In Favor of FreeBSD On the Desktop

snydeq writes "Deep End's Paul Venezia wonders why more folks aren't using FreeBSD on the desktop. 'There used to be a saying — at least I've said it many times — that my workstations run Linux, my servers run FreeBSD. Sure, it's quicker to build a Linux box, do a "yum install x y z" and toss it out into the wild as a fully functional server, but the extra time required to really get a FreeBSD box tuned will come back in spades through performance and stability metrics. You'll get more out of the hardware, be that virtual or physical, than you will on a generic Linux binary installation.'"

Re:Shouldn't Apples count?

[sirdude]

Seeing as to how you haven't RTFA, you deserve to be on-slaughtered :)

Re:Shouldn't Apples count?

[elrous0]

Sir, this is /. I have NEVER read an article.

Re:Shouldn't Apples count?

[Threni]

Damn - you're right. I wondered what all that text was above the comments. I assumed it was an ad, or a Terminal session or something....

Re:Sorry, but it's not worth the time

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Oblig xkcd [xkcd.com].

Re:Shouldn't Apples count?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you get the benefit of one of the best GUI's in the desktop world, to boot.

The desktop looks like AOL's client software from the late 90's. Best GUI is debatable.

Re:Shouldn't Apples count?

[Yvan256]

Wait, since when does Slashdot link to articles?

Re:more stability?

[Attila Dimedici]

Every OS is as stable as the user.

So, you are saying that Free BSD is not very stable? Because every FreeBSD user I have ever met has been among the most unstable people I know.