10 ms·

Much like WSL may be “eating” away at real Linux user-share, it will be interesting to see if enabling FreeBSD development outside FreeBSD itself will somehow a

Much like WSL may be “eating” away at real Linux user-share, it will be interesting to see if enabling FreeBSD development outside FreeBSD itself will somehow affect the FreeBSD marketshare (for better or worse).

ezoe 6y ago
Those poor workers who has to use Windows for Linux-related works because of stupid employer's policy previously use VM, so it doesn't change much. Nothing to be eaten.
- dividedbyzero 6y ago
  Nah, lots of shops begrudgingly support Linux laptops because a VM is a lot less practical, and the productivity hit would be substantial, probably, and forcing devs to make do with Windows only is bad for hiring. If WSL really works out, though, it might be the other way around – Linux on Windows might work really well, be able to do things Linux itself can't, like interfacing with Windows-only hardware, using DirectX, and be the superior experience in total for lots of people. It will be much, much harder to justify the expense of buying a whole different set of hardware and support it if the net result is a worse experience across the board. Businesses tend to not care much about freedom of software and the like.
  - zeveb 6y ago
    > Linux on Windows might work really well … and be the superior experience in total for lots of people. No, it will not and — without massive changes at Microsoft and in Windows — will never be. Source: have a Windows box, am repeatedly amazed at how bad it is. Seriously, it is embarrassing to use Windows. I think the only reason people enjoy it is the fact that they have not gotten a chance to really spend time in a good tiling window manager on X11/GNU/Linux. The GUI is ugly and laggy. The ads are an insult. The shells are either childish or stupidly (emphasis on the stupid) verbose, and gratuitously incompatible. There seriously is no comparison: in 2020, Linux is head and shoulders above Windows on the desktop.
    - corty 6y ago
      Most people who are happy with WoL are webdevs who do not really use anything beyond npm and git. So most people do not notice how bad things really are on Windows
    - trashburger 6y ago
      Why is this getting downvoted? He's right. Refute his points instead of downvoting him.
      - jraph 6y ago
        > Why is this getting downvoted? He's right. Refute his points instead of downvoting him. >> I think the only reason people enjoy it is the fact that they have not gotten a chance to really spend time in a good tiling window manager on X11/GNU/Linux I don't like Windows, but its UI is not that bad, come on. Moreover, I use GNU/Linux full time but I don't use a tiling manager. My windows are fullscreen most of the time, and the rest of the time the features that allow putting windows on the corners or the sides (with the keyboard or the mouse) are more than enough. Tiling window managers are not for everyone. I didn't downvote but to me the message shows a lack of observation on how people use computers. The update manager that popups a notification or a dialog box or reboots in the middle of a presentation or a movie or something and, to add insult to injury, the system taking its time to apply the updates during the next startup? that could be embarrassing. Convenient UX features from the Linux world lacking on Windows are a thing (selection / middle click paste?), but Windows UI seems excellent. It's just less excellent than Plasma obviously, but it's nothing short of bad or embarrasing.
        2ion 6y ago
        > I don't like Windows, but its UI is not that bad, come on. I don't know. I am very OK with Win7 but I tried installing Win10 the other week on a VM in the intent to let it superseed my Linux on the desktop. The 125% scaling of UI made fonts blurry on my monitor and text inconsistently sized. The "dark" theme lets core apps like Explorer flicker in white then turn dark, like slow Android apps. There are mini ad programs in the start menu. I don't even know where you're supposed to configure settings anymore without search; the control panel vs fancy settings apps vs msc snapins (which are the only parts that still work reliably)? Their UI is worse than KDE or GNOME now. I had 3rd party applications working perfectly fine which I guess is the point but Windows10 UI is no marvel. This is a problem because Win7 used to just work, discretely. What's left is for me to experiment with group policy settings and suchlike (at least my edition permits it) in the hopes of getting my issues fixed. Probably have to throw in a ton of third-party "Windows 10 fix" powershell libraries to clean things up. I got the Win10 Enterprise license through my company. I would never pay money for this OS, privately.
  - louwrentius 6y ago
    I think the year of Linux on the desktop will be heralded by Microsoft introducing WSL3 that provides absolute compatibility with all Linux applications. ;-) Not that most people would want to run most of those, but Microsofts corporate customers are fed up with supporting those Linux laptops and all the problems related to that.
    - whizzter 6y ago
      Really afaik the only thing missing from working well with mainline WSL2 now is some UI apps using GL,etc for X11 and iirc that is being worked so no need for any WSL3. Considering i've mostly used win envs to begin with this is already good enough that i see very few reasons to ever bother with installing Linux for myself again and even those are dwindling quickly.
      - louwrentius 6y ago
        Interesting, thank you!
  - throwaway2048 6y ago
    WSL2 is a VM...
    - unicornfinder 6y ago
      It is but it's an incredibly well integrated VM that's transparent to the user. I'm genuinely very, very happy developing on Windows with WSL2.
      - the8472 6y ago
