• KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    6 months ago

    I tried it recently, but eventually gave up. It had so many little and not-so-little issues on my laptop, which I solved one by one over 2 weeks, reading and learning a lot. Even recompiled the kernel with a custom patch to get energy management to work.

    Then I did a speed test on Wi-Fi, and it capped out at 6MBit (I have a Gigabit connection). The solution apparently is to install a Wi-Fi network adapter inside a Linux VM and connect to that on boot.
    That’s when I went back to Debian where everything just works out of the box on my PC.

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      That reminds me of the oldschool Realtek WiFi cards which required you to run drivers through WINE just to have WiFi on Linux. It really is excellent to see how far it’s come. I have a cheap Chinese laptop with a celeron chip (jasper lake) that I use as essentially a thin client. Installing windows fresh: trackpad doesn’t work, audio doesn’t work, WiFi 6 card driver is a generic MS one that caps at 5mb a sec until I install the right Realtek drivers, graphics aren’t accelerated until I install intel’s drivers. Installing Linux: everything works out of the box, just need to install the right graphics drivers for accelerated graphics to work. Only sad spot is the fingerprint reader is just flat out not supported in Linux. Lol if I tried hard I guess I could hook up WINE to run it like the old days

    • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, I’ve had the same issues with BSD distros over the decades, always giving those devs the benefit of the doubt that they would get around to fixing various driver bullshit for older hardware eventually, and they never do.

      Meanwhile a bleeding edge distro like my Arch setup runs on a piece of shit Celeron two-threaded dual-core with 3Gb RAM old as fuck Chromebook just fine.

  • e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    I see little reason to use any of the BSDs. Neither for desktops nor for servers. The only benefit I see is that you can take the BSD licensed code and use it to create a closed source product like the PlayStation without having to contribute anything back. I dislike that benefit with quite some intensity.

    I ran FreeBSD on my home server for a while since the old TrueNAS versions use it. The supposed simplicity of BSD rings hollow to me as it is just another thing I’d have to learn. I also don’t care much about the Unix philosophy or any other clerical reasons that distinguish the various BSDs. Computers and their OSes are a tool to me not a religion. Admittedly TrueNAS worked well for me, but reading up on the differences from Linux got old rather quickly. I migrated to the newer Debian Linux based TrueNAS Scale a couple of months ago because I feel more confident that if anything goes wrong I’d be able to fix it.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      openbsd seems interesting to me, it’s entire existence seems to be “secure OS” and i think that’s rather respectable. I’ll get around to messing with it some day.

  • m4@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    For the sake of her “they’ve hacked me” paranoia, my crazy sister made me install OpenBSD on her crappy PC three-four years ago (Intel i3 and a mechanical disk). She stopped using the PC altogether like 6 months after that. It wasn’t really bad, everything seemed to work, taking in account the limitations of the hardware. The upgrade procedure irked me, though - mostly, realizing that you have to be reading documentation constantly even for a freaking minor version upgrade.

    Still this made me try FreeBSD on my PC, only to realize after a couple days that pkg/pkgsrc are utter shit compared to Portage. Alas Gentoo/BSD is long gone, otherwise I’d love to try it.

  • Thorgs@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    From my little experience with working on BSD Servers, BSD is very reliable and for my use cases fast enough. But the slower updates and lack of most Wi-Fi support and sometimes spotty hardware support combined with the need for porting a lot of Linux software that dose not natively run on BSD is a deal breaker for using BSD on my Main Desktop Computer.

    TLDR: For me BSD is a powerful tool that has a very specific job that is not being a Desktop Computer.

      • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        In juniper networking hardware. And many others. If you have the capability to create what’s missing (drivers etc) it will work well. If you do not, well, there’s shit tons of drivers for Linux.

    • OpenStars@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Caveat: unless it is Mac OSX. There are… issues there, but it is still a fairly great experience, objectively speaking.

  • finkrat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    Dude we literally have that unix_surrealism comic there’s at least some love for BSDs here

  • woelkchen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    The Mach kernel started as a derivative of a BSD kernel. Years later the XNU kernel was created by combining the Mach kernel with code from newer BSDs, therefore it’s totally fair to describe macOS as a BSD. From my very limited exposure to BSD conferences, using Macs is pretty common there as many developers see their community-developed BSDs more for headless use they SSH onto.

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    i feel like openbsd doesn’t get the support it should.

    One significant vulnerability in 20 years is actually psychotic. I don’t care how desktop ready freebsd is, it’s dead to me now. i’m sorry.

  • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    OpenBSD works surprisingly well as a desktop, probably because the devs use it themselves. As long as you have supported hardware that is.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    BSD is useful for when you want to program some specialty hardware once and chuck it into the abyss with no updates and without releasing the source code so you can maintain a barely passing level of security through obscurity. Or if you really just don’t want to publish your source code for a unix system.

    Things like modems and old routers come to mind. Also PlayStation iirc.

    Most modern IoT stuff I’ve messed with uses linux probably because the devs like not having to manually package things and deal with weird edge case bugs. Since they’re usually making software updates anyway, published vulns are less of a concern.