FreeBSD & Linux distro
rock_on_the_web at comcen.com.au
Thu Feb 21 00:34:15 UTC 2008
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 16:50 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:44:37AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 08:49 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > >
> > > The way you phrased it makes it sound like FreeBSD is simply unsuited to
> > > use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this
> > > from a Thinkpad laptop with FreeBSD on it, and it's by far the best
> > > "desktop" OS I've ever had the pleasure to use.
> > Me too. But you have to be more enabled to get a lot of the software the
> > is wanted on a desktop system working. Case in point: Gnome is not
> > automatically installed (or kde or any other wm). Web browsing can be
> > tricky because you have to get wrappers for plugins and so on. For you
> > and me- we don't mind because we know the result will be fantastic, but
> > others who just want to get on with it it can be a pain.
> More enabled . . . ?
> You have to be "more enabled" to use *anything* that isn't preinstalled
> by the hardware vendor. That basically means anything that isn't MS
> Windows or MacOS X. After all, Linux, FreeBSD, Plan 9 . . . none of them
> are "automatically installed" on any computer, with rare exceptions.
Considering the original question of the OP wouldn't you agree that this
might be their background?
> > Therefore, I'd say a desktop version of FreeBSD would be better
> > described as a workstation. Considering we're comparing to Ubuntu, I'd
> > say thats a fair statement.
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
More information about the freebsd-questions