        Does it support hardware performance counters needed for profiling yet? Or GPU acceleration?
- patrec 6y ago
  There is a non-zero chance WSL will make desktop Linux completely irrelevant even for developers.
  - znpy 6y ago
    it's called "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish"
    - lproven 6y ago
      This. It's been MICROS~1's primary tactic against competitors for at least 1/3 of a century now and nothing has changed: now the company just _says_ it likes FOSS. Does Windows set up dual-boot if Linux is installed first? Naw. Does Windows read or write Linux filesystems? Naw. Has MS open-sourced any significant or important parts of Windows where it won't benefit directly? Naw. It is in MS' direct interests if PowerShell or .NET are supported on other platforms; it makes them more credible tools. Did we get source for Explorer or anything? Naw. Calculator. Big fat hairy deal. Has MS open-sourced any obsolete products that might actually be of use or interest, such as the final versions of MS-DOS (25 years old) or Windows 9x? Naw. They contain things like Explorer and so on that are still used. Can't go actually _helping_ people. It's all marketing flim-flam. Don't believe the hype. Linux is doing great on phones and servers and so on. On the desktop, only ChromeOS is not a rounding error. So, if MS can embrace-and-extend the Linux desktop, and make Win10 a better desktop Linux than Linux, then it helps MS and it helps Win10. And with what it learns from that, it can apply to WSL in the datacentre and on Azure, where it can make Windows Server a better Kubernetes than Kubernetes. Which, let's face it, would not be all that hard.
      - whizzter 6y ago
        MS doesn't care about Stallmans GNU goals. What they do care about are developers not being annoyed with working on a Windows machine (or nowadays using their Azure clouds). Speaking for myself, I'm coming from the gamedev world (lately webdev) and as such was mostly tied to windows due to various tools(Photoshop,Modo,3dsmax in the past,etc) but that didn't mean that I was going to suffer by using IIS or spend a fortune on Windows server licences or higher hardware reqs for appplication servers for no good reason. So yes, MS will ignore OSS for their core Windows stuff, HOWEVER they will probably also play nice in the wider OSS (If not FOSS) community since they probably see Azure as the third leg of the future (apart from Windows and Office) and as such will ensure that everyone who uses it (be it for Windows or Linux deployments) are happy with it (And trashing things in the OSS community will thus be counterproductive).
mekster 6y ago
I gave up on FreeBSD on my hobby server after having have to maintain tiny differences all over for my ansible script and zshrc and whatnot. It just takes unnecessary effort to keep up with what just works for Linux and I didn't see much benefit sticking to FreeBSD.
- Chilinot 6y ago
  This is a genuine issue. Dont understand the downvoters. I completely agree.
- lmm 6y ago
  FreeBSD feels more solid to me; upgrades are easier, and stuff changes less often. I don't have time to keep up with maintaining a Linux server any more.
  - scaladev 6y ago
    What are you talking about? Put CentOS or Ubuntu LTS on your box and forget about it for the next ten years. The only updates you'll get are security and bug fixes, nothing fundamental will change. The next LTS release you'll install in 2030 will have substantial differences, but FreeBSD changes quite a bit too in such a large time span.
    - fullstop 6y ago
      A few things.. 1. Ubuntu LTS releases are supported for five years -- Centos is for ten years. 2. FreeBSD updates are typically easy to perform, and the new system is not that different from the previous one. Things are where they used to be and you configure it the same way as you have for years. With Centos, there was a migration from yum -> dnf. With both Ubuntu and Centos the init system has changed from sysv -> upstart -> systemd. The default network configuration on Ubuntu has been replaced with netplan. I guess what I'm getting at is that there is significantly more churn in Linux distributions and vastly less churn in FreeBSD. This could also be seen as a lack of progress, but I don't think that OP sees it that way.
    - 6y ago
pgt 6y ago
Bootstrapping is as important as dogfooding. If you make it easy for people to try things, maybe they'll use it - maybe they'll change it. But if it crumbles in their hands, then it was never going to survive.
brobdingnagians 6y ago
I attempted to switch to a FreeBSD desktop, the first thing I noticed was that Redshift didn't work at all for changing colour temperature. It appears that they switched everything from X to Wayland, and that means Redshift stopped working, but no one appears to have noticed... That was a bad sign, so I uninstalled.
- thimashmerkle 6y ago
  Wondering why you have been downvoted - freebsd is pretty useless these days. The mob appears to stifle feedback that goes against their fetish.
- crest 6y ago
  Redshift works in i3 on my FreeBSD laptop (Intel GPU) and desktop (Nvidia GPU).
rnd0 6y ago
I'd be surprised if it does. If anything, it seems like this would make it more tempting to move from Linux to FreeBSD (maybe?). But this isn't FreeBSD development -at least not in the sense that you're creating FreeBSD apps in Linux. This is simply giving an alternative to downloading the isos. If you you need to verify that the source does what it says, now you can build it yourself on Linux. As someone who dearly wishes they could make NetBSD apps on Linux (edit: I mean build pkgsrc packages for NetBSD on Linux) I don't see it being that much of a game changer -though it is a nice feature on a couple of different levels (being able to build a system on bare metal instead of in a vm, and the code being so portable it can be built in a foreign environment)

