Why are there only 3 usable OSs to choose from?
How come BSD is not feature complete?
Why desn't the FOSS crowd make and fund a new OS? Something that's actually streamlined for desktop, unlike Linux. You're all using a server OS and changing the desktop wallpaper so it seems like it's a desktop OS.
And don't tell me making an OS from scratch is too hard because if people can crowd fund hardware then they can crowdfund a compliant OS.
because most existing programs won't work on your OS
>How come BSD is not feature complete?
It is?
What is it missing?
BSD is useable though, many companies use BSD.
It's even an arguably more popular gaming OS than Windows being that PS3 and PS4 both use it as the base OS.
Does Wii use Linux or BSD? I think it uses Linux right?
Then why are people not widely adopting it
Which people?
>implying Linux is an OS
>gaming OS
Oh, so you're 8.
It's the typical complain from people arguing an OS 'isn't complete'
In what way isn't BSD complete?
You're yet to actually answer this, only provide ad hominem attacks.
bsd is complete (and from an end-user perspective is similar enough to Linux that there's no point)
the issue with not-Windows is entirely hardware support
also, Haiku is being developed if you want something designed from the ground up for desktop use
do your own research, fucko
how bsd can be complete if it does not have its own file system or even compiler?
I can assure you it does have filesystems and compilers. Not sure what you mean by "their own" in the context of free software and why that would matter in the slightest.
wasn't windows originally intended to be a server OS but it was so easy to use they ended up pushing the user OS angle
I thought OS/2 was going the business-oriented one with Windows for home users? It wasn't until the NT kernel where where it became stable enough for businesses or servers.
Why should the "FOSS crowd" put that much effort into making an OS from scratch they could be improving GNU/Linux instead?
The BSD License.
If anyone in the "FOSS crowd" knew how to make a streamlined desktop, why wouldn't they just add that to Linux instead of making a whole new OS for it?
Those are not OS responsibilities...
Why did GNU/Linux become somewhat popular on desktop and not BSD? Probably a mix of marketing and the license itself. I think the BSD has its uses, but a lot of users don't like the idea of writing code and having someone "steal" it to use in proprietary applications. People get upset when you "steal" free content like mods or Youtube videos, so I can understand why the BSD license turns people off. People compare GPL to a virus, and while that might affect businesses it has no practical impact on the home user.
GC, Wii and Wii u are something else entirely, it's also powerpc based
>Why are there only 3 usable OSs to choose from?
What does an OS have to have in order for you to consider it usable?
>How come BSD is not feature complete?
What does feature complete mean?
>Why desn't the FOSS crowd make and fund a new OS?
There are tons of FOSS OSes for all sorts of purposes being developed right as I type this. Have you tried Haiku?
>Something that's actually streamlined for desktop, unlike Linux.
Windows and MacOS are primarily desktop OSes, why don't you use them instead of this "server OS" you are complaining about?
>And don't tell me making an OS from scratch is too hard because if people can crowd fund hardware then they can crowdfund a compliant OS.
You can crowdfund anything, it doesn't make the task any easier. In general the hardware crowdfunding campaigns are mostly about packaging existing stuff (e.g. a raspberry pi-like thing) in a different way.
Software design/development is a fucking nightmare because humans suck at specifying the requirements and clients are not willing to wait 1-2 years of research and design before the project actually starts working on a final product.
if it weren't for bsd, ext wouldn't even exist son
I love watching retards get shut down so bad that they don't even bother trying to make a "I was only pretending!" post.
Because it sucks
Why we can't make OS (kernal), that is compatible with Windows and Linux drivers?
ReactOS is open, Linux is open too... Why not?
Feel free to do it.
I'll make the logo
only thing I can think of is good ntfs support
>How come BSD is not feature complete?
Barely anyone use it and even less people test it. You can't write features if there are no people for it and already written elsewhere.
>Something that's actually streamlined for desktop, unlike Linux.
There has already been so much investment in linux, so they can't just admit they need to start from scratch.
ITT: Stupid kids who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
I used GNU/Linux 10 years ago and it was fucking terrible. There's so much ground that's been covered since then it astonishes me how far GNU/Linux has come. It's finally a competent enough system to completely replace Windows with, at least for my use cases.
>Software design/development is a fucking nightmare because humans suck at specifying the requirements and clients are not willing to wait 1-2 years of research and design before the project actually starts working on a final product.
And that's different from hardware how? At least you can update software, you can hardly update hardware once it's done.
waht? TempleOS is a perfectly valid usable OS....
Hardware design is much more mature and the only people that are allowed to work on such projects actually know what they are doing. If they don't the product won't pass regulation.
>ability to hug people
>TRIM
>a license that makes sure you won't get cucked
there's read support at least