Printable View
If BSD has someting, it works. Linux has many things, but none of them work correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by asdx
Linux development process:
<some old unix thing> sucks, lets do a <new better thing>.
3 years later a <new better thing> is almost working, but it sucks, lets do a <newer better thing>.
...
Example:
static /dev sucks, lets do a devfs.
3 years later a devfs is almost working, but it sucks, lets do a udev.
It is not all about tehnology and versions.
That's funny, because I don't care about this on Linux. While there's no progress there are no regressions. Nobody forces you to upgrade your kernel. You can stick to Ubuntu LTS and be happy for 5 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by soupbowl
Keep dreaming. Linux beats the crap in 90% cases. You'll have wifi working on your bsd in Linux+10 years.Quote:
BSD sucks for being behind? I had better working wifi on windows 2000, then modern linux. I also had a better graphics stack in windows 98 then your living in the past shitty linux.
And Linux has 10x better performance, file systems, security and stability. Winblows will always be years and years behind. When Linux will get Wayland it will be on pair in graphics. Blame me, but even with X Linux is faster in graphics in many cases. Keep dreaming. Btw. how windows helps bsd?Quote:
Originally Posted by soupbowl
Why some fanboys compare Linux kernel to BSD distribution? Just because there's no bsd.kernel.org? Linux has many things and MOST of them works as they should. BSD has very few things and none of them work correctly. That's a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBit
Well I should probably say GNU.Quote:
Originally Posted by kraftman
Why then my usb sound card plays only noise on Arch Linux?
BSD's are more stable and if some OS is more stable it means it works correctly.
About the same time as Linux, then :DQuote:
Originally Posted by asdx
Anyway, if you want stable Linux, run Debian. If you're running Ubuntu or latest Fedora betas and expecting rock-solid stability, then you're doing it wrong.
No, you should say exact distributions name. Arch is what you make it - if you don't configure Pulse Audio correctly you will get noise sometimes. Try Ubuntu or some other distributions. BSD's aren't more stable and they're not used in serious computing unlike Linux.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBit
I believe Linux graphics stack is already superior to Windows and to other systems and it has been for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by kraftman
We have a top-notch graphics stack in kernel that consists of things like: DRM/KMS, GEM, Mesa, DRI2, in-kernel open-source drivers like Intel, nouveau, radeon, all working with KMS. Basically, hardware "just works" these days.
I believe with all this progress Linux has already surpassed other systems in so many ways, and it's just a matter of time until it gets even better in areas where open source drivers are lacking today: 3D performance and such.
X is not doing a lot these days but acting more as a proxy for the new stuff in the kernel I believe.
Wayland will just be the culmination of many years of work within and including X11, such as DRM/KMS, pciaccess, Mesa, DRI2, XI2, et al.
Why sound works without Pulse Audio on outdated OSS?Quote:
Originally Posted by kraftman
I have tried many distributions, but I would rather use Windows than Ubuntu.
OOM killer and similar hacks make Linux really reliable and stable.
I'd like to see where linux graphic stack is faster than windows in a real test. I always laugh when linux fan boys cry about nvidia blob yet its the only way to get decent graphic speeds on linux. All the open source drivers are crap, at best you can play a FPS shooter with a 10 year old engine at a good framerate. Also you act like using a LTS such as ubuntu means wifi drivers work properly. All that means is I have an OS that is stable until the next LTS, which breaks my wifi. Which happens all the time, linux slogan should simply be 'regression'.