Contributed by jolan on from the desktop-linux-is-like-teenage-sex dept.
"So, apart from requiring you to learn more about Unix system configuration than you knew you'd forgotten, how is working on OpenBSD different from working on Linux? The short answer is: it isn't."
This is certainly how I have always felt when talking about ported applications. Gnome and KDE are Gnome and KDE regardless of the underlying OS. Well that isn't 100% true, sometimes there can be OS-specific code that mines information from /proc or some such, but for the majority of functionality, the software is the same.
There are some inaccuracies in the article, such as it being said that the aps(4) driver will park disk heads (it just reports status right now).
I also don't quite know what to make of this statement:
"Due to OpenBSD's focus on server-class features, many casual Linux users may find it an uphill battle to use OpenBSD as a desktop system."
There's even a FAQ entry which tries to dispel this myth. I guess if you're used to bloated window managers coming pre-configured to run at startup as part of the "base" system, I could see how one could come to this conclusion. It does seem that the author has come from such an environment. But enough negativity, all in all this is a very positive and thoughtful review.
(Comments are closed)
By Anonymous Coward (84.12.143.212) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (142.166.105.140) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (199.42.80.225) on
Comments
By jose (204.181.64.2) --@---.-- on http://monkey.org/~jose/
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (142.166.105.140) on
By Anonymous Coward (68.100.43.184) on
Anyway...
I've always heard "like teenage sex" referenced as meaning "awkward but thankfully short"
By Brian P. (170.35.208.20) on
It means that people are talking about it......but not doing it........
--Brian
Comments
By Krunch (139.165.82.240) on http://krunch.servebeer.com/~krunch/
Comments
By Brian P. (69.164.211.75) on
Comments
By Anonymous Cowherd (212.104.129.221) on
By Anonymous Coward (208.252.48.163) on
OpenBSD does none of this and configuring all such functionality is an exercise left to the user. A single line in a FAQ that says "OpenBSD makes a great desktop" doesn't change the fact that you have to do the drudge work yourself, and depending on your hardware, it can very easily be an uphill batttle.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (141.39.13.5) on
it's just like that: put in linux cd/dvd, there's an easy installer which takes you by the hand, it's graphical, and then it throws all kind of pkgs on you drive so afterwards it just boots up and even detected all kind of strange h/w.
of course this methodology has is inherent downsides, but, if these downsides affect you -- it's pbly just that you don't need some kind of linux distribution like that and then you don't even have to blabber about the bloated evil linux distros.
By Anonymous Coward (142.166.105.140) on
Comments
By tmclaugh (192.216.27.32) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (147.162.55.11) on
Why should you need Red Hat? It's not the only linux distribution out there.
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (128.151.92.148) on
When I switched my access point and later my laptop to OpenBSD, I was shocked at how easy it was to set up wireless and particularly hostap on OpenBSD. No kernel recompiles!
I think that with the latest version of the Linux kernel, hostap as well as most drivers have been merged and so the future of Linux wireless may not be as hellish. But, the fact that they had such crummy mainline support to begin with for so many years is pretty telling of their priorities.
By Noryungi (213.41.135.193) n o r y u n g i @ y a h o o . c o m on
You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
I have been using an OpenBSD 3.7 machine as my primary desktop for more than two months now, and it's been very easy to setup. This machine is a second-hand cheap Dell laptop, just to make things more interesting.
The key point with OpenBSD is that you are expected to read the documentation. Once you have done that, setting up a machine is actually musch faster than setting up a Linux machine, since 90%-100% of the hardware is auto-detected by the standard OpenBSD kernel. My OpenBSD laptop works great, and has been a lot easier to setup than some Linux machines that I have.
Keep in mind that I have been using Linux for several years now, since my very first Linux distribution was an ancient Slackware that I first installed on a 486 way back in 1995. I have tried several Linux distributions, and most of them -- IMHO -- suck rocks compared to OpenBSD.
Compared to most Linux distribution, OpenBSD is actually faster and easier to install and configure. Not to mention more secure by default, of course.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.70.207.240) on
By Charles Hill (216.229.170.65) on
Yes, if you know what you're doing AND/OR can actually follow directions, you can set up OpenBSD as an excellent desktop. I've done it and love it. The OpenBSD documentation is usually quite superior to the Linux counterparts.
