From: kludge@panix.com   
      
   Theo   wrote:   
   >The thing is, that's talking about the base system.  All the stuff with   
   >display managers and packages and so on aren't the base system.  That's more   
   >like the random stuff you bought on Amazon to bolt on to your car - the   
   >manufacturer does not have any say in their engineering or making them work   
   >well together.   
      
   Indeed.   
      
   And gnome is pretty precarious under Linux in spite of a huge amount of   
   effort being expended on it.  It's fine if you want everything completely   
   default, but if you want any changes then things start going wrong.  And if   
   they didn't go wrong today, they will tomorrow when you install the mandatory   
   update because the way you make that change is different now.   
      
   >If you can stay within the base system (or a few limited services on top of   
   >it) you'll be ok.  If you stray off-piste into too much third party stuff   
   >it's only as good as the third party makes it - and often that third party   
   >is not interested in FreeBSD.   
      
   BSD pretty much follows the Unix philosophy of making everything as   
   modular as possible, and using human-readable text files for everything.   
   Linux on the other hand has become very bloated and very non-modular in   
   recent years.  A lot of Linux distributions seem to expect that people   
   will use the gui for everything, and BSD treats the gui as kind of an   
   afterthought, which I think is a good thing.   
      
      
   >FreeBSD derives from BSD which derived from AT&T Unix.  There's no longer   
   >any AT&T code in it.  Linux is a clean sheet reimplementation.  Arguably   
   >both have diverged from AT&T's source code, but BSD was a piecemeal   
   >replacement so kept the original structure and feel while Linux started from   
   >scratch.   
      
   This is true, and the argument can be made that Linux has devolved very   
   far from the Unix philosophy, while the BSD variants have mostly kept to   
   the Unix philosophy.   
      
   As a long-time proponent of the Unix philosophy ever since I was forced to   
   leave RSX-11 for v7, this makes me much more of a BSD fan than a Linux fan.   
      
   Most often I pick the OS for the applications... and when the applications   
   I want to use are the Software Tools kit as they most often are, I will   
   prefer BSD.  This is not always the case, though.   
      
   >If your stack is Kubenetes + Docker + systemd, agreed.  If your stack is   
   >plain nginx + DB then FreeBSD is still an contender. Albeit an increasingly   
   >niche one as everyone moves towards the former.   
      
   There is nothing more horrible and hellish that I could imagine than being   
   wrapped up inside Kubernetes + Docker + systemd.  I agree that everyone is   
   moving in that direction and as someone who cares about computers actually   
   being reliable I find this terrifying.   
      
   >It sounds like the writer took some memes and ran with them, without   
   >actually knowing too much about what people do for real nowadays.   
      
   What people do for real is mostly wait for updates.  And then waste time   
   fixing things that the updates broke.  Actually get work done with computers?   
   That's not in the requirements definition anymore.   
   --scott   
   --   
   "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)