Damnshock wrote:Nobody is talking about better or worse I do talk about something to compare about. You, again, are talking about linux diversity but this is not the point here.

But Linux diversity *is* the point! jrick's original point was that FreeBSD is more uniform than Linux. Another way to say this is that FreeBSD is less diverse than Linux.

This diversity is both good and bad. There are a gazillion Linux fans who will tell you the good points, here's one bad point: The diversity limits communication. There are quite a few threads in this forum where someone asks "how do I do X?" and will get responses specific to Kubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Arch, etc. Many responses will say "this is how you do it in SuSE...", but unfortunately a few will skip that part, leaving the poor Kubuntu user to follow inapplicable instructions.

Dude, what is this about? What does windows have to do here? And, just to make you notice, I've been windows free for over 10 years now so don't come and tell me "stick to Windows" while adding nothing to the discussion.
...
That may happen in some cases, the fact is that linux supports more hardware than freebsd does though.

It doesn't matter to you how much hardware Linux supports, because if the gross total of supported hardware devices did matter to you, then you would be using Windows! The fact is that Windows still supports more hardware than Linux! If we are to judge operating systems by the number of brands and models we can print in the "Supported Hardware" paragraph on the side of the shrinkwrap box, then Windows wins hands down.

I suspect you ONLY care about the hardware that you actually own. That's a very different proposition. So the question now becomes, which OS better supports the hardware you own. If you haven't been using Windows for over 10 years, then you have obviously learned how to shop for compatible hardware, what brands to avoid, how best to configure your system to deal with flaky hardware, etc. If you're able to do this with $DISTRO_OF_YOUR_CHOICE/Linux, then you're able to do it with FreeBSD.

Brandybuck wrote:It doesn't matter to you how much hardware Linux supports, because if the gross total of supported hardware devices did matter to you, then you would be using Windows! The fact is that Windows still supports more hardware than Linux! If we are to judge operating systems by the number of brands and models we can print in the "Supported Hardware" paragraph on the side of the shrinkwrap box, then Windows wins hands down.

I'm not sure I agree with that. It depends a bit on what you mean by "support" though. If it is "working out of the box", then I'd argue that a Mac is your best bet (not surprisingly though, since Apple controls the OS and the devices present in any given Mac-model).

Secondly, it depends on the Windows version in question. It's getting increasingly difficult to find XP-drivers for brand-new hardware for example.

And even if you're installing Vista (on a no-name, i.e. non-OEM, PC) there are surprisingly many "question marks" in the device-manager where the system couldn't find a suitable driver either on the install-disk or through Windows Update. And devices that really shouldn't be a problem for any OS today, such as sata-controllers or audio-cards. It was for me anyway, YMMV. On the other hand, Linux (exact version irrelevant since I had the same experience using several different distros and/or kernels) picked up the exact same hardware without trouble. Including my scsi-card, tv-card (admittedly an old one that I never got anything past Win2000 to use properly), and memory-card reader.

As far as my experience goes, there are basically three kinds of hardware that can cause problems (not counting very esoteric and specialized hardware, even if that can be a deal-breaker for some people. In this context I'm interested in more generic hardware):

*Certain wi-fi adapaters.
*Certain printers
*Certain scanners

And of course the problem with firmware and/or other proprietary "blobs" such as nvidia-drivers that are not usually installed by default. Which, depending on your Linux-experience, may or may not be a problem.

The main Linux-driver-problem as far as I'm concerned is that it's an either/or question in most cases and for most users: either it is enabled (as a module or otherwise) in the kernel you're using or you're screwed.

Am I mistaken, or was this thread originally meant to ask for opinions on Arch as a KDE distro, and has it evolved into a low-level discussion on the pros and cons of various Operating Systems?

jrick wrote:Don't really want to derail this thread, but... ok.

XiniX wrote:Am I mistaken, or was this thread originally meant to ask for opinions on Arch as a KDE distro, and has it evolved into a low-level discussion on the pros and cons of various Operating Systems?

Yep.

Soon going to be an official kde-unstable repo for arch, it currently has 4.2beta1 packages but only for 64bit, 32bit will be coming soon along with beta2

Jonathan@Kubuntu wrote:Thanks!
Im gonna try arch in a virtual machine first and them maybe try BSD:star:
can i install packages in a grapical way like adept?

Arch Linux is excellent distro for KDE. In Kubuntu I met with some problems like windows don't stay maximized or missing localization files. In Arch the newest KDE packages sometimes appear in repo before official announce.

P.S. Better try Gentoo Linux it's even more flexible and has better build system than freebsd.

Used ubuntu about 2 years then tried kde4 (from svn):
i liked it instead of having some bugs.

Then i moved to arch:
Arch's kde4 is awesome:
- fast, eficient and elegant;
- pretty cool.

And it's system is amazing - a bit harder to install than ubuntu, but it has a great WIKI so it is easy to deal with.