However, dropping a user at a command prompt after making them go thru partitioning and labeling a disk, selecting vague package groups, then expecting them to read all the docs to get X and KDE/Gnome started is not "easy".
It is "simple", as the instructions for all steps are crystal clear. It isn't, however, pop-in-the-CD-and-go-get-a-Coke (tm) easy.
And I don't know when the last time you installed Linux was, but my last couple installs had no problems with wireless or anything else: scanner, printer, wired & wireless, art tablet or anything. This hasn't been an issue in quite some time.
OpenBSD assumes the users actually care how their system works. Windows, Mac and newer Linux systems assume they're idiots and just want it to "work, damn it!". Linux, unlike Windows and Mac, gives them the option to dig into the system if they have the inclination, but doesn't require it. OpenBSD requires it.
-Charles
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.199.202.17) on
And for what its worth, linux doesn't work with this NIC (a marvell gigE nic), and wouldn't boot off the SATA drive unless I set it to SATA only and thus had no CD ROM anymore. OpenBSD worked fine, and had no such problems.
Comments
By Charles Hill (216.229.170.65) on
Be aware, however, that while pretty and easy, they will quickly frustrate any power user to the point of ripping them off the system quickly. They are clearly targeted at the Windows/Mac customer base who's idea of "tinkering" means changing skins.
-Charles
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.199.202.17) on
By Shane J Pearson (202.45.125.5) on
Yes, ALL the work to get a desktop targetted to an average user. Are you average then?
However, dropping a user at a command prompt after making them go thru partitioning and labeling a disk, selecting vague package groups, then expecting them to read all the docs to get X and KDE/Gnome started is not "easy".
Security is a continuous process which never ends. If people want security, they need to learn. Reading is a good way to learn. OpenBSD provides good tools and reading material. People who don't want to learn, don't NEED to use OpenBSD and certainly should not look baddly upon OpenBSD because it provides all that is needed to keep the process going, right down to the smallest of details.
It is "simple", as the instructions for all steps are crystal clear. It isn't, however, pop-in-the-CD-and-go-get-a-Coke (tm) easy.
It neither tries nor wants to be that. It is a system with many various capabilities and possible configurations which should assume very little. It is not designed to be a Desktop system first and foremost, yet it can be, allowing the user all the choice they desire (outside of accelerated 3D). With lots of choice comes well... lots of choosing to do.
OpenBSD assumes the users actually care how their system works. Windows, Mac and newer Linux systems assume they're idiots and just want it to "work, damn it!". Linux, unlike Windows and Mac, gives them the option to dig into the system if they have the inclination, but doesn't require it. OpenBSD requires it.
You can still dig into the Windows and Mac systems, but to a much lesser extent than Linux and the BSD's. OpenBSD's focus is security or correctness. That is why I use it and I hope that focus never changes. I don't feel setting OpenBSD up as a desktop is difficult. In fact when you consider what *I* like as a desktop, I find OpenBSD easier. For the simple fact that if I try to set a Linux up the way I like, I end up waiting a long while for the installer to finish, and then even longer removing shit I don't want, adding stuff I do want, configuring it all and then as time goes on I have to tweak the configuration because of all the underlying ASSUMPTIONS of what I was supposed to like.
OpenBSD is faster to set up how I like and then I can just save the config files. What's more, how much time do you spend setting up an OS? And how much time do you spend actually using it? I prefer the faster "known qauntity" of OpenBSD and view that as a major feature.
Comments
By Charles Hill (216.229.170.65) on
I was just pointing out that Desktop Linux is, for the most part, targeting the apathetic masses who have neither the skill set nor the desire to learn what would be necessary for an OpenBSD desktop.
Different markets, different approaches.
-Charles
By tamo (220.221.52.177) on
may be too long and too descriptive for some desktop users. :)
But it is necessary information if you want a secure OS.
So this is not a problem.
Yes, the number of the hardware drivers could be less than Linux's.
But this is not a problem of OpenBSD, but of vendors.
The article points out that one of the biggest difference between
OpenBSD and Linux distros is their package-management systems.
Currently the pkg_add is not as powerful as YUM/RPM or APT/DEB.
