a much smaller degree than Linux. It is more Windows-like than Linux. I find it much LESS Unix-like than Linux because of this. Like in Windows, if something goes wrong in BSD (and it very often does), then your pretty much in the same boat as far as recovery options. It is a different kernel, and configurations are sometimes very different, so there is a learning curve there if you are unfamiliar with how a different OS works. BSD models the FOSS/Open Source model, and that is a very good thing, so I have mixed blessings here, but I still do think that Linux is the far better choice.

[original_jamingrit]

blind javelin thrower wrote:
FreeBSD users tend to be more handsome and dynamic, more affluent, more creative, drive nicer cars, and have prettier women hanging around them than do Linux users.


I'd like to post here as a FreeBSD user and a testament to the accuracy of the above statement. 8) :wink:

lol

[MaxIBoy]

To be honest, I don't think that it was a good idea to ask that particular person to compare BSD and Linux, and it's not a good idea to ask most of us either. Try asking on a Windows forum.:)


Although, my experience with installing BSD ended in me overwriting it with an Ubuntu installation just so I could get GRUB back. Yes, my laptop is dual-booting 8.04 and 8.04.

[Vivaldi Gloria]

Probably freebsd is a very good server distro. But not so in desktop systems. I haven't seen a decent bsd/gnome distro yet.

[Bachstelze]

and comparatively, are not on par with the scope and robustness of Linux Development.

Please tell me: just how much experience do you have with software development? Just by looking at the code, you can tell the BSD developers know what they are doing. This is not always clear with the Linux ones (two examples that come to mind are the silly root exploit and the no less silly "does this belong here?" comment).

Case in point with this is Hardware Support. Often, what ends up being very well supported in Linux, can be shoddy in BSD.

The same could be said of Linux when compared to Windows. So by your reasoning, Windows is better than Linux, at least it's clear.

Wine is another area with alot of issues in BSD.

What does WINE have to do with anything? We're talking about OSes here, not about a single piece of software.

In most cases these days, the BSD's have to play catchup to Linux when porting new things over or when supporting existing functions from Linux.

Yeah. And do you know why? Because BSD is all about quality, and people that have the skill to write high-quality code and the willingness to do it for free are very rare. However, when something works in BSD, odds are 100% that it will do so better than in Linux (that includes Linux applications).

It is more Windows-like than Linux. I find it much LESS Unix-like than Linux because of this.

Just what do you know about UNIX? If you think it was just a kernel, like Linux, let me tell you that you are, as usual, hugely mistaken.

Like in Windows, if something goes wrong in BSD (and it very often does)

Speak for yourself. Has it ever occured to you that the reason something went wrong in your BSD systel is that you made a blunder?

then your pretty much in the same boat as far as recovery options.

Please elaborate, and define "recovery options". What kind of disaster are you hoping to recover from?

[init1]

With FreeBSD, we can trust that the product has been heavily tested. FreeBSD has been known to be one of the most stable, if not the most stable OS out there. It's designed to be a system as a whole, rather than a kernel with a bunch of packages bundled together.

Sounds a lot like Debian Stable actually.
I tried PC-BSD once. Didn't recognize my hard drive. I can only think of one or two distros that do that, and I've tried quite a few.

[Canis familiaris]

FreeBSD would be the next OS I would try. Seems very promising...

[Bachstelze]

FreeBSD would be the next OS I would try. Seems very promising...

It's definitely worth a try, either on a real system or in a VM. It might or might not be what you expected, but you will surely learn a few things along the way.

[Canis familiaris]

It's definitely worth a try, either on a real system or in a VM. It might or might not be what you expected, but you will surely learn a few things along the way.

Yes. And it would complete my trio of free *nixes of Linux, Solaris, and BSD. Any other *nix you know :D ?

[Dremora]

Most of those criticisms of Linux are just silly, the rest are grasping at straws. :lolflag:

[Bachstelze]

Yes. And it would complete my trio of free *nixes of Linux, Solaris, and BSD. Any other *nix you know :D ?

All the others are commercial products : Mac OS X 10.5, HP-UX and IBM's AIX are the most "common" ones.

[bapoumba]

Moved to Recurring Discussions.

[rodya]

and comparatively, are not on par with the scope and robustness of Linux Development.Please tell me: just how much experience do you have with software development? Just by looking at the code, you can tell the BSD developers know what they are doing. This is not always clear with the Linux ones (two examples that come to mind are the silly root exploit and the no less silly "does this belong here?" comment).

The real issue in comparing the development of the two is that GNU/Linux tends to be more bleeding edge (and for this reason, for me, more fun to use).




