Advanced

No BSD?

Story: Review: PCLinuxOS 2007, GNOME and MiniMeTotal Replies: 7
Author Content
hkwint

Feb 24, 2008
12:36 PM EST 		Yesterday at FOSDEM, I encountered yet another 'new' BSD I was unaware of, called MirOS BSD or MirBSD. It's both a bit NetBSD and OpenBSD. They 'stripped' some stuff desktop-users are not using from OpenBSD.

Steven, you like to test it, or should I? I'm a bit in lack of time, there are still about 18 little pieces of paper full of FOSDEM-notes waiting for me along with to-be-pimped (or should I say Gimped?) photo's. But probably my audience is sick of my excuses, and right so. So let me know.

I believe your quest to try a lot of Linux-distro's is hard enough for the moment.
Steven_Rosenber

Feb 24, 2008
4:15 PM EST 		I just might take a look at that one. So far, I am quite impressed with how relatively easy it is to run OpenBSD on the desktop. I haven't tried the same things with NetBSD or FreeBSD (except for DesktopBSD and PC-BSD), but I'd like to start sampling all of them.
dinotrac

Feb 24, 2008
5:30 PM EST 		Don't know about know, but 3-4 years ago, FreeBSD was pretty easy to run on the desktop -- IF you already had a comfort zone from using FreeBSD on the server.
gus3

Feb 24, 2008
8:45 PM EST 		Ditto that. I worked at a FreeBSD-centric company for about seven months, and thanks to Ports (one of the Ports guys was a colleague), I had a working GNOME desktop right there.
hkwint

Feb 25, 2008
11:36 AM EST 		But IIRC both FreeBSD and NetBSD don't run on Steven's hardware (VIA C3), but OpenBSD does. Therefore, I assumed MirBSD, being derived from OpenBSD, has a bigger change of running than FreeBSD or NetBSD or its derivatives. That's why I thought about Steven's efforts when I came across an OpenBSD derivative (the only one not aimed at 'network stuff' I'm aware of). And the other reason I was interested was because the leaflet's title was 'WTF is MirBSD?' which was exactly what I was asking myself when I came across it.
Steven_Rosenber

Feb 25, 2008
12:09 PM EST 		For some reason, I've been having better luck with NetBSD and FreeBSD lately. I've gotten the newest versions of both to run -- NetBSD 4.0, and FreeBSD 6.3 and 7. I had trouble with NetBSD 3.1 and FreeBSD 6.2. But whether intentional or not, support for the early VIA C3 Samuel CPUs has improved greatly. (Later VIA C3 Nehemiah CPUs don't seem to have these problems.) And I've got a few more computers to try this stuff on, too.
hkwint

Feb 25, 2008
1:07 PM EST 		That's weird, I was 'once' waiting for the new C7{,M} (till I discovered the price of the CPU's and mobo's), so I had the impression the C3 is almost 'antique'. Anyway, great to hear the old C3's are supported too these days.
Steven_Rosenber

Feb 25, 2008
1:29 PM EST 		They're still selling C3's ... but now that Intel is in the mini-ITX market and is killing VIA on price and performance, who knows where it will go.

Post a reply to this thread:

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post