ezoe 6y ago

Those poor workers who has to use Windows for Linux-related works because of stupid employer's policy previously use VM, so it doesn't change much. Nothing to be eaten.

dividedbyzero 6y ago
Nah, lots of shops begrudgingly support Linux laptops because a VM is a lot less practical, and the productivity hit would be substantial, probably, and forcing devs to make do with Windows only is bad for hiring. If WSL really works out, though, it might be the other way around – Linux on Windows might work really well, be able to do things Linux itself can't, like interfacing with Windows-only hardware, using DirectX, and be the superior experience in total for lots of people. It will be much, much harder to justify the expense of buying a whole different set of hardware and support it if the net result is a worse experience across the board. Businesses tend to not care much about freedom of software and the like.
- zeveb 6y ago
  > Linux on Windows might work really well … and be the superior experience in total for lots of people. No, it will not and — without massive changes at Microsoft and in Windows — will never be. Source: have a Windows box, am repeatedly amazed at how bad it is. Seriously, it is embarrassing to use Windows. I think the only reason people enjoy it is the fact that they have not gotten a chance to really spend time in a good tiling window manager on X11/GNU/Linux. The GUI is ugly and laggy. The ads are an insult. The shells are either childish or stupidly (emphasis on the stupid) verbose, and gratuitously incompatible. There seriously is no comparison: in 2020, Linux is head and shoulders above Windows on the desktop.
  - corty 6y ago
    Most people who are happy with WoL are webdevs who do not really use anything beyond npm and git. So most people do not notice how bad things really are on Windows
  - trashburger 6y ago
    Why is this getting downvoted? He's right. Refute his points instead of downvoting him.
    - jraph 6y ago
      > Why is this getting downvoted? He's right. Refute his points instead of downvoting him. >> I think the only reason people enjoy it is the fact that they have not gotten a chance to really spend time in a good tiling window manager on X11/GNU/Linux I don't like Windows, but its UI is not that bad, come on. Moreover, I use GNU/Linux full time but I don't use a tiling manager. My windows are fullscreen most of the time, and the rest of the time the features that allow putting windows on the corners or the sides (with the keyboard or the mouse) are more than enough. Tiling window managers are not for everyone. I didn't downvote but to me the message shows a lack of observation on how people use computers. The update manager that popups a notification or a dialog box or reboots in the middle of a presentation or a movie or something and, to add insult to injury, the system taking its time to apply the updates during the next startup? that could be embarrassing. Convenient UX features from the Linux world lacking on Windows are a thing (selection / middle click paste?), but Windows UI seems excellent. It's just less excellent than Plasma obviously, but it's nothing short of bad or embarrasing.
      - 2ion 6y ago
        > I don't like Windows, but its UI is not that bad, come on. I don't know. I am very OK with Win7 but I tried installing Win10 the other week on a VM in the intent to let it superseed my Linux on the desktop. The 125% scaling of UI made fonts blurry on my monitor and text inconsistently sized. The "dark" theme lets core apps like Explorer flicker in white then turn dark, like slow Android apps. There are mini ad programs in the start menu. I don't even know where you're supposed to configure settings anymore without search; the control panel vs fancy settings apps vs msc snapins (which are the only parts that still work reliably)? Their UI is worse than KDE or GNOME now. I had 3rd party applications working perfectly fine which I guess is the point but Windows10 UI is no marvel. This is a problem because Win7 used to just work, discretely. What's left is for me to experiment with group policy settings and suchlike (at least my edition permits it) in the hopes of getting my issues fixed. Probably have to throw in a ton of third-party "Windows 10 fix" powershell libraries to clean things up. I got the Win10 Enterprise license through my company. I would never pay money for this OS, privately.