But I know the port system is always great. And I wish pkg_add
will be as useful as FreeBSD's portupgrade.
So OpenBSD is, or will be, the best system even for desktop users
like me. I love OpenBSD as a desktop system.
By SleighBoy (64.146.180.98) on http://www.code.cx/
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (203.26.136.138) on
I've found Gentoo to be the nightmare of linux distros. On my first install, some idiot had broken the Python package... the installation depended on Python and refused to go any further. Ok, so I manually fix the package and continue the install.
I've tried to upgrade the system multiple times to resolve problems with existing packages, only to find new problems with different packages (recent udev issues anyone?).
I find Gentoo to be like a bag full of open source software which has been shaken up and thrown (monkey faeces style) onto your hard drive.
I would far have prefered you to compare OpenBSD with Slackware and/or Debian. They're still Linux, but at least there's some consistency across the systems.
Comments
By Anthony Roberts (70.72.98.19) on
There's breakage that couldn't happen if anyone anywhere had tested it before they released it (stable ebuilds with masked dependencies), they silently change the behaviour of USE flags (Xinerama disapeared thanks to this), etc.
By Clay DOwling (12.37.120.99) clay@lazarusid.com on http://www.ceamus.com
Even setting up X, which is a notorious pain in the tucas, it very easy. Instead of some silly wizard, I just use the built-in configuration features of X, and I've got a config file that works. I've had to look up stuff for specific monitors or video cards before, but that isn't specific to OpenBSD; it's been necessary for Windows and Linux as well.
I wish you better luck in the future. OpenBSD has been a wonderful choice for me and my business.
By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on
Oh and I was really trying to get ion3 on it but there was no amount of foo to get that working so I gave up.
I honestly don't understand all these people that claim that linux works "soooo well". It simply is not true. It is messy & complex and nearly impossible to setup right.
By Shane J Pearson (202.45.125.5) on
What an exageration. Have you ever even used OpenBSD before? There have been times in the past where I've just finished installing OpenBSD from CD, restarted, logged in and then typed "startx" just out of curiosity.
And what do you know? X bloody well started up!
You are asked at install time if you want to use DHCP or a static IP for each interface and then gateway and DNS addresses. Asked if you want to use X, where you are located etc. In the worst case, you might have to run xorgconfig or some such and maybe tweak the .conf.
Then you can pkg_add to your hearts content.
You realise that all this is a FEATURE don't you?
Here is a tip. Configure an OpenBSD desktop how you like it. Then, oh gee I don't know... save the changed pertinent config files?
By Anonymous Coward (84.12.143.212) on
You obviously have a supported system.
By Anonymous Coward (212.112.238.98) on
Well, I suppose maybe the instant risky gratification from a
pretty yet immature package with possibly ruinous consequences part...
Jolan man, I think you need to get laid :)
-Bob
By Anonymous Coward (128.151.92.148) on
Then there are the Linux folks who buy into the "BSD is dying" trolls on Slashdot. These people are often former Win/Mac users who've recently switched to Linux, and think they know everything about how a Unix-like system should be as a result. We all know that this group of people is sadly mistaken, but they're still quite vocal about it.
Both groups have come up with some mythical standard known as a "desktop operating system", when really, as the OpenBSD FAQ states, different people want different things for a desktop. I for one am quite content with a basic window manager, mozilla and xterm. If I wanted more, I could easily pull gnome/kde from ports.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.70.207.240) on
By Anonymous Coward (84.12.143.212) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (131.202.9.179) on
Comments
By tedu (64.173.147.27) on
By Anonymous Coward (143.166.226.17) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (131.202.9.179) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on
OSX has nothing to do with BSD, NOTHING AT ALL. Nada, zero, zip, fuck all etc etc. It's not based on anything BSD; it wasn't derived from anything BSD.
Do you know how BSD OSX is? The fucking command line tools are based on FreeBSD. That's it, so ls is BSD WOOHOO!!
What you are trying to say is that you are completely uninformed and have no clue whatsover about this topic however we all know that talk is cheap.
I hear you thinking, but on slashdot they say its BSD! How can slashdot be wrong?
