Is BSD actually better than Linux for the desktop?

[gore]

We have all heard this:

"BSD is more advanced, and better than Linux". Or at least you have if you read the complete Free BSD by Grey Lehey. But.... Is BSD actually better than Linux from a desktop perspective? Well, hopefully this thread starts a damned good arguement, and maybe we can see ;)

BSD has been around for a very long time. It was started at the university of California at Berkeley. They took this UNIX code, and made some changes to the actual OS, and started giving it away freely.

Well, giving an OS away is always nice, as at the time the only way to use UNIX was at a college, or if you have big amounts of cash.

It has been used for a fairly long time as a server OS, or NOS. It does do a very good job at this, but is it better than Linux? Both OS are UNIX like, both can run just about the same programs and applications, and both are stable as hell. So, so far, they are equal.

Well, for a desktop, Linux comes with alot of programs....Well, so does BSD.

SuSE Linux, and Free BSD are going to be used in this arguement, as both are easy to install, and both are very good OS. And I of course won't be biased with SuSE in the arguement ;)

Heh, right.

So, for a desktop user, SuSE Linux is going to be what I will say, better. It comes with a **** load of applications, programs, development, and some great games.

Linux also has an Unreal Tournament port. Free BSD....Well, I'm not sure. Both OSs can have a good graphics capability. Quite easily in fact. Using the best video cards in the world, Nvidia.

Nvidia has a "unified driver". Meaning you can use the same powerful graphics capabilities that used to only work for Windows gamers, right on Free BSD or Linux. Alot of people who use this have also reported better frames with this under Linux than they would get in Windows.

Well, both are equal here, as Nvidia makes graphics drivers for both OSs. I know Nvidia is not the only one who makes these drivers, but they are the one I have the most actual experiance in.

Saying Free BSD is a better server than Linux is not going to be needed in this, as we are talking about desktops. And other than an X server and maybe SSH and SMTP, you usually won't need anything else unless you have some reason to be running an apache server for your lan or something.

Both have Apache, SSH, Telnet, FTP, and Samba servers for each OS, and both are very reliable.

I have yet to see my SuSe or slackware box needing a reboot. Installing patches in Linux is easy and rarely ever needs a reboot unless you are installing hardware, or drivers for a video card.Of course a new kernel usually needs a reboot too, but that's only if you want to use it ;)

I hate rebooting, which is why Windows has only been booted up a few times in my room in the last month, and that was only to add to my porn/mp3/movie collection.

SuSE Linux comes with a great firewall known as SuSE2Firewall. It's very good, and easy to configure for a new user, and also has a more advanced configuration utility for power users, or people who for some reason want bragging rights with the OS they use.

Gentoo for example...."Well, I can get a microsecond faster boot up time because I spent 3 weeks installing this from sources..."

Super, in the time you took to get a wee bit more speed out of your OS, mine was up and running and in use. If you have either really good hardware, or absolute ****, you aren't going to see much. If it's old hardware, you won't need X anyway, and how fast do you really need that text to fly up on the screen?

And if you have dual Xeon processors running on 2 GBs RAM....Are you really going to see an increase in speed over Slackware or SuSe with Gentoo? Not unless you have to damned much free time, lol.


Free BSD however, is fairly speedy. Which is why Gentoo is speedy, because it's Free BSD with a Linux kernel. Kind of like a transexual. It has Both :D

I'm trying to get two computers that are exactly the same. I want to get two computers with the exact same processors, same MOBO, same everything. I'll load Linux on one, and Free BSd on the other, and do some tests to see if you actually can notive a performance difference when you don't have X loaded up.

Then I can load X and see which one does that better.

Then it's page display test time. I'll write up some quick yet lenghty HTML, and test load times for both. This is fun to me. I like both BSD and Linux, but I think Linux has kind of stolen my OS heart lately. Before I came here, I was a **** of a BSD boy.

If anyone even dared to say BSd was not the BEST, I was instantly in a flame war. But, as people sometimes do, I matured, grew up, learned, and changed my veiws.

alot of people use the arguement "BSD can still run on a 386 or a 486, SuSE Linux needs a pentium".

Well, yes, but looking about 7 inches from where my arm is currently resting as I type this, I see a couple CD-ROMS:

Slackware Linux 3.6, 8.1, 9.0, 9.1, Libranet Linux 2.7 Classic, SuSE Linux 8.1 Professional, SuSE Linux 8.2 Professional, Mandrake Linux 7.1, 9.0, 9.1, and 9.2.

