- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated Feb 22-5:16 pm by Brian Masinick.
February 19, 2021 at 8:23 pm #54605ModeratorBrian Masinick
I made a copy of Nomad BSD onto USB and tried it out on two laptops: Dell Inspiron 5558 and Lenovo Thinkpad X201.
Nice responsive software on both systems and it is comparable to antiX in USB boot time. This is a live distribution:
Brian MasinickFebruary 19, 2021 at 8:43 pm #54607MemberDzhigit
Interesting. Are the Live USB features as powerful as antiX’s?February 19, 2021 at 10:23 pm #54609ModeratorBrian Masinick
Interesting. Are the Live USB features as powerful as antiX’s?
No, the features of the distribution are not particularly interesting, but the performance of the image was decent.
You’d have to be a Berkeley Standard Distribution (BSD) fan to want to use it. However, if you want to explore it, trying out the Live image is the way to go. In fact, I did a search of Live BSD images and found it. So if you are curious and like to experiment, from that perspective it’s decent. Comparing features, the only features I can think of that are remotely comparable to antiX is that it’s capable of booting live and boots in a similar amount of time from the Live image.
- This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by Brian Masinick.
Brian MasinickFebruary 22, 2021 at 4:28 pm #54776Moderatorfatmac
I tried it before, maybe I should take another look, (not a big fan of FreeBSD, prefer Net or Open).
Wish NetBSD still did a live version; OpenBSD has FuguIta, (should you happen to want to take it for a spin).
Linux (& BSD) since 1999February 22, 2021 at 5:16 pm #54781ModeratorBrian Masinick
The one “redeeming feature” of NomadBSD is that with the live version, boot times and start-up performance are pretty good, generally better than what I recall.
I really have not experimented with many of the BSDs in the past decade, though between 2000-2010 I often used them and they actually had slower performance than most Linux distributions – and I could easily gauge that because I had a Dell Dimension 4100 desktop that was approaching a decade old by the time I retired it.
In practical terms, most BSD systems, especially the original ones, were solid server operating systems, but only “passable” as a desktop system; in other words, they worked, but their desktop features and desktop performance was unimpressive, whereas, from the nineties to the early 2000s it could be argued that for a while the BSD-based systems had advantages in server configurations. Since I have not used them much, I have no idea if that remains true.
I will look into http://fuguita.org/ – thanks!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.