On Feb 15, 2006, at 8:55 PM, L. V. Lammert wrote: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Robert Citek wrote: > >> I don't use BSD on the desktop and have only played with it a little >> as a server (not counting OS X, which is a hybrid). So I was curious >> to know how BSD desktops compare in the 10 features that are listed >> in the review.
KDE and Gnome look and operate pretty much the same on Linux as on BSD. There are some trivial tool differences, but Xwindows is Xwindows. The kernel behind X is mostly irrelevant from a desktop users' perspective. If you are interested in trying out one of the BSD flavors, try the FreeSBIE Live CD. http://www.freesbie.org/ From a user's perspective, the BSDs differ from Linux in that they implement a lot of userland utilities while Linux pulls in gnu bintools. What you end up with is a well-maintained, consistently well-documented kernel and userland because the teams coordinate work on them in the same codebase. The drawback is that it may not have the hardware support that Linux may sometimes get first, e.g. iSight. (However, NetBSD did support USB first. Nice.) |-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|- AgentM [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|- _______________________________________________ CWE-LUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.cwelug.org/ http://www.cwelug.org/archives/ http://www.cwelug.org/mailinglist/
