Nuxified GNU/Linux Help Forums - bsd - Comments

The good thing

malcarada — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:36:22 +0100

What I like most of DesktopBSD is that you can try it first as a live DVD and if it all works for you then install it, if it doesn't then you have not wasted much time trying it out.

Interesting

spyro_boy — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:32:03 +0100

I installed OpenBSD not long ago, but because I failed to properly route internet access to it, I decided to remove it and install something else called SourceMage GNU/Linux (SMGL). I'm still failing at routing. :< Something isn't working and it's either something in the hardware or my networking (it routes to my laptop fine, however)

I'll have to figure it out! Anyhow, DesktopBSD sounds really interesting. I'd love to take this for a spin someday.

Thanks for the review. I

Jose — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:20:22 +0100

Thanks for the review. I got interested.

I'm curious about the details of the security update feature you mentioned as well as the possible mixing of source and binaries gracefully.. if I understood correctly.

offtopic:that reminds me of

tbuitenh — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:27:50 +0200

offtopic:
that reminds me of ms windows being like a teenager: It's sluggish, it just sits there refusing to work, it complains a lot, it catches ~~STDs~~ viruses, and every once in a while it turns blue and writes incomprehensible poetry.

Sounds about right Kermit.

libervisco — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:31:54 +0200

Sounds about right Kermit.

There is only one way ...

Kermit — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:12:03 +0200

There is only one way ... Archlinux . Arch is like women Sometimes it makes you sad, sometimes it makes you angry, but you'll love it forever .

Kermit.

I'd say, for gaming, between

libervisco — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:49:37 +0200

I'd say, for gaming, between Arch and FreeBSD Arch is probably your best bet. There are ways to make it more secure. It's really all up to you and your security practices. I doubt GNU/Linux is too much less secure than FreeBSD.

Oh and yeah, Arch boots faster than most distros (sure faster than most I tried).

I just ran my system through

free-zombie — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:21:23 +0200

I just ran my system through bootchart. The /home partition is the slowest factor (fscking and mounting)

mounting manually takes several seconds. ouch. (clearing it up now and, if I can, letting it fill the whole disk.

7 secs and probably not

tbuitenh — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:41:25 +0200

7 secs and probably not running any daemons. My arch doesn't boot in 7 seconds, it needs quite a bit more but of course I have a slow laptop harddisk and a few daemons:

DAEMONS=(syslog-ng acpid network @gpm dbus @crond hal dhcdbd @networkmanager @cpufreqd)

(daemons prefixed with @ get started in the background). Network only starts lo, eth0 and eth1 are managed by networkmanager. Maybe I could put gpm and crond before network to win a few milliseconds, but I might as well lose some that way... Doesn't really make a difference probably.

hell ! 7 secs ! (measuring

free-zombie — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:31:44 +0200

hell ! 7 secs ! (measuring from when ?)
I don't want to believe my gentoo to be bloated.