Danny Pansters wrote: > Now to get back to the subject, what I don't understand is how OP thinks > that [k]ubuntu would not need tinkering time. It's quite possible that a > generic debian or arch install requires less tinkering to get it to > behave the way you want (perhaps initially some more, but not after). > Why not buy one of those gorgeous new imacs or a Mac lappy and be done > with it, while still being able to do a lot of hacking if you really > want to? From what I've read OSX is a great development system.
I have FreeBSD and Ubuntu feisty 64 bits installed on my laptop. My conclusion is that Ubuntu requires ways less tinkering and works very well. As to using a mac, i don't see at present a reason to do that. I don't see a single thing that Mac OS does that FreeBSD with KDE desn't do much better. I don't need a laptop which overheats, has a one button mouse and other oddities. I don't want to learn still another system which doesn't have a single strong point. To come back to Ubuntu, it has at least two fetaures that FreeBSD doesn't: - suspend-resume works, which is immensely useful for a laptop - it has a package management sytem which works, using *binary* packages. No, portupgrade is not in the same categaory by any stretch of the imagination, and i have no business spending hours compiling stuff. Incidentally, Ubuntu also has working support for Intel wifi, the Syskonnect ethernet card and the Intel video card, where FreeBSD has experimental drivers such that the ethernet loses as many packets as it transmits (myk driver) and X locks up at least once a day. It is not very difficult to understand why Ubuntu is massively gaining users, while FreeBSD doesn't, and is now ranked position 22 on Distrowatch. -- Michel TALON _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"