OSDev.org

If I may utter an opinion ... Oh, disregard that, I'll utter it anyway *rofl*

I think, the basic question isn't put the correct way around:

I reckon it should by: what's the Linux distribution best suited for a given task: server, router(firewall), desktop, Graphics stuff, etc ...

There should be a more indepth ... declaration about in which direction the comparison has to go.

STay safe

Hi, I'm currently leeching this forum and couldn't help to ask :

Solar : aren't you one of our (i.e. the Gentoo community) main dev?

Nope. It's not that uncommon a nick - the "Solar" on SourceForge isn't me either. In both places I go as "DevSolar".

I'm not much of a Linux progger, and the only project of some reknown (Astyle) I've just dropped to be picked up by someone else.

Haha, really enjoyed the konqueror completion bug ;D "raaaaaaaah what is this" ;D

beyond infinity wrote: I reckon it should by: what's the Linux distribution best suited for a given task: server, router(firewall), desktop, Graphics stuff, etc ...

Seconding that. It's quite the same as the question "What's the best programming language?"

But when I look at the initial post, I think the question was about the best linux distro for desktop usage. (So, is linux ready for the desktop or not ;D. Oh, sorry, we are not at osnews_dot_com *gg*)

cheers Joe

And why should we argue about Linux distros at all, when we could install FreeBSD, which I personally use instead of Linux?

Eero R?nik wrote: And why should we argue about Linux distros at all, when we could install FreeBSD, which I personally use instead of Linux?

Looking forward to hear some arguments!

My (highly arguable) arguments:
BSD's codebase is a lot more stable and organized, and it has been around for more than twice as long as Linux. There aren't as many different versions/distros around, than Linux has. BSD itself seems to be slightly faster and more stable than Linux when the system is under full load, too.
What I really like is the modularity. The minimal base system is kept away from all the modules in BSDs. The portage system is, in my opinion, the best way to handle them. There's less problems with dependancies. Everything can be easily updated. Looking at previous posts: it's all that Gentoo is, and much more.
I haven't ever had any problems with any hardware in BSD. In Linux I've had problems with drivers that weren't as stable as they should be.
And last, but not least: even Hotmail uses/used FreeBSD systems for their servers. They could've used Linux, or their own systems, but they chose BSD. Why shouldn't you? ::)

I've tried FreeBSD throughout the last few weeks, and I can say that I already feel somewhat familiar with it. As a Gentoo-user, I felt comfortable with the ports system almost immediately. Just one hint to Gentoo-people out there who want to try out FreeBSD: The kernel and base system is _not_ part of ports, it is built and updated through a seperate tree (called '/usr/src'). This is unlike Gentoo, where every tool and the kernel sources are part of portage.

One thing I like better about ports is that there are seperate tools for building ports and installing packages, which work together. This way, you can fetch and install a binary package with 'pkg_add -r firefox', or build one yourself by going to the firefox-port directory and typing 'make install'. IMO this is cleaner than the way Gentoo handles binary ebuilds.

But I still have a few questions (to which I have not yet found real info on the net):

• I use cvsup to update my ports (and src) tree, then I run portsdb and pkgdb. This step takes ages - around 5-8 times as long as doing a sync with portage. Do I do something wrong or is this normal?
• I've looked into rebuilding my kernel with my own config. Is there a way to build specific features (say, 'option ata') into modules rather than linking them into the kernel? Or does FreeBSD build and handle modules entirely different than Linux? (where you can build almost every kernel feature into a module)

cheers Joe