It's different but something that is different can't really be "better". I like BSD and when the ATI Support is stronger I will use it because I prefer it to Linux.
It's different but something that is different can't really be "better". I like BSD and when the ATI Support is stronger I will use it because I prefer it to Linux.
I just like BSD. I think it's better than Linux. Talk to most people here, and they'd say Linux was better than BSD.
Better is subjective.
I like FreeBSD very much.
Is it better than Linux? I think it mostly is, but it also depends on what you are doing.
For virtualization BSD is not as good as Linux, other than that I think it's better.
I installed it on my laptop. After having wireless issues, and annoyances with the Linuxes, FreeBSD was so simple.
I installed it and the wireless card just started up!
I didn't even have to scan for a signal is automatically found it and connected.
Just be aware that the FreeBSD install is very basic.
You'll have to configure everything yourself to set it up for a desktop environment, (I'm using XFCE with it)
The Linux compatibility is nearly perfect, you can run just about any Linux software (Flash is still a problem because Adobe will not release a FreeBSD version) and there's no difference in speed.
Also some of the commands are a little different than in Linux. (I think it's because FreeBSD was not System V based)
I used PC-BSD (FreeBSD) a couple of years or more ago for a while. It was fine, the community was nice but quite small. I couldn't do some things that I wanted to with PC-BSD so I moved on.
I currently use FreeNAS, which is a superb FreeBSD based NAS distro(?). The only fault I could find with it (FreeBSD) is the somewhat limited hardware support for things like PCI SATA cards. It certainly supports a lot of RAID cards though.
The question is exactly as good as: is openSUSE better than Ubuntu? Or: Is Ubuntu better than Fedora?
Greetings,
m
Blogs: Lightweight Linux | Green Investing Now
To a point I agree.
Though there is an unfortunate difference, in that the BSD's don't get quite as much support as the Linux distro's do; demonstrating itself in the fact that there is software that is available & running on most of the Linux distro's that is not available on the BSD's.
Spiralinear: Humanity & Machines
RUNNING: Fedora | FreeBSD | Windows 7
The original question has very much to do with licenses. BSD uses a "weaker" free software license than Linux, which uses the "strong" GNU GPL copyleft free sotware license. Those two are incompatible, thus you must choose one. I much prefer the GNU GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html
No need to start a flame war on licensing and rights. If you are going to put a comment like this in a thread, explain why the BSD license is "weak" and why the GPL is "strong. And do so in your own words.
The BSD license states that whomever can do whatever they wish with the source, including close it, but that there is no warranty, and none of the original authors have any liability. This is about as "free" as in "non-restrictive" as licenses come, without being Public Domain. The GPL, in general protects the code, in that it ensures that the code stays free, more than the coder.
Now that my two cents are in, some further reading:
Spiralinear: Humanity & Machines
RUNNING: Fedora | FreeBSD | Windows 7
You don't understand the question if you see a flame war here. It's obvious on the other hand already since you seem to support the BSD side of things. The OP asked a question and I answered it.
These terms strong and weak are not my invention. Strong means you cannot restrict the rights of consecutive users. Weak is the opposite. Copyleft licenses are better for the end user and the community.
Bookmarks