Case in point with this is Hardware Support. Often, what ends up being very well supported in Linux, can be shoddy in BSD.The same could be said of Linux when compared to Windows. So by your reasoning, Windows is better than Linux, at least it's clear.

This goes without saying that the products that the GNU/Linux community has been able produce in the way of open source drivers has been extremely impressive.



Wine is another area with alot of issues in BSD.What does WINE have to do with anything? We're talking about OSes here, not about a single piece of software.

It is not much of stretch to view Wine as more than just a 'single piece of software', as it enables the use of other (in certain cases) very useful applications.



It is more Windows-like than Linux. I find it much LESS Unix-like than Linux because of this.Just what do you know about UNIX? If you think it was just a kernel, like Linux, let me tell you that you are, as usual, hugely mistaken.

True, BSD distros are more UNIX-like. However, i don't think being the most UNIX-like is the primary goal of the GNU/Linux community.



In most cases these days, the BSD's have to play catchup to Linux when porting new things over or when supporting existing functions from Linux.Yeah. And do you know why? Because BSD is all about quality, and people that have the skill to write high-quality code and the willingness to do it for free are very rare. However, when something works in BSD, odds are 100% that it will do so better than in Linux (that includes Linux applications).

In my opinion, the most most contrasting issue between the BSD and GNU/Linux communities is not the software that they produce, but the philosophies that drive them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license#The_Permissive_versus_Copyle ft_controversy

[cardinals_fan]

with slackware, maby...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slackware
Slackware does not have true dependency hell precisely because its packaging system doesn't handle dependencies. The most famous cases of dependency hell were in early Red Hat-based systems which would end up with circular dependencies (package x depends on package y depends on package z depends on package x, etc.).
Probably freebsd is a very good server distro. But not so in desktop systems. I haven't seen a decent bsd/gnome distro yet.
GNOME does not make a decent desktop for everyone...

[eragon100]

I have never had a system break or anything, this looks like nonsense to me.

[Vivaldi Gloria]

GNOME does not make a decent desktop for everyone...

Yeah. That's one of the biggest mysteries of life. :-)

[ayoli]

I had some circular deps issues in the past with debian unstable (but as it is an unstable distribution, it is not surprising).
It can also happen with slackware, but slckware is a distribution for people who know what they do.
btw, all OS have issues so there is many points to start a flame war. Just use the one that fits your needs and try to improve it by reporting looks more creative to me.

[Bachstelze]

I had some circular deps issues in the past with debian unstable (but as it is an unstable distribution, it is not surprising).
It can also happen with slackware, but slckware is a distribution for people who know what they do.

No. Someone just told a few posts above that Slackware doesn't have dependency problems precisely because it does not have dependencies in the first place.

[cardinals_fan]

No. Someone just told a few posts above that Slackware doesn't have dependency problems precisely because it does not have dependencies in the first place.
I'll clarify my earlier position. Slackware can have dependency issues in that you must install all dependencies manually. If you screw up, things won't work. However, the packaging system itself won't cause any issues with dependencies (such as dependency hell, circular dependencies, etc.) because it doesn't manage them.

[ayoli]

I'll clarify my earlier position. Slackware can have dependency issues in that you must install all dependencies manually. If you screw up, things won't work. However, the packaging system itself won't cause any issues with dependencies (such as dependency hell, circular dependencies, etc.) because it doesn't manage them.

yep, and installing some "mystical" deps manually can be a major issue sometimes.

edit : some slackware package manageers like the popular swaret, deal with the deps using find or locate (depnds of the settings) to track the missing libs.

[Twitch6000]

Wow looking over there it just seems like they want to promote there os and slaughter the Linux name lol.

Anyways I will take everything they said and still prove what they said as a lie.

I've used about 10 different Linux distributions. ALL of them had some particular problem. Some of them were not too newbie friendly, wouldn't configure things for you. Others were very bloated, but newbie friendly. Others crashed for no reason on some things (Ubuntu).

So you are mainly complaining of newbie friendliness?I find BSD not to easy to get use to right off the bat.I Infact found Opensuse alot nicer then freebsd,but this is my computer too not the OS's fault.

With FreeBSD, we can trust that the product has been heavily tested. FreeBSD has been known to be one of the most stable, if not the most stable OS out there. It's designed to be a system as a whole, rather than a kernel with a bunch of packages bundled together.

FreeBSD the most stable out there huh?I concur every OS has bugs,flaws,and etc... So there is no best period

PBI is like Windows' self-extractable .EXE files in the way that it installs itself, but it's more like ZIP files, in that they create self-contained directories that do not modify the base system, do not register themselves in some "registry file", and can easily be removed by de-installing them (which essentially just deletes the directory, no registry editing needed).


