Date: 10 Jul 2002 19:07:28 -0400 From: Rajappa Iyer <rsi@panix.com> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Cc: Thierry Herbelot <thierry@herbelot.com>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Listening to users [was Re: Package system wishlist] Message-ID: <200207102307.g6AN7SV22593@panix1.panix.com> References: <20020710224000.GA1331@lpt.ens.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> writes: > Maybe this isn't terribly on-topic, but anyway: > > Rajappa Iyer wrote: > > > <http://members.optusnet.com.au/~knigits/articles/switched_back.html>; > > > > Note that almost all of his frustration was due to the multiple > > distributions problem in Linux > > No - he notes that but didn't have a problem with that. His problem > was that *none* of the distributions were suitable. But almost all of > them would have been friendlier than FreeBSD. Huh? Read the article again. Then read what I wrote here again. He's complaining about the fact that third-party drivers do not work across different kernels. Since different distributions use different (minor) versions of the kernel, the binary compatability problem he has is squarely attributable to the multiple distribution problem in Linux. > XFree86 -- FreeBSD uses it too, but the linuxen have better > configurators, and possibly better default font setups, these days. > So FreeBSD is actually worse off. I don't know if any Linux distribution has a different font setup. I've only tried to install True Type fonts in Debian and it was not at all trivial. It's a whole lot easier to install the webfonts port on FreeBSD. I haven't tried this with other Linux distributions. > Drivers -- FreeBSD hardware support is, if anything, worse than Linux > (eg, cardbus; a lot of multimedia hardware; winmodems; etc). And I > haven't encountered so many third-party binary device drivers for > FreeBSD, much less drivers that work across different kernel versions > (as he wants for linux). There aren't many, but e.g. OSS drivers worked across several kernel versions. Certainly across minor revisions. As a matter of policy, FreeBSD takes far more care to maintain backward compatibility. Whereas Linus has explicitly stated that he will not be held hostage to maintaining compatibility. > Software distribution -- well, that's what this whole thread has been > about, hasn't it? I like FreeBSD ports, but I've met enough people > who think rpm is "easier" that I'm not going to argue with them. If > you read what he's asking for, you'll see that FreeBSD doesn't provide > it. Actually, it does address one of his objections. He wants a separation of system and applications; which is precisely the way FreeBSD operates. He wouldn't like the ports system because it rebuilds everything from source, but then the package system does take care of that objection. Yes, the package installer isn't as slick as Windows, but it's hardly unusable. > In short, everything he says, and more, applies to FreeBSD. > Pretending otherwise won't help anyone. And generalizing your own > experience (you find it easy, so everyone must find it easy) is > exactly the elitism he doesn't like. Stop being patronizing. The fact of the matter is, he pointed out one example of hardware that Linux failed to recognize and configure, namely a CD-RW drive. On Linux, using this hardware involves a kludge. On FreeBSD this kludge is not required. One can, ultimately, only speak from one's experience. This does not mean one does not listen to others' experiences. But the objections have to be more specific in order to address them. An over-broad comment like "your hardware support sucks" is simply not something that can be meaningfully addressed. rsi -- <rsi@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer. They also surf who stand in the waves. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200207102307.g6AN7SV22593>