Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
So his commentary about Vista. Almost every Win NT version before 7 needed a service pack before it was good.
The reason that everything goes through a 3D compositor is that 2D graphics acceleration, they stopped bothering with after like 2000-ish.
Also, the rant about some old board booting quicker than your laptop. My fucking Amiga also boots faster, but it is nothing more than an expensive curiosity.
As for the hardware being a lot slower when Vista came out. Relatively, it wasn't. If you had a 64-bit machine (Core 2 Duo), that machine would still work rather well today. For the generation before AMD Athlon XP and P4, it is not the case.
Also old guys ranting into Cameras about new programming languages, new operating systems, legacy layers, etc. I've heard it all before.
The only person I know that started a new OS somewhat successfully is Andreas Kling.
I just discovered that this retard has gotten DXVK_FRAME_RATE removed simply because he didn't like it: https://github.com/doitsujin/dxvk/pull/5331 "Users should use mangohud or other external solutions." he says as if all other methods don't introduce extreme input lag or horrible frame times.
A feature that is so useless I use it in half my games. Thanks, douchebag. - No wonder I had to fucking use mangohud for framelimiting when I played games recently.
A feature that is so useless I use it in half my games. Thanks, douchebag. - No wonder I had to fucking use mangohud for framelimiting when I played games recently.
The one thing I don't really understand is
*Bsd is better than Linux
People
Like you don't get any more freedom, you just get the cuck license instead of the Gpl
I have a hard time thinking of anything you actually get by using a bsd operating system over Linux other than larping that you run a BSD os
There's like... Jails, but Linux has firejail/bubblejail
Unix like init which some distros like chimera have made on Linux
Ports but most of the ports come from Linux so why not just run Linux
Zfs used to be a big sell but it's been supplanted by btrfs and also Linux has zfs if you need it
Strictly posix coreutils but we also have those on Linux
I'm sure there's actual reasons to run *bsd but I genuinely can't think of any
The one thing I don't really understand is
*Bsd is better than Linux
People
Like you don't get any more freedom, you just get the cuck license instead of the Gpl
I have a hard time thinking of anything you actually get by using a bsd operating system over than Linux other than larping that you run a BSD os
There's like... Jails, but Linux has fireball/bubblejail
Unix like init which some distros like chimera have made on Linux
Ports but most of the ports come from Linux so why not just run Linux
Zfs used to be a big sell but it's been supplanted by btrfs and also Linux has zfs if you need it
Strictly posix coreutils but we also have those on Linux
I'm sure there's actual reasons to run *bsd but I genuinely can't think of any
Because some company might base their next OS on it. Apple based Mac OS on BSD, and Windows is turning into an irredeemable pile of shit. Maybe one day Microsoft or a startup will make a new os based on BSD that becomes the core of the corporate world
Because some company might base their next OS on it. Apple based Mac OS on BSD, and Windows is turning into an irredeemable pile of shit. Maybe one day Microsoft or a startup will make a new os based on BSD that becomes the core of the corporate world
So if we're looking at how Sony Netflix and apple use bsd as a blueprint for the future:
The people that contribute back don't give a fuck about desktop and just use it as a server OS
The people that don't contribute back will fork the project make it usable but make all their changes proprietary
So as a freebsd user I'll get fuckall benefit from any of this is that basically it
Because some company might base their next OS on it. Apple based Mac OS on BSD, and Windows is turning into an irredeemable pile of shit. Maybe one day Microsoft or a startup will make a new os based on BSD that becomes the core of the corporate world
So if we're looking at how Sony Netflix and apple use bsd as a blueprint for the future:
The people that contribute back don't give a fuck about desktop and just use it as a server OS
The people that don't contribute back will fork the project make it usable but make all their changes proprietary
So as a freebsd user I'll get fuckall benefit from any of this is that basically it
That's only partially true. We all know the basic distinction between Linux and BSD: Linux is a chaotic amalgam of disparate software projects that can be moulded into a functional operating system. BSD is the whole operating system unto itself.
Netflix, Sony, WhatsApp, and Yahoo (among others) all use FreeBSD as the substrate for their own commercial products. This is an established fact. We also know that you can't take a dumped PS3 or PS4 game and get it running natively on FreeBSD. That's also common knowledge. It's 100% intentional, but the flip side of the situation is that FreeBSD itself only ships out a comparatively minimal product that everyone else builds upon.
We can't take an x86 PC, shove FreeBSD on it, and mould it into a proper DIY PS5. Even if that collection of software was available under a FOSS license, FreeBSD still wouldn't ship it natively. From the FreeBSD team's perspective, they're only responsible for the text console OS that you download as an ISO or an IMG file off FreeBSD.org.
