allix wrote:Tsuroerusu wrote:
You obviously have been drinking the BSD koolaid. BSDs are a hell of a lot more forked than Linux distros are. Linux distros may seem different, but you don't see different versions of ls, you don't have different versions of GCC etc. etc. etc. it's all the same software set up in in a custom way, you could get SUSE to seem a lot like Red Hat if you really wanted to.
The reason userland tools are forked on the BSD's is because all BSDs have actual code developers who actively work on userland tools to make them work how they want or in openbsds case, simple and secure. Also the BSD's would like a complete BSD license environment, like BCC instead of GCC.
There is no such thing as "BCC", there is no BSD-licensed alternative to GCC. All the BSDs use the GNU Compiler Collection. They do have their own C library, they do not use glibc, theirs is just called "libc".
allix wrote:A lot of linux distros as you say take the sourcecode and great different package mangers, there are very few who hack the actual code.
It's called a "Linux distribution" for a reason, darn it!
allix wrote:Its one of those experiences people like to do, make there own package system and build a gnu/linux system how they like, on BSD its a lot different, people involved like to improve the applications and put them into a the few distros that exist, as much as more choice the better , the BSD way seems more sense to me.
I think both ways make sense for different reasons. The way a Linux distro is put together is very bazaar like. You could compare it to cooking, you go get the different ingredients, put them together in a specific way (Maybe you have your own preferred ways for certain ingredients), and then get what you'd like, and what works the best for you.
The BSD way of building a system is good for having consistency all over your system, or consistency in source code. OpenBSD I think is the best example of this, they wanna do their own auditing on the entire system, and for that to be managable, they need to control the development of all the OS parts.
allix wrote:Tsuroerusu wrote:
That was probably the most ridiculous argument I have heard this entire year!
The various versions of Vista are just crippled depending on how much cash you're willing to throw in the toilet.
There is ONE Windows Vista OS, with crippled feature sets. Linux distros are from different vendors, from different countries etc. etc. a free market if you will. I don't want to see "ONE" big Linux distro, that just rules out all the rest. Specialization is only a good thing.
I totally agree with you , but aren't the crippled features the same as Specialization you mentioned in the linux world? Does a home user who browsers the TLLS forum need Windows Vista Enterprise ?
Oh no no no!! Specialization is very very different!!! It's different by billions of light years in my opinion.
If I go download Damn Small Linux, it is a really (damn) small OS, really fast and lightweight. Runs quite well on a 133 MHz Pentium PC with 32 MB of RAM from 1994. However, if I wanted to, I could install KDE on this distro as it's just Debian. With Vista, you can't have all the flexibility you want. The OS is crippled specifically to get more cash out of you, and to lick deeper into hollywoods ass.
allix wrote:Tsuroerusu wrote:
PC-BSDs system is retarded in my opinion. If you have say 5 apps that all embed SSL, you have to update all those five apps to fix a security problem. And if PBIs are not made available, you are screwed. With Debian's apt-get you update the SSL package and you're good to go.
I think the PC-BSD team would update the five apps, PC-BSD is now supported by iXsystems so i take it developer time is not the issue.
I seriously doubt that PC-BSD will ever maintain over 5000 PBIs themselves, that just seems completely unmanageable!
allix wrote:Tsuroerusu wrote:
Maybe, but part of the fault lays with FreeBSD. For a long long time they have explicitly not been trying to get desktop features going in their OS, if they wanted to be a closer part of the HAL development process, Freedesktop.org, X development and so forth, I'm sure they were welcome. If they wanna go and focus on the server and workstation usages for their entire existence, and ignore desktop and laptop (I know that it does work fine on some laptops, namely ThinkPads) usage then fine by me.
A lot of the core xorg, kde,gnome etc developers who build the free and open desktop develop on linux, you cannot really deny that, the small amount that work on the BSDs, Solaris etc most likely incorporate it into the distro than upstream due to attitudes such as "this has to work with linux first of all" If your interested i managed to get lugradio to talk about this on there recent show, they mention that someone from the forum moaned about this, that was my thread hehe.
Actually, I think this is less of a problem in KDE. They have always had portability as a pretty high priority. Right from day one, KDE identified themselves as a UNIX free software desktop, I don't think they ever advertised themselves as a "Linux desktop".
KDE recently added a hotplug system for USB keys and stuff that used HAL, however that could be disabled and an alternative, and more portable, style of device management could be used.
With KDE 4 they are looking even deeper at portability, now they are gonna run both on Windows and Mac OS X, which will just make it that much easier running on a regular UNIX OS.
