4 ms·

> IMO, it'd be better if these sparse efforts would get focused on _one_ solid, no-frets, no-hassle, Linux OS that ordinary people could trust to be stable and

by t-3 5y ago

> IMO, it'd be better if these sparse efforts would get focused on _one_ solid, no-frets, no-hassle, Linux OS that ordinary people could trust to be stable and reliable for years to come. You want BSD, not linux.

Koshkin 5y ago
BSD is what I want, but Linux is what I need. (I do not expect this to change any time soon.) On the other hand, MacOS is a BSD, is it not?
- simonblack 5y ago
  MacOS is an Apple GUI built on top of a BSD foundation. That works out better and cheaper for Apple, as the BSD foundation is open-source and maintained by thousands of developers. Apple merely has to supply a few hundreds of developers to construct and maintain their GUI desktop. Many of us have suggested that Microsoft also 'do an Apple' and construct the Windows desktop over a BSD or Linux foundation. It would be cheaper for them, and they could concentrate all their developers on producing a really good consistent Windows instead of the rather spotty, uneven productions they have released over the years.
  - Koshkin 5y ago
    I have heard that Windows kernel is not bad, actually. (I doubt that its architecture or the time MS devs continue to spend on it would have any impact on the quality or consistency of the UI.)
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      It supports an order of magnitude less hardware than Linux.
nopenopenopeno 5y ago
Why?
- t-3 5y ago
  The BSD philosophy is to provide a whole cohesive system that has been designed to work together. Linux is just a kernel and components bolted together.
yencabulator 5y ago
Which BSD?