Post number #561167, ID: 3fcf40
|
I like BSD's minimalism a lot. I don't know much about this OS, though, and online there's not much info about this
There're Free-, Open-, Net- and a few others. What's the difference between them?
Post number #561192, ID: 87af43
|
Free* and Net* are, from my experience, somewhat eh-ish to setup. especially Net* because it used to do this thing where it reset your package manager settings on every logoff because you have to declare it by hand first rather than the system doing that - dunno if that's still present. i've been using Open* in a VM for about a month and a half though, and i can tell you without a doubt that it's a fairly straightforward install combo'd with a good amount of system documentation.
Post number #561233, ID: 3e6728
|
Is BSD more stable and more rigorous to contributions than Linux? The quality of Linux has been dropping lately and I refuse to do windows
Post number #561269, ID: 87af43
|
>>561233 sorta. some programs may have compatability issues with BSD or straight up won't work, but this is more of a minority as a problem. it's pretty fucking secure and simple off the bat, and as long as you don't mind a fairly short Xorg setup plus the installation of shit you need, it's easy to setup the first time around. contribution-wise, BSD has a good amount of activity and occasional audits to make sure EVERYTHING is safe and sound.
Post number #561386, ID: 68ddca
|
It should also be noted, bsd is popular on consoles as their kernel since the liscense so there's likely companies putting in some effort to keep it secure on the side
Total number of posts: 5,
last modified on:
Wed Jan 1 00:00:00 1557991868
| I like BSD's minimalism a lot. I don't know much about this OS, though, and online there's not much info about this
There're Free-, Open-, Net- and a few others. What's the difference between them?