About BSD

So, /prog/...

I'm a Linuxfag, but I never tried other POSIX operating system! What do you think about all the *bsd stuff? Is there any drawback in using it?

Why do people even bother with posix operating systems.  It's too much effort when you can do the same things with commercial operating systems with less work.

OS X is great.

>>2
You do have a point, VMS is awesome.

>>1
No BSD is POSIX, except BSDi. If you want IEEE-1003.1 compliance, get OS X or (Open)Solaris.

>>2
An operating system can be both commercial and POSIX compliant.

>>3
OS X is poor.

>>4
It's not.

>>5
It's close enough for all intensive porpoises.

The main drawback to the BSDs is that they lack support for things Linux users take for granted nowadays. Even FreeBSD doesn't have the hardware support Linux had a decade ago.

>>7
Could you please provide me an example of not working hardware?

LINSUX
BSD IS BETTER
ALL HAIL MOTHER KOREA (｡◕‿‿◕｡)

>>6
close enough for you and your purposes.

>>7
No.

>>9
mashup of fail

>>10
fail
Get back to you're EPIK LULZ & SCIFAG RAIDS, faggot

>>10
Note >>1's usage of the term Linuxfag? That alone should be enough evidence to show that complete POSIX adherance is not necessary. The BSDs are close enough for all intensive porpoises.

For curiosity's sake, I installed DragonFlyBSD in a virtual machine. After installation it couldn't even automatically detect the network card and instead insisted I fuck around with various configuration scripts instead.

Once upon a time I thought that kind of bullshit was really neat, but now my only reaction is "fuck no". An operating system needs to let me get on with my stuff, not require me to dick around with irrelevant crap.

>>12
There's POSIX compliant linux distributions. Therefore that alone does not suffice to conclude that which you concluded. The BSDs are not close enough for all purposes. Your purposes, maybe. Not mine. Would you also suggest that GCC is ISO 9899:1999 compliant? It's not. Yes, for most purposes, you could use -std=c99 -pedantic and write working programs with most features of C99. But it's not compliant.

>>13
Agreed. Things like configuring an OS are really trivial compared to the work I do when it runs. Sometimes I go on IRC and chat with people to get my setup working, and I can't help but notice the irony of their elitist behavior telling me to read manuals and documentation, implying this will somehow benefit me, and not just waste my time.

>>14
I was talking about >>1's situation, not your situation. In case you didn't notice, >>1's words give the impression that strict POSIX compliance isn't a strong criteria for >>1's requirements.

BSD is what the most difficult people on the InterWeb create.

Posix is standards crap put together by committees or competing interests.

Posix is more a guideline than a standard.

Use Debian or gNewSense.

POSAX MY ANUS

>>16
gNewSense
more like gNuisance amirite?

>>18
Yes, that's the joke. Go back to bed, Captain.

>>19
back to bed, please

Don't change these.

Name:		Email:
Entire Thread Thread List