Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 17:36 UTC, submitted by anonymous
BSD and Darwin derivatives It seems that PC-BSD has set a trend. "DesktopBSD aims at being a stable and powerful operating system for desktop users. DesktopBSD combines the stability of FreeBSD, the usability and functionality of KDE and the simplicity of specially developed software to provide a system that's easy to use and install." How this new BSD distribution stacks up against PC-BSD remains to be seen.
Order by: Score:
BSD Distros
by Chezz on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 17:44 UTC
Chezz
Member since:
2005-07-11

It seems that BSDs are following linux with this. I do not so many BSD distros are beneficial to the BSD community. It would be better if they commit back to the original source tree. there are many requests from FreeBSD devs to improve the OS as a more Desktop friendly OS.
so why not just work together instead of forking like this?

Reply Score: 5

RE: BSD Distros
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 23:44 UTC in reply to "BSD Distros"
Anonymous Member since:
---

If yo look in to their site it says that all the tools they developed for DesktopBSD are compatible and therefore can be used in FreeBSD. So is no fork is just a snapshot of freebsd with their added tools.

Reply Score: 1

RE: BSD Distros
by kaiwai on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 08:52 UTC in reply to "BSD Distros"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The fact is, they aren't new 'distros', they're merely existing distributions with user friendly configuration tools and a default desktop - the 'core' of the system is still maintainted and controlled by the original developers.

The best way to describe it would be a distribution which bases its core around Fedora; it will be in every way compatible with fedora, but the distribution will offer extras ontop of the basic core.

Reply Score: 1

DesktopBSD
by Andrew Youll on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 17:45 UTC
Andrew Youll
Member since:
2005-06-29

DesktopBSD and PC-BSD have one distinct difference... DesktopBSD just uses a GUI Ports frontend for package management where as PC-BSD uses its own package system PBI.

I personally have been aware of this project for a good couple months now, but its good to see it finally come into a reality.

I personally hope it keeps compatibility with FreeBSD and doesnt diverge from FreeBSD, as many new BSD variants take either:

1) Take along time to gain any userbase

Or

2) Die after a few months of existance due to no interest.

More Pre-configured BSD distro's is great in my opinion i always found setting up BSD a chore (yes I would describe my self as becoming lazy... Linux distro's have spoilt me with DE's etc being ready after initial install).

Reply Score: 2

Re: BSD Distros
by Andrew Youll on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 17:49 UTC
Andrew Youll
Member since:
2005-06-29

If I recall correctly this was discussed on a forum I once visited, and many BSD developers are primarily concerned with Server or Power user installs, and have no time / man-power in order to undertake making BSD's easier for the average newb, so for me these distro's are a great idea.

I will happily sit there infront of a command-line for hours on end, compiling and configuring my OS, I do this with Gentoo, and on occasion FreeBSD, but if I am honest I'm as lazy as the next guy and it's great to have solutions available where everything is pre-configured and working, and requires minimal tweaking and configuration to work.

Reply Score: 1

v Meh
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 17:52 UTC
nice
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 18:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Exellent idea of leaving a lot FreeBSD untouched and concentrate on a less error prone (package) install.While the PBI is extremely comfortable it's not risk free.

FreeBSD is an extremely good base to start from but PC-BSD shows some spots that could be improved while the overall strength remains the same if not is being improved.

Good job!

Reply Score: 0

v how about
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 18:11 UTC
RE: how about
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 18:20 UTC in reply to "how about"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm really hoping that will come soon too-- I really need a Gnome-based BSD solution, preferably because of PC-BSD's excellent package management.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: how about
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE: how about"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Maybe after Gnome 2.12 is released. Who knows.
At least we know 2 people that want a gnome based bsd.
Some one else a little more tech savvy then myself probably wants it as well.. So I'll keep waiting.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: how about
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: how about"
Anonymous Member since:
---

that is to say: someone savvy enough to make the packages work better for a gnome based bsd. anyway.. Ive said to much.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: how about
by cr8dle2grave on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE: how about"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

I really need a Gnome-based BSD solution

Not trolling, just wondering: what is it that you believe you'll get out of a BSD solution which you cannot currently get from from a Linux one?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: how about
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: how about"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Not trolling, just wondering: what is it that you believe you'll get out of a BSD solution which you cannot currently get from from a Linux one?

