Hi, for good reasons I moved this thread.
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2020-June/289988.html On Tue, 09 Jun 2020 21:28:12 +0800, kindu smith wrote: >Secondly, it drives all my hardware, including sound card, nvidia >graphics card, wireless network card, screen brightness and touchpad. Interesting, the reason for me to use FreeBSD for the first time was, that Linux didn't and still doesn't fully support one of my audio cards. [rocketmouse@archlinux ~]$ aplay -l | head -2 **** List of PLAYBACK Hardware Devices **** card 0: HDSPMx579bcc [RME AIO_579bcc], device 0: RME AIO [RME AIO] Neither does FreeBSD, but I at least could test the IOs that don't work with Linux. However, without doubts more hardware vendors semi-support Linux, but don't care for BSD that much. >Third, its package manager pacman is very powerful and rock-solid. >Unlike debian's apt and dpkg, it needs to handle a lot of dependencies, >and onlyone pacman can handle all. That's nonsense. I'm used to pacman as well as apt/dpkg. Just building packages is more straight forward for Arch Linux and the port alike approach is nice. >Fourth, it uses systemd, so it starts quickly. As upstart did, too. >The inspiration for systemd is based on maccos launchd, which is even >better than it. And there is no need to buy Apple's expensive >hardware, it is plug-and- play, such as usb drive inserted into the >notebook can be quickly recognized. I don't care if it violates the >unix philosophy, because who cares. Actually I need to use Apple, since neither Linux nor FreeBSD satisfies all my needs related to pro-audio and drawing. >Fifth, it is highly customizable, you can install xfce, gnome, kde and >other desktops, unlike ubuntu, which only contains gnome by default. By default Arch Linux installs without a desktop environment at all, the same does an Ubuntu server image. While I'm in favour of Arch Linux, too, I also maintain a customized Ubuntu. One main difference is, that by default Ubuntu starts more or less everything when installing a package, so the user needs to remove autostarts and to disable services that are unwanted, while on Arch Linux the user has to enable more or less all services and autostarts. Ubuntu comes with several so called "flavours", providing OOTB installs of different desktop environments. There are a few differences, worth mentioning in this thread is probably that the release/LTS release approach has got its pros and cons, like the rolling release approach has got, too. >Seventh, it exists a wiki. As for Ubuntu, FreeBSD and ..., too. >Eighth, it also has a community-based source code package, AUR. Unlike >freebsd's concentration, it is more decentralized, but it solves many >of my problems. Ouch! I won't drop a note related to the AUR, the "Arch User Repository" and ABS, the "Arch build system", "ports-like system for building and packaging software". >Ninth, it is small, and there are not so many useless dependency >packages installed, that no taking up a lot of disk space. There are less dependencies, than for e.g. Ubuntu, since the packages aren't split. Since they aren't split, they easily could take more disk space, unless you don't use measures to avoid e.g. installing headers, if you don't need them, while Ubuntu provides e.g. headers by separated packages. >Tenth, it is based on X86, of course, it can also drive the server, but >few people try. Because it is only based on X86, it made my notebook a >good experience. *?* packages are compiled for x86_64 only nowadays, but ... ? >Of course, I also run freebsd in my oracle VM virtualbox, freebsd is >also my favorite operating system, its structure is even better, but it >is not available. The touchpad, nvidia graphics card, and wireless >network card are not recognized, and the screen cannot adjust the >brightness. It can't access the host's hardware directly when running in Virtualbox, instead it accesses the virtual hardware. >In addition, its startup code feels back to the 90s. What's wrong with an init system that is just this, an init system? >I also don't like gnu's grub, freebsd's btx bootloader seems better. I'm in favour of syslinux, but to be fair, it's possible to configure GRUB that minimal as syslinux. Using syslinux still makes sense, as using GRUB makes sense, too. It depends a little bit. You probably don't understand the pros and cons of different bootloaders. Regards, Ralf _______________________________________________ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
