4 ms·

BSD suffers from a lot of the same not-designed-to-be-a-desktop that Linux does. In fact, even more of it.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
It's non-uniform, IMO; OpenBSD is good at being a desktop, since it's developed largely by people who use it as a desktop, while the others work but aren't as polished, no.
laumars 5y ago
Have you tried DragonflyBSD? It’s built by an ex-AmigaOS developer and has some pretty innovative ideas.
- eitland 5y ago
  Back when I used to read Distrowatch I often read about DragonflyBSD and its innovation (HammerFS I and II in particular if memory serves me right), but my understanding was always that it was a server OS?
  - laumars 5y ago
    They definitely have desktop usage in mind. They have desktop screenshots on their site, include desktop wallpapers and even have a section describing laptop comparability https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/user/DragonFlyOnLaptops/ https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/user/DragonFlyOnLaptops/
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  As far as I'm aware they have not solved or attempted to solve any of the things that make BSD and Linux such terrible[0] personal computing desktop OSs. They seem primarily to be UNIX workstations meant for UNIX developers to do a little web browsing on the side and not much more. [0] This is a subjective opinion, obviously. I hate that I have to state that outright but if I don't the very next comment will be someone asserting it works great for them. It's great if it works great for you, but I'm not you; I only care if it works great for me and I assure you it doesn't.
  - laumars 5y ago
    The problem here is you’re not really substantiating what, in your opinion, makes Linux and BSD terrible desktops. > They seem primarily to be UNIX workstations meant for UNIX developers to do a little web browsing on the side and not much more. What is it you want to do? Linux and BSD has way more software than Haiku would so why make this point in a thread where you’re discussing running Haiku?
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      The Linux and BSDs are not well integrated or thought out for a desktop use case. Linux has no integration or consistency above the kernel leading to dozens of ways to put together a system which leads to a lot of inconsistency and fragmentation which leads to a lot of problems. Some software works one way and follows one set of paradigms, a different set follows a different set of paradigms, neither of them can be said to be 'wrong' because there is no definition of 'right'. The underpinnings of the whole desktop ecosystem are a complicated interdependent tangle of software put together by disparate teams for their own reasons. Much of the libraries used break their ABIs so consistently that an army of package maintainers and a complicated management program are necessary to get any of it working together with any consistency at all, not that it will ever make them behave consistently. All of this has lead to a software distribution nightmare where a developer either open sources everything and relies on third parties to get their software to the people or jumps through a bunch of hoops to make their software self-contained enough to work on most of the ridiculous number of variants out there. BSDs at least have an integrated base-system, but of course that doesn't include anything GUI so effectively they're like Linux in the Desktop case. Worse, they have no stable kernel ABI. Whether or not you think these are problems, I do. > What is it you want to do? Use a desktop that is designed first and foremost as a personal computing desktop, not a disparate hodgepodge of crammed-together projects that can be kinda-sorta ok at dozens of different uses. I want a relatively stable platform upon which graphical applications can be run. I want it to be developed by people who give a shit about user interface design and aren't just chasing the latest mobile-inspired fads. I want it to be developed by people who consider the GUI the primary interface. I want it developed by people who don't think the GUI is best suited to being the worlds fanciest tmux. I could go on. Of course, Haiku isn't actually good at some of the things I want it to do, I know that. That's why I'm not using it today. But what it has that Linux and BSD desktops don't is potential, and I think that's worth a lot.
andrepd 5y ago
Well Linux was certainly designed to be a desktop. Linux has even said he's quite annoyed that despite that being its original purpose it's the one application where Linux didn't completely dominate the market x)
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  > Well Linux was certainly designed to be a desktop. Kinda, not really. Linus stopped at the kernel, and one of the key features of a good Desktop OS is, well, all that user-interface stuff above the kernel that Linus neither wrote nor prescribed a design for. It is very clear from the way Linux Desktops work and the way Linux development culture works that the Linux ecosystem is designed first and foremost as a UNIX server with some thought put into being a workstation for UNIX developers.