- louwrentius 6y ago
  I think the year of Linux on the desktop will be heralded by Microsoft introducing WSL3 that provides absolute compatibility with all Linux applications. ;-) Not that most people would want to run most of those, but Microsofts corporate customers are fed up with supporting those Linux laptops and all the problems related to that.
  - whizzter 6y ago
    Really afaik the only thing missing from working well with mainline WSL2 now is some UI apps using GL,etc for X11 and iirc that is being worked so no need for any WSL3. Considering i've mostly used win envs to begin with this is already good enough that i see very few reasons to ever bother with installing Linux for myself again and even those are dwindling quickly.
    - louwrentius 6y ago
      Interesting, thank you!
- throwaway2048 6y ago
  WSL2 is a VM...
  - unicornfinder 6y ago
    It is but it's an incredibly well integrated VM that's transparent to the user. I'm genuinely very, very happy developing on Windows with WSL2.
    - the8472 6y ago
      Does it support hardware performance counters needed for profiling yet? Or GPU acceleration?
patrec 6y ago
There is a non-zero chance WSL will make desktop Linux completely irrelevant even for developers.
- znpy 6y ago
  it's called "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish"
  - lproven 6y ago
    This. It's been MICROS~1's primary tactic against competitors for at least 1/3 of a century now and nothing has changed: now the company just _says_ it likes FOSS. Does Windows set up dual-boot if Linux is installed first? Naw. Does Windows read or write Linux filesystems? Naw. Has MS open-sourced any significant or important parts of Windows where it won't benefit directly? Naw. It is in MS' direct interests if PowerShell or .NET are supported on other platforms; it makes them more credible tools. Did we get source for Explorer or anything? Naw. Calculator. Big fat hairy deal. Has MS open-sourced any obsolete products that might actually be of use or interest, such as the final versions of MS-DOS (25 years old) or Windows 9x? Naw. They contain things like Explorer and so on that are still used. Can't go actually _helping_ people. It's all marketing flim-flam. Don't believe the hype. Linux is doing great on phones and servers and so on. On the desktop, only ChromeOS is not a rounding error. So, if MS can embrace-and-extend the Linux desktop, and make Win10 a better desktop Linux than Linux, then it helps MS and it helps Win10. And with what it learns from that, it can apply to WSL in the datacentre and on Azure, where it can make Windows Server a better Kubernetes than Kubernetes. Which, let's face it, would not be all that hard.
    - whizzter 6y ago
      MS doesn't care about Stallmans GNU goals. What they do care about are developers not being annoyed with working on a Windows machine (or nowadays using their Azure clouds). Speaking for myself, I'm coming from the gamedev world (lately webdev) and as such was mostly tied to windows due to various tools(Photoshop,Modo,3dsmax in the past,etc) but that didn't mean that I was going to suffer by using IIS or spend a fortune on Windows server licences or higher hardware reqs for appplication servers for no good reason. So yes, MS will ignore OSS for their core Windows stuff, HOWEVER they will probably also play nice in the wider OSS (If not FOSS) community since they probably see Azure as the third leg of the future (apart from Windows and Office) and as such will ensure that everyone who uses it (be it for Windows or Linux deployments) are happy with it (And trashing things in the OSS community will thus be counterproductive).