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.124.65.113) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on
By Anonymous Coward (85.194.223.143) on
Comments
By corentin (81.56.152.193) on
By tedu (64.173.147.27) on
By escapenguin (69.72.7.161) on
Comments
By djm@ (203.217.30.86) on
alL work annd no play makes JACK a dull boY
all wokr and nO pLaY MAKES jack a dULL boy
aLL wOrk and NO PLAY maKes J@cck a DULL B0Y
By m0rf (68.104.17.51) on
By Chas (147.154.235.51) on http://rhadmin.org
These are text-only games (no X-gui), some of which are fairly complex as they implement both curses screen control and network clients/servers. As such, they are a good example of what can be accomplished with the base distribution. BSD has always placed a great emphasis on educational value (the entire OS source code should normally live in /usr/src).
In addition, the games have been included for a very long time, so concerns for tradition also play a factor.
As the games package includes the famous "fortune" command, I will usually install it even on my most sensitive firewalls (I love a bit of humor when I log in).
By Anonymous Coward (203.191.40.226) on
By anon et al (80.213.141.87) on
2. NVIDIA/ATI Xorg binary drivers.
3. Macromedia flash.
4. Cisco concentrators VPN kernel modules.
5. VMWARE
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (128.151.92.148) on
By Anonymous Coward (142.166.105.140) on
(1) Hmm ... I have absolutely no trouble suspending my Thinkpad. I think even hibernate will work, although I've never bothered to make a partition in order to test it. Oh yes, and OpenBSD has a daemon for hardware monitoring, if that is your gig. When ACPI (crap though it is) is fully implemented, I'm confident the OBSD implementation will work right (or it just won't be there) -- it has caused trouble on other systems (including Linux).
(2) The NVIDIA/ATI drivers are proprietary, so we don't really care whether we have them or not until they open up (and if we did care, it may even be possible to get the Linux drivers to work with OpenBSD ... as I recall this used to work with ATI drivers in the ports tree). Fact is, these are mostly needed for games, and MS Windows has the games market pretty much sewn up right now. For that matter, virtually all things proprietary are still supported first and best on Windows, which seems to be most of your points. I could ask you why stick with Linux? You'd have much better support on Windows.
(3) Flash is proprietary ... and a plague, you are welcomed to it.
(4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but again it appears to be proprietary -- thus I can't say I really care.
(5)VMWARE -- a quick google seems to yield some success stories with OpenBSD here, but I've never tried it myself. As such I have no idea what the current status happens to be and again, it appears to be proprietary. If I *had* to have it (on my desktop?), I can always use it with a different OS. I'm a practical guy.
Comments
By tedu (64.173.147.27) on
flash the format is open.
Comments
By Nate (65.95.228.247) on
By Nate (65.95.228.247) on
Comments
By Ben (148.104.5.2) on
And:
gv has worked fine for me
xpdf has worked fine for me
gpdf has worked fine for me
As for creating PDFs? OpenOffice works fine for me. ps2pdf* works fine for me. texpdf works fine for me. Printing with a PS-based printer driver in CUPS works fine for me.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (128.151.92.148) on
By Anonymous Coward (142.166.105.140) on
By Amir Mesry (208.34.41.179) on
By Anonymous Coward (69.199.202.17) on
Too bad ACPI is fucked and doesn't even work right on windows, much less linux and freebsd. If you want to suspend you laptop, then buy a laptop that doesn't suck dicks.
2. NVIDIA/ATI Xorg binary drivers.
Yes, I also wish I could have my machine's lock-up because of broken binary only crap from those asshats.
3. Macromedia flash.
Uh, its in the ports tree. I have it installed just for strong bad.
4. Cisco concentrators VPN kernel modules.
Ok, now you are reaching. Why do you want that pile of crap, and why is it openbsd's problem that cisco doesn't release their software for openbsd?
5. VMWARE
Also in ports. Although whining that some company doesn't release their software for openbsd should be directed at that company, not openbsd. If enough people complain, maybe they will take the time to release openbsd binaries.
By m0rf (68.104.17.51) on
2) the ATI drivers work, nvidia drivers don't. we should really be focusing on open sourcing drivers, not giving closed vendors a free ride
3) so hows flash 8 support in linux atm?
4) crappy and closed source. want it? get cisco to opensource it.
