Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors
rock_on_the_web at comcen.com.au
Sun Dec 14 02:36:27 PST 2008
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 10:37 -0800, prad wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:51:22 +1000
> Da Rock <rock_on_the_web at comcen.com.au> wrote:
> > The possibility here is the bells and whistles strangely enough DO
> > work in tune and without sore lips... FreeBSD could be THAT good.
> i'm not so sure that is really "THAT good". bells and whistles if not
> carefully thought out and implemented can add to instability. possibly
> more important, they can pervert the original good idea.
> i think the newer kde's is a case in point (from my personal
> experience, albeit). version 3 was good (despite the occasional
> crash). version 4 seemed to try to do all sorts of stuff and outdo
> windoze at being windoze. i'm using dwm :D
> i think this issue was dealt with rather well in the openbsd faq:
> 1.10 - Can I use OpenBSD as a desktop system?
> This question is often asked in exactly this manner -- with no
> explanation of what the asker means by "desktop". The only person who
> can answer that question is you, as it depends on what your needs and
> expectations are.
> While OpenBSD has a great reputation as a "server" operating system, it
> can be and is used on the desktop. Many "desktop" applications are
> available through packages and ports. As with all operating system
> decisions, the question is: can it do the job you desire in the way you
> wish? You must answer this question for yourself.
> while i agree with you as far as having suitable driver accessibility, i
> don't see why one system needs to try to be all things to all people.
All this is a fair comment. In particular the reply to "bells and
whistles". My main concern with KDE4 (now that I've seen it) is that
while the bells and whistles are there, they don't seem "complete" there
are still at least the little aesthetics to fix- not to mention the
crashes, inoperability, etc. While it outdoes window$ on functional
stability etc, I think they may have jumped the gun on this one. A more
polished and "complete" product later would have far more success- take
time for all the little things: if its there it SHOULD work properly. As
for who and why should use it: thats for the intellects to argue. My
only argument is if the jobs worth doing do it properly the first time.
I think what many get up in arms about is what the system should be
capable of doing. And yes there are many more comments on the multimedia
list- which should be saying something to people: there is no other
system out there that is sufficient for their needs, so they come to the
only operating system that has the strength, speed, and stability to
offer a possibility of what they want (I'm one of them). Linux isn't up
to scratch although driver support is better, but it doesn't hold up
under the kind of stresses being placed on it for this level of work.
There are many uses that FreeBSD is up to the challenge with
operationally but doesn't have the driver support. Even if a link is
created between linux and BSD driver wise (temporarily until native
support) the stability of FreeBSD can counter more of the
inconsistencies in the driver software. On top of that, there are more
hardware vendors making more new products FOR SERVERS that there is no
driver support for. Gone are the days when one vendor sells the chipset
to many different hardware implementations; now there are many chipsets
for the same hardware types, so more drivers need to be written for the
new hardware coming out on a continual basis.
Plus what is considered to be a server has changed over the years
compared to what some on this list may be used to. Consider video
streaming (where does the stream originate from?), sound streaming, 3D
rendering, physics computation, X services; in this climate of cloud
computing there is going to be a lot more coming.
Food for thought anyway.
More information about the freebsd-questions