Contents

Talk:PC-BSD: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:12, 3 July 2013

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Software: Computing This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Comments

I'm the author of the pcbsd.org website, and I dont really see a copyright problem here :) (Unsigned by 22:54, 2 Jun 2005 User:24.20.191.244)

I've been digging through the release notes (http://www.pcbsd.org/content/view/27/11/) and can't find anything to indicate that the underlying FreeBSD codebase has been upped from 7.0-STABLE. Anyone know different? I just added 7.0.1 and 7.0.2 to version table and have to assume that 7.0-STABLE is still what's "under-the-hood". I left in small '[?]'s because one might expect it was updated to 7.0-RELEASE. Someone please update (remove '[?]'s and, if needed, change FBSD version). Kace7 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It states on thier homepage that PCBSD 8.0 is based on FreeBSD 8 -Stable. 81.23.50.232 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i was wondering if anyone could answer my question on compatability with programs programed for windows. it sounds like i would like this OS alot but i have far to much money invested into my gaming library to just drop it and go with this OS. so can you tell me what you have done so far as that?

You can always multi-boot (have more than one OS on your computer). In this way, you can boot into your windows partition and play games. When finished reboot into BSD. Easy. --Felipe1982

Just like on Linux you can run windows programs under WINE, which among other things add Direct3D/DirectX support (OpenGL runs native on PC-BSD). ----MRqtH2

I'm using PC-BSD right now, and it does indeed have Wine, thus you can run Windows games. You could perhaps run PC-BSD on an old "experimental" computer, so you can toy around with it some.

+ Oh yeah, it has Virtualbox as well, so you could run the entire Windows OS if you wanted (...but why would you wanna do that?) —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 02:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.pcbsd.com.br/
  • InPC-BSD on Mon Jul 17 14:20:41 2006, Socket Error: (-2, 'Name or service not known')
  • InPC-BSD on Thu Jul 27 00:26:55 2006, Socket Error: (-2, 'Name or service not known')

maru (talk) contribs 04:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the package management section, there is a passage which is unclear. Is this statement supposed to be 'good' or 'bad'?

The PC-BSD project claims its style of package management, which is similar to that of major operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, is one which most other Unix-like systems struggle with. Felipe1982 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X claims that Y which has quality Z,is one which most N have problems with.

The article now states "The PC-BSD package management system aims to be similar to that of major operating systems such as most Linux distributions, where applications are installed from a single downloaded file with graphical prompts, rather than the traditional package management systems that many Unix-like systems use." Which Linux distro uses a similar approach? Most, if not all, Linux distros still use repositories. Previously the article had Windows, instead of Linux, which was true. Why was it changed to Linux? I think it ought to be changed back to Windows (and Mac OS X can added too). If no one objects, I'll change it to Windows and Mac OS X. Ujwal10101 (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "PC-BSD also contains a package management system which allows users to graphically install pre-built software packages from a single downloaded executable file, something uncommon on open source operating systems.", which to me sounds like "PC-BSD has a package manager, and other operating systems don't". I think it would be more clear to say "PC-BSD's preferred method of installing programs is executable files, similar to installation on Windows, and different than most Open Source operating systems, which use a centralized package manager". My sentence doesn't flow as well though.. Korin43 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says GPL conflicts BSD license ideology. The nature of the BSD license is permissive, enabling users to use code, and even close it. So I'm wondering, how can GPLing the code be against the BSD license philosophy when the license itself permits any kind of usage? Either that part of the article is wrong, or BSD license does not reflect the BSD license philosophy (!?). Or am I mistaken? --Paxcoder (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to know who is making this claim before we can evaluate it. Who are "some people"? Aardvark92 (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I didn't say "some people". I said "the article" if you refer to that. You can lookup the author. To be frank, I don't really care. --Paxcoder (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The article says "some people say GPL conflicts with BSD license ideology." But who says that? There are no sources cited. I've put a weasel words tag on it, but maybe this section should be deleted if it can't be verified. Aardvark92 (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the closest I've been able to find on the GPL vs BSD controversy is this email from Theo de Raadt of Open BSD, and this Slashdot article. Both of these explain a little about the BSD philosophy, but neither addresses PC-BSD specifically. Aardvark92 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the BSD licence is *truly* free. Its very simple. All it does is disclaim liability and tell you that you can do virtually what you want (including making non-free derivitives). Whereas the GPL is a complex licence which *forces* you to be free and make anything derivitive free as well(it is copyleft). The GPL is also a viral licence. Thats why many commercial software houses and hardware vendors are reuluctant to write drivers for linux, as they (if compiled as kernel modules) must be GPLed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.50.232 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Section Release history, timeline starts (from 2006) at bottom & finishes (to 2011) at top. Whereas accompanying box for release history start at top (from 2006, ver 1.0) & finishes at bottom (2011, ver 8.2). Since they are placed side by side, it creates confusion. I tried putting order:reverse, however it gives error that reverse order can only be used if DateFormat is yyyy. So only solution is to reverse the release history box (which wont look good) or to remove the timeline. Abhishek Kohli (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since 9.0BETA1 are other desktop environments (GNOME, LXDE and Xfce) supported. Does anyone could write this in the article? My English is not good enough, to update the text for that. Thanks an greeting from (the Dresden University of Applied Sciencesin) Dresden — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulRg (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

citation link 1 is... not dead in the sense that it yields a 404 error, but nonetheless gone. I clicked it and it had become one of those stupid placeholder "this website is for sale!" sites filled with irrelevant search result links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.48 (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff, a link to a vendor of commercially available hardware with PCBSD preinstalled was removed as link spam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PC-BSD&curid=1950950&diff=493903776&oldid=493903034

Although I agree with the removal of an isolated link, I think commercial availability of PCBSD is notable in this context (as a somewhat obscure niche OS where such things are not routine like they are with other OS's), and perhaps more than an isolated link - a dedicated section - would be justifiable to begin covering the subject of PCBSD's market penetration.

Badon (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]