5) earlier versions work on openbsd. there are open source alternatives like qemu.
so basically your list consists of one interface and a whole bunch of binary only gunk which their vendors are too ashamed to opensource?
5 reasons windows is better than linux
1) winmodem support
2) directx/3d/sound, etc
3) macromedia flash 8, authorware, shockwave, macromedia studio
4) Microsoft Backoffice
5) microsoft terminal server
yes, this list is bogus, but then, so is yours.
Comments
By Ben (148.104.5.2) on
Of course, all the squabbling in these threads is about the wrong things. We should be arguing about how we define the word "better", rather than getting huffy about supporting "binary crap" or having DirectX or whatnot.
In the context of desktop use, I usually think that "better" means "easier to use" and "is supported by hardware and software vendors" and "requires minimal technical tweaking". By this standard, Windows is better than Linux is better than OpenBSD.
In the context of development and server deployment, Linux and OpenBSD are "better" than Windows, in my opinion. Whether or not OpenBSD is better than Linux or vice versa in this context further depends on exactly how you define better. If your priority is support for more architectures, then Linux is better. If stability is more important, than OpenBSD is better.
In a licensing and IP context, ostensibly most people reading this would place the availability of software that lacks legal encumberances as a high priority; thus, OpenBSD is better than Linux is better than Windows.
By Jim (69.183.91.173) on
If desktop Linux is like teenage sex, what is desktop OpenBSD like? Winning $350 million in the lottery or something? Perhaps OpenBSD advocates should point out where OpenBSD is better than Linux, rather than where it is as good as Linux.
Anyhow, the last sentence in the FAQ entry is "can it do the job you desire in the way you wish?" If a user wants to have X.org configured correctly for his graphics chipset and monitor as soon as the installation is over, then guess what? Linux can do the job in the way the user wishes better than OpenBSD can.
But this is the most important part -- ITS OK! Its OK that OpenBSD doesn't configure X out of the box. Some users prefer it that way (and I would guess those users are a majority on this message board), and OpenBSD targets those users.
Comments
By tedu (64.173.147.27) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.183.91.173) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.199.202.17) on
By tedu (64.173.147.27) on
By Anonymous Coward (84.12.143.212) on
Worked for me no problem
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (84.12.143.212) on
By Anonymous Coward (143.166.255.18) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.183.91.173) on
The quintessential undeadly.org comment. Disparaging, meaningless, and one less reason to buy 3.9 (I decided against buying 3.8 after being repeatedly insulted on this message board a few months ago).
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (128.151.92.148) on
By Nate (65.95.228.247) on
People do not idly tell you you are a retard, you generally have to say something retarded first.
By Anonymous Coward (68.106.232.57) on
You take comments on electronic boards far too seriously. Learn to move on or perhaps get a therapist. I suppose you rage about being cut off in traffic for hours as well?
By Lars Hansson (203.65.246.6) lars@unet.net.ph on http://mono.blogsome.com/
Hey, just like your comment! What a coincidence, eh?
By m0rf (68.104.17.51) on
with an attitude like yours, i'm really not surprised you rubbed the people on udeadly the wrong way.
By Chris (24.76.100.162) on
By Anonymous Coward (68.106.232.57) on
Honestly, how many Linux distributions out there (of the hundreds there are) do a large number of things the same? Some have a certain admin gui for printers; others a neat network configuration hack; some have a nifty package management solution that lets you locate packages based on country or origin or development language; others ship with a flashy bubbly installer; anyway, very seldom do you come across some "easy to use" thing that works consistently across distributions or even across versions of the same distro.
The one thing that is always there is how to manage a Linux (or more often than not, UNIX) system. Learn the basics, and you can use any (well, most) Linux distros. Even the BSDs. Even some commercial Unices.
OpenBSD has this. It demands knowledge of UNIX. It's a beautiful thing because its consistent and sensible. It works. It has worked for decades. It will work for many more.
At my last job I was the keenest Linux admin on staff. It didn't come because I was good at Linux. I learned Unix principles on OpenBSD. When I had to deal with Linux, I started reapplying things I had learned. The other admins were constantly amazed at the tidbits of information that I mystically knew about "magic command line things."
