It probably has a lot to do with FreeBSD having a much more focused niche. FreeBSD is really tuned primarily for servers. You can use it on your desktop, but that's not really it's main purpose. Linux on the other hand, has really branched out. It has desktop distros, server distros, embedded distros, and probably a couple other areas I haven't thought of.
You think so? I dunno, it seems to me that FreeBSD suits the desktop role really well; I use it for preference. Especially when you consider that the only OS with more packages is Debian, it makes sense that it can fit a desktop role extremely nicely.
How many of those packages are desktop packages? Seems like a odd metric to just compare the number of packages as to how well an OS is suited to the desktop.
Well, I don't think I've ever installed any package from anything other than the ports system. Lots? I know I've installed everything from Gnome, XFCE and KDE, through OpenOffice and a bunch of stuff in between.
You're right that mere numbers of packages is a weird metric, but what else can we offer? FreeBSD has great performance, and has everything necessary to be either a good server *or* a good desktop. It's much like Gentoo that way -- it doesn't focus on being either one or the other, it focuses on be
It honestly seems to me that the distinction between server OS and desktop OS is its own entire discussion; if we can come to a good notion of what either means
I don't think the desktop/server distinction means anything anymore, and for three reasons. One, cheap commodity hardware. Two, the literal glut of software. Apache too bloated? Use lighttpd. KDE overblown? Use fluxbox. And three is (open) standards (no sniggering in the back,please.) When everything uses TCP/IP or XML or whatnot, intero
The difference is in the real-time scheduling requirements that come with a GUI. Very minor delays in GUI rendering have very perceptible impact on the snappiness of a UI. Server workloads (DB, HTTPD or whatever) have less stringent real-time requirements. Throughput ends up mattering more as long as the latency is in a reasonable range.
You don't have to be Kreskin (Score:-1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right that mere numbers of packages is a weird metric, but what else can we offer? FreeBSD has great performance, and has everything necessary to be either a good server *or* a good desktop. It's much like Gentoo that way -- it doesn't focus on being either one or the other, it focuses on be
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think the desktop/server distinction means anything anymore, and for three reasons. One, cheap commodity hardware. Two, the literal glut of software. Apache too bloated? Use lighttpd. KDE overblown? Use fluxbox. And three is (open) standards (no sniggering in the back
Re:You don't have to be Kreskin (Score:2, Interesting)