"Seriously though, is there even enough BSD desktop users to even worry about? That must be a truly itty bitty number, like 0.0001% or something."
Seriously though, does it matter a damn? If it's good for the purpouse, then it's good for the purpouse no matter how many (or how little) people use it. If number of users were a quality indicator, Windows would be the best system by an order of magnitude (hint: no, it's not).
And then again, for the casual desktop user, there's no difference between KDE on Free
Some of the network utilities in windows did originate with BSD but the stack in Windows XP / Windows 2003 Server and beyond was written by Microsoft.
False. Windows XP has the same stack as Windows 2000, which was lifted from BSD. We know because of fingerprinting and the attacks that it was once susceptible to. The new stack is in Server 2003 as you suggest, but it doesn't appear in desktop Windows until Vista. The same stack is also used in Windows 7. You can tell the change doesn't happen in XP due to the lack of integration of IPv6, which still demands the use of all the same management tools as on Windows 2000.
A number of apple employees are FreeBSD committers. I believe a number of FreeBSD guys were hired by apple, and still work on the FreeBSD core. If you don't know about FreeBSD give it a shot. Its different from Linux, so it will take a little while to get your head around, but its good. I left linux for it after 5 years of linux. The learning curve going from Linux to BSD is nowhere near the curve as say, going from Windows to Linux. Most of the ideas are the same, they're just implemented slightly dif
I'm not sure about the learning curve from windows to linux being harder then linux-bsd, I've just installed my first bsd firewall about 1-2 weeks ago, and I personally think bsd is harder just becouse it is alot like linux, but the little diferences are the things that make it alot harder..
True, you can get caught out if you make assumptions. However if you read the docs before assuming, its easier than being totally foreign. Also, once you get the "BSD way" for a few applications, the rest of the OS is configured and operates much more consistently than the mish-mash of ways linux apps seem to do things.
Stick with it... might take a little while for the thought process behind BSD to "click" but once it does for you, linux is full of glaring inconsistencies and just feels "dirty" by compa
"First of all, there is no reason to act like a douche when someone asks a question."
Any kind of question? Yours was obviously a "flamebait" one. And your answer to mine is too, so I betted my opinion on the first answer and I'm sure of it on this second.
"it is THAT kind of attitude that has non Windows/OSX platforms labeled as Operating Systems for the maladjusted. Nobody likes THAT guy"
You seem not to understand -again. All your rant basically begs for this answer: so what?
Awesome! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Seriously though, is there even enough BSD desktop users to even worry about? That must be a truly itty bitty number, like 0.0001% or something."
Seriously though, does it matter a damn? If it's good for the purpouse, then it's good for the purpouse no matter how many (or how little) people use it. If number of users were a quality indicator, Windows would be the best system by an order of magnitude (hint: no, it's not).
And then again, for the casual desktop user, there's no difference between KDE on Free
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the network utilities in windows did originate with BSD but the stack in Windows XP / Windows 2003 Server and beyond was written by Microsoft.
False. Windows XP has the same stack as Windows 2000, which was lifted from BSD. We know because of fingerprinting and the attacks that it was once susceptible to. The new stack is in Server 2003 as you suggest, but it doesn't appear in desktop Windows until Vista. The same stack is also used in Windows 7. You can tell the change doesn't happen in XP due to the lack of integration of IPv6, which still demands the use of all the same management tools as on Windows 2000.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stick with it... might take a little while for the thought process behind BSD to "click" but once it does for you, linux is full of glaring inconsistencies and just feels "dirty" by compa
Re: (Score:2)
"First of all, there is no reason to act like a douche when someone asks a question."
Any kind of question? Yours was obviously a "flamebait" one. And your answer to mine is too, so I betted my opinion on the first answer and I'm sure of it on this second.
"it is THAT kind of attitude that has non Windows/OSX platforms labeled as Operating Systems for the maladjusted. Nobody likes THAT guy"
You seem not to understand -again. All your rant basically begs for this answer: so what?
"My question is very simple-
Re: (Score:1)
Now is Apple actually supporting BSD with serious funding
Absolutely: http://maryniuk.blogspot.com/2008/03/asiabsdcon-2008.html [blogspot.com]