"I'm having a problem configuring X using Shnazzy-GUI-X-Configurator-Vendor-Shipped_utility.sh! Can you help?" And yes, I helped them by running 'Xorg -configure' and copying the resulting config into place. No "easy" tool needed (especially the one that didn't work), and it was actually faster on the command line.
What's that? Printconf GUI not working? Guess how that was fixed? Edited printcap.
GUI partitioner not working? Learn about fstab, fdisk and disklabel. Guess what? They're documented. Read. Learn.
The world needs to get out of the "ease of use means easier to use" and the "GUI = easy" mentality and grow a pair of nuts. Users that find command line configurations difficult need to stop using UNIX because no matter how many GUI tools you throw at them, the end result is that they end up on the shell fixing the mess made by the utils or trying to do things that are more than mildly complex because the GUI can't do it. It's a perfect example of why any UNIX is more flexible and capable that any Windows OS. If you don't like this business, then UNIX is the wrong OS for you. OpenBSD isn't what you want, Linux isn't what you want, and OSX may not be what you want either.
As for the Linux desktop, no, its not there yet. If you have great success with your Linux distro of choice giving you a perfect configuration with no work on your behalf, straight out of the box, consider yourself fortunate for having a very mainline set of hardware that happens to be commonplace. Their autoconfig utility predicted that one. There are plenty of other users that finish installing your distro, start X and watch it bomb out because their monitor resolution didn't get probed correctly. Or who didn't have the correct kernel modules autoloaded for their video or disk adaptors. Or are running a non-IMPS/2 compliant mouse. Or whatever.
The only shortcomings I see in an OpenBSD desktop are the bad assumptions made by Linux developers who write most of the GUI applications. Like relying on /proc to be present, or any other number of stupid things. Blame them, and blame other vendors like game manufacturers, video card manufacturers, and others that don't consider OpenBSD a worthwhile market niche. I have news for you; just because 4 or 5 vendors are professing to be "Linux friendly" and produce a binary driver or config utility for your hardware doesn't mean you're any better off. If you're like me, what you get is a shoddy half-assed excuse to appease the small market share.
By Anonymous Coward (141.39.13.5) on
comments which don't fit the openbsd elitism mainstream are constantly modded with "you don't know what you're talking about. i have ONE gateway system which functioned well, blah", valid points are
always too modded down and then invalidaded with some weird reasoning.
really, there's no real discussions here taking place (anymore), it's always like this -- smb has a different opinion (or just says that linux distros have their place and advantages for /some/ users) and then it's "you suck, fuckwit, die, blahblah", it's really sad an interesting forum for discussions more or less disappeared
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (84.12.143.212) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (205.156.117.1) on
By Anonymous Coward (131.202.9.179) on
By strlen (67.180.226.43) alex@strlen.net on http://e.strlen.net
They fail to raise a single valid problem. Perhaps they would indeed be better off running Solaris 10 (which *forces you* to install GNOME in the *minimal install* even on a headless system).
I myself have no stake in this, I do not run OpenBSD on the desktop (I run OS X) neither on a laptop (I run FreeBSD) -- all for their own reasons. But really, what is with the expectation of complete and utter handholding (as in Fedora/default-Ubuntu) and dismay and shock whenever it is not there.
I'd be dismayed if (Open|Free)BSD by *default* decided to auto-configure my video card (what if I don't want x11? what if I want to download different drivers, so forth...) and installed GNOME without my consent.
It is like a review I've read earlier from some moron who installed FreeBSD and whined endlessly about it -- and never even bothered to setup ports (or even mentioned their existence, simply spoke about the out-of-the-box install). Seems to be people are flocking to Linux/BSD because they don't like Solaris/Windows/Linux, not because they are ready to embrace the idea of UNIX on the desktop. Here is an excellent, rant from Linux people which seems to take on lot of the premises taken on by the author of the review (especially if you do s/Linux/OpenBSD/ and s/Windows/Linux/ on the rant):
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
(Apologies in advance for not formatting this message as HTML and not making the link click-able).
By Anonymous Coward (85.101.92.94) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (83.147.128.114) on
Many open source projects are written from a "the whole world is Linux on an i386" perspective.
If you can't write diffs, I suggest filing bug reports or mailing the authors or whatever.