>> not as OS for home computers
If you are comparing M$ vs. FreeBSD, that might be true.
As for Linux vs. BSD (just FreeBSD, because Net/Open is not for beginners), then that's not so true, except hardware support, in which Linux is slightly better than BSDs.
FreeBSD as a desktop OS:
- You have the same kde, gnome and all the appz as Linux
- You can be on the bleeding edge and upgrade to say kde sooner and easier than Linux
A question might raise, I thought Linux gets rpm sooner?
rpm is a precompiled binary, that is to build it from source. That said, the source must first be released and built before you can make a rpm.
BSDs gives you the software install option whether it's precompiled binary (.tgz extension) or building from src. Hence, the src is released prior to RPM, thus FreeBSD gets new software sooner than Linux almost all the time
- In Linux, when something is not available in RPM binary, then the nightware will be arrived to Linux users when they have to compile something from source.
You might say, well I don't mind to do that occasionally.
But several problems may arise:
1) Compilation failure
2) Unreliable and inconsistency because Linux installs files ALL OVER THE PLACES
3) Compatibilty - when files and dirs are all over the places
4) Most Linux users either don't hack the RPM's source or don't know how to. This eventually makes all configure options hidden. When you don't know the configure options, you have to accept the defaults which you might not have a clue until your software is installed. Often, Linux users would ask: where is my httpd.conf file? whereis can't locate it? where is my foobar file?
In BSDs, there is a consistent location. Files won't end up in the wrong place and running whereis, locate, man almost always locate the proper binary or manpage automatically without the need of adding additional MANPATH.
TO BE CONTINUED...heading to bed :)