[PC-BSD Testing] samba module

[doverosx at gmail.com]

Stephan Assmus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2010-01-12 at 18:34:58 [+0100], Mike Bybee <mbybee at dometrilogy.com> 
> wrote:
>   
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Stephan Assmus <superstippi at gmx.de> 
>> wrote:
>>     
>>> Yes, unlike "Linux", FreeBSD is a complete operating system - if you 
>>> consider text-based "complete" (I don't mean to imply anything here).
>>>
>>>       
>> That's an interesting comment - why would an operating system need an 
>> integrated X11/Aqua/Windows style GUI? I think by and large, the majority 
>> of operating systems do not actually have an integrated GUI like that... 
>> in fact, Linux certainly doesn't (hence the ability to swap out 
>> X11/Xorg/etc) nor does OSX (since I can do much the same there). I think 
>> only a few like Menuet and Windows Vista onwards have this.
>>
>> Not being critical, but it certainly is a very different way to look at 
>> an OS than I'm used to (especially since I run typically almost entirely 
>> text only, using a GUI only for Firefox, Rhythmbox, RDC, and tons of 
>> terminal sessions really)
>>     
>
> The question what is considered a complete system is very interesting for 
> the point we are discussing. The FreeBSD team stresses it very much that 
> FreeBSD is a complete system. The argument has been brought up again in 
> this thread, when someone mentioned that "BSD is architected, not 
> composited."
>
> My point exactly is that PC-BSD, unlike its FreeBSD foundation, is 
> composited. And therefor it has the problems that come with that.
>
> So we all being interested in PC-BSD, we cannot honestly use that argument 
> anymore. Why would you not care about the graphical desktop and consider it 
> outside the scope of a "complete operating system"? That's exaclty what 
> PC-BSD is trying to provide, is it not? (The fact that the new PC-BSD 
> offers to install plain FreeBSD doesn't really fit my argument. :-)
>
> You probably have to view my argumentation in the context that I am trying 
> to help create such a "complete" operating system where the argumentation 
> of FreeBSD being "designed" rather than "composited" extends to the 
> graphical user interface.
>
> Until very recently, I have not felt the advantage that the Haiku project 
> has here as strongly as I do now. But don't mistake any of what I say for 
> disrespect for the hard work you guys are doing. In fact, I have great 
> respect and admire many of the results.
>
> I have never before been on any testing mailing list for a distribution 
> about to do their next release, so when I saw a couple suggestions to turn 
> stuff off that doesn't work, and after having tried a number of projects 
> and faced various problems that probably resulted from turning stuff off or 
> being otherwise unable to do something about bugs in other project's code, 
> it just prompted me to say something. In the Haiku project, we really just 
> delay the release when something doesn't work. Although I must admit we 
> also turned stuff off at one occasion :-). But that was the Firewire driver 
> which had no front-end to be useful anyway.
>
> Best regards,
> -Stephan
> _______________________________________________
> Testing mailing list
> Testing at lists.pcbsd.org
> http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/testing
>
>   
PC-BSD is "bringing" the desktop to the masses BSD-style. You could say 
the goal is to provide a 'complete desktop operating system'. I think 
the primary goal and it still is that as per the Warden and Inmates and 
the ease at which VirtualBox installs, let's provide a GUI-based BSD so 
other people are less afraid or what have you.

Stephan don't be afraid to voice your opinions, I thoroughly enjoy 
discussions like this but I'm going to give you a run for your money ;).

Brodey