• Eldritch@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 days ago

    100% a system D like issue. And I get it. People tend to hate change. The old init scripts work okay back in the day. And if you’re familiar with them I can see why you wouldn’t want it to change. But system D really has brought something to the game. It’s so much easier to enable disable services. No having to dig through init scripts trying to find the one you’re looking for which might be called through a script of a script of a script.

    And while I hate to see fragmentation between the Linux and BSD space. Part of that is on the BSD space. Reluctance to do anything different than the way it was always done can and will hold you back. Not that BSD has ever been fragment free on its own.

    • Matriks404@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      BSD just has 4 (or more?) main distributions (or operating systems, whatever). It is nothing like Linux.

      Also I think BSD systems are much more integrated on how they work, because on any Linux distro there are hundreds of different packages that were built by hundreds of different people, and on *BSD all pieces fit together nicely, unless you install 3rd party packages that are entirely optional. (Although you won’t get any desktop environment if you do that, aside from default one on OpenBSD, which is modified X server+Fvwm AFAIK).

      • Eldritch@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        More for sure if you include Darwin. Linux and BSD were largely similar for a long time. The divergence only really started the last 15-20 years.

        It’s interesting to imagine where BSD would be today without all the litigation on the 90s. Would BSD be where Linux is today? Or would it still be in a similar situation due to it’s reluctance to break with system V traditions.