If Sony wants to make all their PS4 software available on FreeBSD, they'd do so from the ports tree. Here's the rub with the ports tree: it's all external software that the core FreeBSD developers ain't responsible for in the slightest. If it installs in the /usr hierarchy, it's a port and it's the responsibility of a port maintainer to make sure it builds cleanly. Not all ports maintainers are core FreeBSD developers. It's a distinction that lots of people in the Linux camp miss out on.
When you talk about Apple, Sony, Netflix, Yahoo, WhatsApp, and so on contributing back to FreeBSD, I'm pretty sure you mean "FreeBSD + the entire ports tree ecosystem." In reality, these companies do contribute to FreeBSD, but specifically on a "FreeBSD, the base text-console OS and nothing from the ports tree" level. If there's a low-level issue with say... the networking stack, and it's a problem with upstream (re: FreeBSD itself), these companies have no incentive to deliberately withhold that knowledge and their patches.
Of course, sending patches upstream is basically where the goodwill ends. You damn sure won't find Apple, Sony, Yahoo, Meta, among others who use FreeBSD, throwing their money and paid man hours into building up FreeBSD the way that Google, IBM, Oracle, and even Microsoft (among others) do for Linux.
Debian is following Ubuntu's footsteps in replacing the GNU coreutils with troonware:
(original)
After a small number of messages, critical of dropping GNU Coreutils, was posted to the Debian Developer mailing list, the Uutils lead, and Mozilla Director, stated that polite criticism “feels like harassment” and “I am not interested to have this conversation”.
How very troonish
EDIT: apparently Debian isn't actually going ahead with this (yet) and this was an attempted coup of sorts in the development branch.
The decision to change to uutils coreutils in Ubuntu was quite
controversial, as can easily be seen in various forum posts and bug
reports. I believe these changes, which seem to be intentionally made in
secret, are an attempt to avoid reigniting said controversy. I can
understand this, as many had strong opinions, as I do, and expressed
them rudely, which is part of the reason I have avoided linking them.
However, I do not believe that it is best for Debian if decisions like
this are made unilaterally in secret. Therefore, I am bringing awareness
of this change to debian-devel.
Linux is a chaotic amalgam of disparate software projects that can be moulded into a functional operating system. BSD is the whole operating system unto itself
the whole bsd way of doing things sounds great and all. until you actually try using bsd's for desktop os. Instead of getting a functional OS, you get something that at best ends up with 70% of what you had on linux, and if someone's experience with them ends up being anything like mine, The way linux concentrated on supporting hardware, and people use that to turn it into a usable operating system ended up being a huge benefit in the end, and a detriment for the bsd's. Along with a number of other things chose to stick with.
At least from the context of an end user, who sees precisely 0 benefit from the "whole operating" system philosophy they follow. I would rather just have a kernel that properly supports my hardware, adopts modern features when it can. And have the support, and ease of install of user-land software I want. And certainly on more commonly used distros, the ability to painlessly use my system is really the thing that matters. And in my opinion that has been a direct result of the approach linux took. As far as I'm concerned linux even does ports better. With gentoo, the ports are the official OS, then they have more overlays you can add on top if you want.
The only way I could see people genuinely liking any of the BSD's more would be 1. if they are using it for certain server like tasks 2. using it for embedded (and those two i would still say it's a tossup depending on what you are actually doing) 3. if they are one of the large corpos that just want to snatch up someone else's work as a baseline without having to worry about pesky things like sharing source code so others can benefit.
Why would you want the changes that Sony makes for the PlayStation 5 OS? Often these would be very platform-specific.
Every time this gets discussed, it is made out like Sony or whoever is getting a free lunch. They definitely aren't doing so. Maintaining your own fork is a PITA.
Also, Sony/Microsoft and other companies contribute to projects that are MIT/BSD licensed. Often this is done through donations and not code.
Like you don't get any more freedom, you just get the cuck license instead of the Gpl
I have a hard time thinking of anything you actually get by using a bsd operating system over Linux other than larping that you run a BSD os
I would argue you have fewer freedoms under the GPL. This has been discussed to death everywhere, but I do not define freedom in the way Stallman defines it.
Stallman subtly redefines freedom in this lexicon. Stallman is an activist ultimately, and what he has done is quasi-political. Thus, this causes endless arguments about it.
You use whatever licence is best for your project.
Realistically companies take open-source code and do not give a shit about the licence all the time. I've seen whole projects just copied and pasted into code bases, and unless there is an audit (which is almost never), then nobody gives a shit.
Also, the GPL is subverted all the time. If I were Google and made a bunch of changes to the Linux kernel and ran it on my own servers, there would be no need to contribute back.
Google has the resources to keep its own internal forks. The reason they and others contribute back is because often it makes it easier for the changes to be integrated upstream.