Not out of BSD, bt out of PC-BSD: PC-BSDs .pbi package management system is excellent in all its simplicity.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: how about
by cr8dle2grave on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: how about"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

_Not out of BSD, bt out of PC-BSD: PC-BSDs .pbi package management system is excellent in all its simplicity_

And what app is currently available packaged as a .pbi file which is not also available via an "apt-get install packagename"? Or are you just interested in .pbi packages in theory?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: how about
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: how about"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And what app is currently available packaged as a .pbi file which is not also available via an "apt-get install packagename"? Or are you just interested in .pbi packages in theory?

I like the idea of *not* needing an extra application (dpkg, apt, synaptic*) to install applications. I'm a BeOS/Mac guy; I'm used to drag/drop to (un)install applications.

* Note that I'm not saying that apt or the likes suck, they're very good in what they do. In fact, on Linux I prefer apt.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: how about
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: how about"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I like the idea of *not* needing an extra application (dpkg, apt, synaptic*) to install applications. I'm a BeOS/Mac guy; I'm used to drag/drop to (un)install applications.

If the community focused on modernizing GNUstep, you would have that. Sadly, there are very few GNUstep applications, until that changes, i dont see how the KDE/GNOME empire could change... i personally like GNUstep a lot, but i hate not having a good browser, msn, image editors and such.

By the way, before someone starts bashing me that o should code it myself then (as people always do), im a graphic designer. I use the tools, i dont develop them.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: how about
by cr8dle2grave on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: how about"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

It's trivial to implement something like AppFolders right now on Linux, but it isn't done on a widespread basis as it is a manifestly inferior means of distributing software, that is as far as software for which the source is available without licensing difficulties, when compared to the centralized repository method. Proprietary software though can be packaged into a relocatable directory which provides most of it's dependencies.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: how about
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 05:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: how about"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I like the idea of *not* needing an extra application (dpkg, apt, synaptic*) to install applications. I'm a BeOS/Mac guy; I'm used to drag/drop to (un)install applications.

Well, there is such systems already available to Linux like the excellent Autopackage - which seems to please you, according to previous postings of yours on related articles - and Klik, currently available to some recent releases of Knoppix, any Kanotix release and Linspire (after some tweaks, AFAIK), which is even better/easier than Autopackage IMHO. I believe that GoboLinux, besides its arguably innovative file system layout, is doing some experiences with the later what would please possible MacOS X converts.

The problem is that they aren´t gaining much traction in the Linux community because, quite frankly, only a small vocal minority is pushing them (even it is indeed a good idea to have them as an alternative). Seasoned Linux users don´t have too much problems with the current package managers. Actually, we prefer them to the Windows way of managing and (un)installing applications.

Personally, I have nothing against streamlining the install/uninstall process. Quite the opposite. I have played a little bit with Autopackage and I´m completely hooked to it - specially after they developed the KDE/QT front-end - but I would like to see it informing the distro package manager that a new program was installed so that the package manager could manage it later as it sees fit (upgrade it, remove it, query it, etc.) before adopting it completely. I believe that Mike Hearn(?) already stated that this is one of the goals that they´re pursuing for the next major releases. Once they accomplish that, I´ll be a happy camper.

Cheers,

DeadFish Man

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: how about
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: how about"
Anonymous Member since:
---

My experience with GoboLinux was bad...They seem to assume that everything will retrofit in GNU Automake.
Besides, they use the Z shell (which is a better shell, but who cares about shells except for very basic stuff nowadays, since we have Perl?)

And, worse of all, they had absolutely no security police, which meant reinstalling anything that went bump in the night. And for Linux, that means a lot of stuff...

Reply Score: 0

Re: how about
by Andrew Youll on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 18:14 UTC
Andrew Youll
Member since:
2005-06-29

GNOME has a huge dependancy tree opposed to KDE, which is why I think the Desktop BSD's namely; PC-BSD NetBSD-Office and DesktopBSD chose KDE, its not impossible to create a GNOME BSD distro, it would just be more time consuming IMO.

Reply Score: 2

RE: RE: How About
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 18:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

True enough. I will settle for that.. I still want a Gnome based one. If they can do it in Linux.. They can do it in BSD ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: RE: How About
by mawei on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE: RE: How About"
mawei Member since:
2005-08-02

There are statements that Gnome is getting to linux-specific, compared to Xfce or KDE.