mekster 6y ago

I gave up on FreeBSD on my hobby server after having have to maintain tiny differences all over for my ansible script and zshrc and whatnot. It just takes unnecessary effort to keep up with what just works for Linux and I didn't see much benefit sticking to FreeBSD.

Chilinot 6y ago
This is a genuine issue. Dont understand the downvoters. I completely agree.
lmm 6y ago
FreeBSD feels more solid to me; upgrades are easier, and stuff changes less often. I don't have time to keep up with maintaining a Linux server any more.
- scaladev 6y ago
  What are you talking about? Put CentOS or Ubuntu LTS on your box and forget about it for the next ten years. The only updates you'll get are security and bug fixes, nothing fundamental will change. The next LTS release you'll install in 2030 will have substantial differences, but FreeBSD changes quite a bit too in such a large time span.
  - fullstop 6y ago
    A few things.. 1. Ubuntu LTS releases are supported for five years -- Centos is for ten years. 2. FreeBSD updates are typically easy to perform, and the new system is not that different from the previous one. Things are where they used to be and you configure it the same way as you have for years. With Centos, there was a migration from yum -> dnf. With both Ubuntu and Centos the init system has changed from sysv -> upstart -> systemd. The default network configuration on Ubuntu has been replaced with netplan. I guess what I'm getting at is that there is significantly more churn in Linux distributions and vastly less churn in FreeBSD. This could also be seen as a lack of progress, but I don't think that OP sees it that way.
  - 6y ago

pgt 6y ago

Bootstrapping is as important as dogfooding. If you make it easy for people to try things, maybe they'll use it - maybe they'll change it. But if it crumbles in their hands, then it was never going to survive.

brobdingnagians 6y ago

I attempted to switch to a FreeBSD desktop, the first thing I noticed was that Redshift didn't work at all for changing colour temperature. It appears that they switched everything from X to Wayland, and that means Redshift stopped working, but no one appears to have noticed... That was a bad sign, so I uninstalled.

thimashmerkle 6y ago
Wondering why you have been downvoted - freebsd is pretty useless these days. The mob appears to stifle feedback that goes against their fetish.
crest 6y ago
Redshift works in i3 on my FreeBSD laptop (Intel GPU) and desktop (Nvidia GPU).

rnd0 6y ago

I'd be surprised if it does. If anything, it seems like this would make it more tempting to move from Linux to FreeBSD (maybe?). But this isn't FreeBSD development -at least not in the sense that you're creating FreeBSD apps in Linux. This is simply giving an alternative to downloading the isos. If you you need to verify that the source does what it says, now you can build it yourself on Linux. As someone who dearly wishes they could make NetBSD apps on Linux (edit: I mean build pkgsrc packages for NetBSD on Linux) I don't see it being that much of a game changer -though it is a nice feature on a couple of different levels (being able to build a system on bare metal instead of in a vm, and the code being so portable it can be built in a foreign environment)