>you have to open config files to change colors >no concise

>you have to open config files to change colors
>no concise desktop environment
>thousands of distros
>video rendering
>video games
>marxist GPL
None of these are a bad thing

>>56575950
>>you have to open config files to change colors
This is an X11 software made by autists problem. Don't tell me BSD doesn't have urxvt. Don't tell me BSD users don't PREFER urxvt.
>no concise desktop environment
Same problem on BSD
>thousands of distros
Dozens of BSDs
>bugs bugs bugs bugs
lol, basically anything but openBSD
>video rendering
worse on BSD
>video games
worse on BSD
>screen tearing
BSD is X11 only, no wayland
>social justice policy
A lot of SJW-infested projects are cross platform, so BSD has this problem too
>marxist GPL
As opposed to the BSD license which fails to rebel against the tyranny of IP law. I can take BSD source and make a binary that you can go to jail for hacking. You can be free without the source, it's just harder to be free, but the BSD doesn't ensure any sort of freedom. In a society where property rights are confiscated in the name of corporate profits, it has to, and I wish we could have true protection of our property rights in software without marxist "gib means of production pls" bullshit put forth by selfish "hacker" types.

>i dun wanna rely on noone but mahself cuz i got no money and no social skills -gnutard

Are you actually retarded enough to think that BSD doesn't have more than one desktop?

I'm not even going to address the rest of your retarded post because it's probably just as retarded as the one that I picked out, but you're aware that you can install a plethora of DEs (and WMs!) on BSD right you fucking idiot?

>>56575950
Daily reminder that BSD is an insecure garbage. It doesn't have softwares in its official repos, which makes people use ports. Ports are maintained by a group of basement dwelling neckbeards and software vendors do not audit their compile scripts.

Software vendors provide precompiled binaries for Linux with checksum, but they don't do the same for *BSD.

Furthermore *BSD has a very limited driver support. Even if some device manage to run, the drivers crash due to aggressive mitigation. This is why your laptop turns into a room heater when you run X-org on BSD.

BSD desktop environments are poorly put together. Many desktop environments are developed with Linux in mind. For example Xfce, GNOME, Cinnamon or MATE uses udev for automounting external storage. BSD doesn't have udev: automounting will not work on BSD. I knew this first hand when I tried PC-BSD (a variant of BSD) few years back. Now that GNOME and other DEs are slowly moving to newer technologies like Wayland and Systemd: BSD is and will always remain crippled for desktop use.

Just for the record, I'll let you in some secrets: almost no printer/scanner and bluetooth devices will work on BSD.

Overall my biggest beef against BSD is its philosophy. It claims to be "secure" but its "secure" version has NO softwares. Use ports and it is no longer BSD team's fault that you used "insecure" 3rd party softwares. What a joke!!

Bottomline:
1. Linux fights with Windows in terms of usability while BSD can't even compete with Linux.
2. BSD offers NOTHING practical to be used instead of Linux.

If you are using a free operating system, use one that's usable for desktops. Don't use a router OS (while Linux beats them in routers as well).

>>56576222
>maintained by a group of basement dwelling neckbeards and software vendors do not audit their compile scripts.

Most of the shit in your average linux repo is this, including the random fucking patches (remember debian and openssl). There are few to zero big name software vendors, everything is hobby crap maintained by hobbyists.

>BSD desktop environments are poorly put together
You mean poorly ported

But that aside, ALL FOSS DES ARE FUCKING GARBAGE

Jesus fucking christ every single piece of software that isn't the base UI is worthless. Why even fucking bother with that shit? Why even have a DE? Why not just throw your favorite programs together with a WM and some generic disk automounting daemon? Why?

It's a fucking joke

if you're too incompetent to get by without a crappy DE designed by pretentious autistic fucktards it's a wonder you're using any *nix that isn't apple branded, and you'll probably go back to a mainstream OS in a month when you have a small problem

>>56576281
>Most of the shit in your average linux repo is this
False. Example being Viber, Skype, VMware, Foxit reader, Steam etc

>>56576281
>Why even have a DE? Why not just throw your favorite programs together with a WM and some generic disk automounting daemon?
Sounds like a very retarded person, which probably you already are.

>>56576027
Config files are genuinely AIDS. Best of all is X11 which can have up to three or four interwoven .config dependencies at a time.

All those apply to BSD as well

>>56576325
Is not using trash like gedit and evolution retarded now? That's like using notepad.exe. Go look at OS X, things like textedit and mail are actually finished and well made, and apple expects its users to use the bundled programs as their first choice. Linux DE software is there for retards who don't know how to install something else (or configure and use it it, since 9/10 linux "alternatives" use config files and 5/9 are ncurses shit written in the past 10 years).

Linux DE dev philosophy:
"how can we call it a DE if we don't have XYZ"
"just slap a crappy XYZ on there, if they're smart enough to realize it sucks they're smart enough to install a better one"

KDE is the exception with functional default software but QT looks like ass, the DE is full of bugs, and the UI designers can't make anything good (add moar toolbars)

>>56575950
>Ok
>but there is
>choose one
>just werks on my machine
>don't care
>see above
>wat iz compton
>don't care
>literally none of my concern