obsolete

obsolete? maybe. but...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTExNDM

>>482
Lol.

Linux/GNU license = you have to make available any mods you make to the source code.

BSD License = Do absolutely whatever the hell you want with it, and you don't have to show no one...

>>484
Which is why Apple can charge obscene prices for their stuff when they only did half the work.

I can see why some coders might prefer the anarchy model over loose communism, but it bothers me that other people are allowed to make money off of something that was given to them for free.

>>484
this

Wannabe bsd fanboys always think they'll be the coolest h4x0r5 with the most magical os ever (not implying that op is one of these people). Truth is that purely bsd-licensed 386bsd based oses are a dying breed. Linux has tended to surpass freebsd in most benchmarks and in hardware support. What makes *bsds slightly relevant in today's world is their existance as legacy systems or certain sections of their code existing in other projects (os x, vxworks, etc etc). I'm sure a company with billions of dollars can do amazing things with *bsd, but that doesn't mean it's a neckbeard sysadmin's paradise.

pic related;it's the only practical free *bsd os

>>487
This is pretty much what people have been saying for the past 15 years, next week BSD is gonnna die, this time for real.
If your perception of practical is a webinterface, then be it that way, but please, FreeBSD never was an OS for people who were uncomfortable with man pages or reading in general. It was also always a system for other people to build their work upon, wich perfectly explains the, perhaps novice-user unfriendly, way of having only core elements configured per default. Legacy is also a strong word in that context, as most would probably regard the 3 big smartphone operating systems to be all the rumpus these days and they all inhibit code derived from the modern BSDs.
By the way, neckbeards sit in their mommys basements, not where actual productivity happens.

>>492
Yes, bsd licensed code has made a big impact in embedded devices. But it's almost useless as a server or workstation by itself. As for documentation, they aren't the only people to write good documentation. In fact, the freebsd handbook is merely a sign of it's old age. Most linux distros have their own unique and, more or less, effective forms of documentation. There is arch linux which has a more modern approach to documentation using mediawiki, for example. Hell, you can read linux from scratch and compile everything manually without much prior experience, although the init scripts are a little more obtuse there. Reguarding the developer's viewpoint where one builds on top of bsd licensed code or uses a *bsd as the core of a larger platform, I'm not arguing with you there. However, as a free workstation or a server, which is what op intends to do, it is limited in it's usefulness outside of what linux already provides. The only good argument to be made is the ability to use dtrace and zfs; oracle still provides support for solaris servers and is in the process of porting dtrace to linux fyi. Unless you can provide an explanation as to why it's more practical in that respect other than "it's not for n00bs" then I'd be inclined to take you more seriously.

>>494
I don't understand your eagerness to talk it to death, that was my inital motivation to reply. Perhaps you should tolerate that there are different use-cases and some poeple just like to have a different flavour of things. Your statement about it not being used in the wild is a highly speculative claim, sure it won't lead browser stats, but what other Desktop-OS than WinFoo does.
I also don't see what you mean with your statement that it is providing limited usefulness beyond what (Gnu-, by the way)Linux already does. That would mean it has equal, actually more, functionality, so what would be the point of trying to prevent someone from using it?

I think that, before we dive further into this, you should define your perception of being practical in operating systems.

>>495
When I say it's limited. I mean nowadays linux brings more to the table than freebsd. In terms of features and hardware support, linux trumps freebsd. As for mind share, linux attracts more upstream development.

>>498
Duh, Gnu/Linux is the more popular thing, so support for obscure webcams is a given and having a load of people developing a kernel doesn't necessarily improve code quality.
Elaborate on the features.

It's been a week. So I guess we can conlude that theres no incentive, other than perhaps pointless fanboyism, to state that FreeBSD brings "less to the table" in terms of features and otherwise, than comparable operating systems.

>>500
Nah. This might be a shock, but I enjoy arguing about topics like this. Your lol i trol u antics complete with reaction images kinda makes that discussion pretty dull because it's hard to take your argument seriously. If I hadn't seen your post days after you had posted I might have thought about responding. But what's the point of doing that when I can go to somewhere like 4chan's /g/ and get an immediate response from multiple people?

Going back to the subject, you mention code quality; minix 3 has clean code, does that make it useful? Also xen (dom0 support for bsd is shit), selinux, and ksplice.

>>501
Going back to the subject would be if you started posting said features and if you don't like slow boards, why post there in the first place. I also enjoy how you don't like images on an imageboard.