Well, most of what you see here, also can be run on that hardware. Slackware 8.x and 9.0 can run on a 386. Also, Slackware has an install much the same as Free BSD's. They also both use .tgz for packages. I'm fairly sure that both are about the same in speed.

Now, what do people do/use their desktops for?

Well, I personally have 5. Only 3 and a half are here as my ex gf is a bitch and took one. Another is in peices, and the other 3 sit on my desk, all hooked up to, and making up, my LAN. My HP is my main *NIX box, and is rarely shut down. I use it daily.

Generally, I check my email, come to AO, see what's up here, and listen to music, or watch movies. Well, this is possible on Linux, Windows, and BSD. But I think SuSE Linux far exceeds BSD in multimedia. And also, after a lil while I look at pr0n for a bit, and then do some homework, or research. Again, this is done on Linux and Windows XP. Have to use XP because they use it at school and they are anal about some of it.

I also play games. I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I do love Doom, Unreal Tournament, Quake, and Tux Racer. Well, all of these can be played on justabout any OS. But they seem to work nicely in Linux. In my own very biased and elitist opinion, Linux wins here.

Now everyone reading this that actually has more than "I agree" or "Me too!" to add to this, reply with your experiance, and see if we can get a good arguement/Discussion started.





EDIT:

I made the poll so you can vote for more than one choice. That is why your browser is looking that way. I am saying this here because the last poll I made with the option for multiple options, a few people said their browser looked funny and they thought it was a bug.

[cgkanchi]

I feel that Linux is finally getting there as a desktop system. The only reason I haven't switched completely over to Linux is the fact that both Wine and WineX still have a looooong way to go. I'd love to be an exclusive Linux user, but atm, it's dual boot for me. I tend to use Linux when I'm not using p2p applications that don't run under Linux (I know, I know, but where am I going to get pr0n ) or when playing some games (Rise of Nations, Age of Empires II), that don't run under Linux. On the other hand, Linux is rock solid and is actually a pleasure to use. But all in all, I'd have to say that XP and not Linux wins the desktop battle.
.......for now.

Cheers,
cgkanchi

EDIT: Also, when you get a custom application to use (from college, work, whatever), it's more likely to be a windows app than a linux/bsd app.

[el-half]

Indeed, in my opinion, the only "problem" with linux or bsd is that they don't have the entire market in their hands like Microsoft lol. So I can't get online with a linux or bsd distro because of the lack of a driver.
Screw *nix for not having taken over the OS market.

[MemorY]

Windows XP Pro. same reason as el-half.

[scriptkiddie18]

Once Linux covers the 'game' section and about 90% of the software and hardware used...that might be a time when M$ is going outa the picture ...Windows is not as good as linux with preferences etc....linux is lots better than Windows looking it from the point of configs and settings but as i said when linux supporsts games and most of the software/hardware it could look very bad for M$

[el-half]

Not true, it's those settings and configuring that makes Linux harder to use than windows, and as long as Linux isn't more userfriendly it will never replace windows.
Also keep in mind that if Linux gets more userfriendly it'll get more insecure.

[cgkanchi]

Also keep in mind that if Linux gets more userfriendly it'll get more insecure.

I happen to disagree with this. Modern distributions of Linux are perfectly user friendly (provided someone sets it up first). I dare any Windows user to come and use my Slackware install and actually have problems understanding KDE or GNOME. The problem occurs if, like the average Windows user, everything is run as root/administrator. This should never be allowed to happen with Linux/BSD.

Cheers,
cgkanchi

[el-half]

Yes, they are not hard to use, but of course the installing is a problem and configuring things is harder in linux than in windows

[gore]

Finally some discussion!

Damn, took long enough

As for being hard to install. Well, that was sort of true a while ago, but recently, it's become beyond easy. Some distros stick to the text install still, but I very much disagree with it making it hard to install. That's a reas I have started doing those OS install tutorials. They make it much easier, and how can you **** up step by step instructions? Just trying to do my part.

[pwaring]

Linux - Varies widely in ease-of-use from Debian (took me ages to get X working) to Fedora (worked perfectly first time)
Free BSD - Managed to install, but never got X working, so not much good as a desktop from my point of view
OpenBSD - Okay, but never got X working and it disabled so many services by default as to be practically useless - but then it's not aimed at desktop systems really
NetBSD - Tried it once, got similar results to OpenBSD
SuSE Linux - Used to use it, coughed up for the boxed set (7.2) worked ok
Gentoo Transexualnix - Nightmare, couldn't even get past the initial install stage
Mandrake Linux - some hardware problems, but generally along the same lines as SuSE
Windows XP - stuck with this until Intel gets off their backsides and releases Centrino drivers for Linux so I can use wireless