Nice I like that,but on Linux we have things like that aswell and more then one :).
RPM And DEB are most used.

I think PC-BSD is better than Kubuntu because it is based on FreeBSD 5.x, and it has .pbi's. Also, I love the PC-BSD community, they're all pretty neat people :D

Just because you think it is better then kubuntu.Again it is just your thoughts :).Also there are other things like .pbi's for Linux.

So yeah all in all its just ones thought on the OS nothing is a fact on what they say.Except that they do have a stable OS and a Stable package system.

[Bachstelze]

yep, and installing some "mystical" deps manually can be a major issue sometimes.

All the dependencies of the official packages are contained in them (or in other official packages). If you're using an unofficial package and the person who made it didn't provide the required dependencies, you can really only blame it on them (and on yourself for using unofficial packages in the first place), not on the package manager.


edit : some slackware package manageers like the popular swaret, deal with the deps using find or locate (depnds of the settings) to track the missing libs.

Yeah, but those are also unofficial and are more or less just dirty hacks. Once again, Slackware itself is not at fault here.

[RiceMonster]

No dependency hell. No system breaks. No modifying the base system. No having to "urpmi, yum, apt-get" anything from text. Just double click ONE FILE on your computer, and it will start the installation.

That's neat, last time I checked I was able to double click a .deb file in Ubunutu, and then click "install". That sure was hard!

I only have to edit the xfree config and fstab to add my windows partitions and to edit the video device that I have (Radeon)

That's cool, I can get Linux working without editing ANY configuration files. I do edit a lot of configuration files, but that's my own choice. If I were to go back to Ubuntu, I wouldn't have to do it at all If I so choose.

I'm still interested in trying *BSD. It looks really nice, but I haven't gotten around to it.

[ayoli]

All the dependencies of the official packages are contained in them (or in other official packages). If you're using an unofficial package and the person who made it didn't provide the required dependencies, you can really only blame it on them (and on yourself for using unofficial packages in the first place), not on the package manager.




Yeah, but those are also unofficial and are more or less just dirty hacks. Once again, Slackware itself is not at fault here.

clarification : I wasn't blaming slackware (I've used it for almost two years).

[Bachstelze]

clarification : I wasn't blaming slackware (I've used it for almost two years).

Yeah, maybe the word was too big. All I'm saying is that we're talking about OSes here, so taking unofficial stuff into account might lead to unfair comparisons (I don't know if what I'm saying makes any sense, I guess I should just go to bed now :p).

[mips]

Lol, some of the comments here make me laugh. If I had to utter them I would be blushing now :)

[Dixon Bainbridge]

All I care about with an OS is, will it install on my computer and work properly? Not one BSD distro has properly, therefore, to me, they suck. When one works, and does what I need it to, then it will stop sucking.

Until then, 8.04 stays on my machine. :)

[ronnielsen1]

The link is also from 2005. Some of them were right back then but not now. I've seen Linux come a long way since I quit Windows in 2004 - but to be fair Linux wasn't nearly as good as it is now back then

[theCoder]

I have respect for the BSD distros, but I stick to reliable Linux distros (debian based distributions). As to which I prefer, man, give me Solaris on Sun hardware, any day!

[jrusso2]

I continue to hold the view that Linux is by far the most suitable of the Unix like operating systems for the modern desktop. This is due to the better driver support, ease of use and installation, and the availability of applications.

I have tried all the alternatives but I encourage others to do the same and you will quickly see the shortcomings of these BSD's for Desktop use, with the exception of course of Apple's OS X.

[Bachstelze]

I continue to hold the view that Linux is by far the most suitable of the Unix like operating systems for the modern desktop.

As always, saying that any OS is better than any other "for the desktop" is totally irrelevant. The question is, "for whose desktop?" I know lots of people who are happily using BSD on a desktop, and wouldn't switch to Linux even if you paid them a lot of money.

[cardinals_fan]

All I care about with an OS is, will it install on my computer and work properly? Not one BSD distro has properly, therefore, to me, they suck. When one works, and does what I need it to, then it will stop sucking.

Until then, 8.04 stays on my machine. :)
I have respect for the BSD distros, but I stick to reliable Linux distros (debian based distributions). As to which I prefer, man, give me Solaris on Sun hardware, any day!
BSD doesn't really have "distros". PC-BSD and DesktopBSD are modified FreeBSD, but NetBSD, OpenBSD, and DragonFlyBSD are seperate OSs in their own right.