It's non-uniform, IMO; OpenBSD is good at being a desktop, since it's developed largely by people who use it as a desktop, while the others work but aren't as polished, no.

laumars 5y ago

Have you tried DragonflyBSD? It’s built by an ex-AmigaOS developer and has some pretty innovative ideas.

eitland 5y ago
Back when I used to read Distrowatch I often read about DragonflyBSD and its innovation (HammerFS I and II in particular if memory serves me right), but my understanding was always that it was a server OS?
- laumars 5y ago
  They definitely have desktop usage in mind. They have desktop screenshots on their site, include desktop wallpapers and even have a section describing laptop comparability https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/user/DragonFlyOnLaptops/ https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/user/DragonFlyOnLaptops/
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
As far as I'm aware they have not solved or attempted to solve any of the things that make BSD and Linux such terrible[0] personal computing desktop OSs. They seem primarily to be UNIX workstations meant for UNIX developers to do a little web browsing on the side and not much more. [0] This is a subjective opinion, obviously. I hate that I have to state that outright but if I don't the very next comment will be someone asserting it works great for them. It's great if it works great for you, but I'm not you; I only care if it works great for me and I assure you it doesn't.
- laumars 5y ago
  The problem here is you’re not really substantiating what, in your opinion, makes Linux and BSD terrible desktops. > They seem primarily to be UNIX workstations meant for UNIX developers to do a little web browsing on the side and not much more. What is it you want to do? Linux and BSD has way more software than Haiku would so why make this point in a thread where you’re discussing running Haiku?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    The Linux and BSDs are not well integrated or thought out for a desktop use case. Linux has no integration or consistency above the kernel leading to dozens of ways to put together a system which leads to a lot of inconsistency and fragmentation which leads to a lot of problems. Some software works one way and follows one set of paradigms, a different set follows a different set of paradigms, neither of them can be said to be 'wrong' because there is no definition of 'right'. The underpinnings of the whole desktop ecosystem are a complicated interdependent tangle of software put together by disparate teams for their own reasons. Much of the libraries used break their ABIs so consistently that an army of package maintainers and a complicated management program are necessary to get any of it working together with any consistency at all, not that it will ever make them behave consistently. All of this has lead to a software distribution nightmare where a developer either open sources everything and relies on third parties to get their software to the people or jumps through a bunch of hoops to make their software self-contained enough to work on most of the ridiculous number of variants out there. BSDs at least have an integrated base-system, but of course that doesn't include anything GUI so effectively they're like Linux in the Desktop case. Worse, they have no stable kernel ABI. Whether or not you think these are problems, I do. > What is it you want to do? Use a desktop that is designed first and foremost as a personal computing desktop, not a disparate hodgepodge of crammed-together projects that can be kinda-sorta ok at dozens of different uses. I want a relatively stable platform upon which graphical applications can be run. I want it to be developed by people who give a shit about user interface design and aren't just chasing the latest mobile-inspired fads. I want it to be developed by people who consider the GUI the primary interface. I want it developed by people who don't think the GUI is best suited to being the worlds fanciest tmux. I could go on. Of course, Haiku isn't actually good at some of the things I want it to do, I know that. That's why I'm not using it today. But what it has that Linux and BSD desktops don't is potential, and I think that's worth a lot.

andrepd 5y ago

Well Linux was certainly designed to be a desktop. Linux has even said he's quite annoyed that despite that being its original purpose it's the one application where Linux didn't completely dominate the market x)

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> Well Linux was certainly designed to be a desktop. Kinda, not really. Linus stopped at the kernel, and one of the key features of a good Desktop OS is, well, all that user-interface stuff above the kernel that Linus neither wrote nor prescribed a design for. It is very clear from the way Linux Desktops work and the way Linux development culture works that the Linux ecosystem is designed first and foremost as a UNIX server with some thought put into being a workstation for UNIX developers.