Figured I'd make another one of these.
Tell about your experiences with some of these.
What feature from what unix is your favorite?
What feature from a more obscure unix do you wish Loonix and *BSD had?
What feature from Loonix and *BSD do you wish they didn't have?
>Solaris
killed by Oracle
>Linux
good kernel, miserable userspace, killed by GNU
>Hurd
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAH
>macOS
darwin doesn't work in vacuum, there is nearly no freebsd, stop these stupid memes
>OpenBSD
be asperger project leader, loose userbase, can afford to make aggressive changes in system
also got stucked on Unix concepts that got obsolete in last decades
>FreeBSD
despice being used in production, ship shit... ikd how they do it but it somehow works
>killed by Oracle
revived by the community
wiki.illumos.org
>miserable userspace, killed by GNU
how?
>HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAH
Yeah it's a joke. Kinda would have been interesting to see what it would have been like if it had gone somewhere, but that's obviously not happening.
>darwin doesn't work in vacuum
There's been attempts, but I don't think any of them were successful.
>there is nearly no freebsd
Well the man pages certainly are.
"BSD General Commands Manual"
>stucked on Unix concepts that got obsolete in last decades
like what?
>ikd
wew
>>miserable userspace, killed by GNU
>how?
X11, gcc, glibc, crappy incompatible package managers, dynamic linking
>BSD General Commands Manual
indeed, it uses BSD coreutils. Not enough to claim that macOS is FreeBSD
>like what?
no namespaces, BSD sockets, filesystem in kernel, posix libc, block devices and ioctl, overusing syscalls, no /proc and similar filesystem-based kernel interfaces
>ikd
my life is a failure
>X11
Well It's all we got, even on most other unices. Wayland's coming up, but I'm not sure if that's better or worse. Also not sure what this has to do with GNU. X11 is maintained by X.org and FreeDesktop.
>gcc
I've heard from a few places that Clang is better. true?
>glibc
If other libcs are so good, why do things break when you use them? Seems like musl/uclibc are lacking in some way.
>crappy incompatible package managers
So you'd prefer every distro to use the same one?
Makes sense, although would be difficult to get everyone to agree on one.
>dynamic linking
explan
>Not enough to claim that macOS is FreeBSD
Oh don't get me wrong. I wasn't. I'm well aware that they're completely different in kernel, GUI, and, well, a lot of things. However, the command-line utilities are all FreeBSD.
>Makes sense, although would be difficult to get everyone to agree on one.
Not really actually. Turns out all you have to do is tell people to stick to one and stop being autistic. Too bad the latter request is exceptionally difficult given context.
Related to this, what do you think of projects such as flatpak?
flatpak.org
also, I agree. Autism will never die.
bump
I'm just going to type this from the viewpoint of a /win/tard, mostly focusing on WIMP interface comfiness, so bear with me (or skip the post entirely if it offends you)
I think the best age of OSes was around 2003
> Windows 2000 professional
> OS X 10.2 jaguar
> redhat linux 9 with KDE 3.1
> experimental solaris 9 x86, which supported KDE 3 and CDE
from school, Solaris on SPARC with CDE was a really well-integrated experience, kind of like OS X. it was costly niche that got killed off by free-as-in-no-pay linux on cheap x86 hardware.
OS X (also from school) was comfy until later bloated versions that decided to go flat.
I've been re-experimenting with linux mint and FreeBSD when MATE came out and the feel of it seems all right, but I haven't had much time to delve into them. they feel a bit slower, not because of bloat, but they seem to lack optimizations, probably from lack of resources, time, support (both drivers and industry), developers, etc. this fragmentation of linux (in particular in userland) feels like wasteful scattered efforts, instead of everyone focusing on a common goal (like they do on the kernel or the few popular distros and flavors). the BSDs, due to an even greater lack of resources, have resorted to porting many GNU userland utilities rather than developing them from the ground up. and niche projects like trinity or Q4OS are doomed from the start due to lack of interest. unity (literal definition, not the DE), even under proprietary/commercial dictatorship, can sometimes produce some good.