So maybe Gnome is no good choice for the general unix Desktop these days.

Reply Score: 2

Andrew Youll
Member since:
2005-06-29

Something occured to me, DesktopBSD and PC-BSD are both FreeBSD based; so there is nothing stopping you putting either the DesktopBSD mod's into PC-BSD or Installing PC-BSD Userland tools onto DesktopBSD and having PBI's available on DesktopBSD.

Reply Score: 1

Get a clue gentlemen and ladies
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 18:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Gnome 'IS' available on FreeBSD and all the other BSDs... just browse the ports and you will be able to install it.

Reply Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Gnome 'IS' available on FreeBSD and all the other BSDs... just browse the ports and you will be able to install it.

I know, but I want it so that the entire OS is built around it, like PC-BSD is built around KDE. I don't want un-integrated stuff on my computers.

Reply Score: 5

Buffalo Soldier Member since:
2005-07-06

I know, but I want it so that the entire OS is built around it (GNOME), like PC-BSD is built around KDE. I don't want un-integrated stuff on my computers.

I wouldn't mind giving a GNOME based BSD a try.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

exactly.. We want gnome and freebsd integrated.

Reply Score: 0

PC-BSD
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 19:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I tried PC-BSD a few weeks ago with the release of that moment. I tried it on standard computers: 2 Compaq Deskpro EN.

I never got any further than the boot screen ...

I searched their site for some explanation and it seems that a lot of people had problems with it. So, I abandonned it all together and installed Kubuntu on it.

I'm now downloading DesktopBSD. I'm curious how this will run.

Reply Score: 0

The pbi package system....
by Wintermute on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 19:38 UTC
Wintermute
Member since:
2005-07-30

People seem to be really impressed by the PBI package system. While I do agree its the step in the right direction. I think there are quite a few problems with this approach. PC-BSD devs should to combine the best of both UNIX and Windows package management.

First of all, it would be nice if a pbi file would have metadata about updates and where to find them (like some firefox extensions). Thus in the package manager would allow you to silently update all your PBI without having to redownload a pbi with a new version of the application (windows style).

Secondly, I think pbi files should also have metdata on lib uses (along with supported version ranges). This should reduce memory requirements as you won't have duplicate libs loaded in memory. This would also reduce security issues while retaining stability (if an app needs an old version of a lib, one copy is kept which only that specific app can access).

Thirdly, it would be nice if pbis could installed in a "Programs" folder in the root directory. Additional metadata could be added to allow the application to install in the correct sub-directory. For instance, a media player would install in Programs/Multimedia.

Of course, this is all aimed at power windows users who would want to move to UNIX, but would like to retain the some aspects of windows.

Reply Score: 3

Anonymous
Member since:
---

there's some fundamental info missing about DesktopBSD on their website.

For example, is it based on FreeBSD 4.x, 5.x or 6?

Given FreeBSD 6 is almost out, I hope they start with FreeBSD 6.0 as the foundation and release at roughly the same time.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

The site says it will always be based on FreeBSD-STABLE.

Reply Score: 0

Daniel Seuffert Member since:
2005-08-02

It's based on FreeBSD 5.4, because that is the last FreeBSD-STABLE.

Reply Score: 1

Oh no !
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 19:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Please don't tell me that FreeBSD is getting into the distro-hell as Linux...

Reply Score: 0

RE: Oh no !
by Daniel Seuffert on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 20:04 UTC in reply to "Oh no !"
Daniel Seuffert Member since:
2005-08-02

Please read first, than post. DesktopBSD is not a distro nor will ever be.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oh no !
by raver31 on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 20:13 UTC in reply to "Oh no !"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

very bad attempt at a troll mucker...

it is purely a choice thing, there is no such thing as linux distro-hell, there are clear choices of the TYPE of distro and the contents of the distro, and also different uses for the distro....

not hell in the slightest, but a marvellous way to do computing the way you want to do it.

Reply Score: 2

Re: Oh no !
by Andrew Youll on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 19:58 UTC
Andrew Youll
Member since:
2005-06-29

no FreeBSD is not, DesktopBSD ands PC-BSD both afaik are staying 100% compat with FreeBSD, all they provide is a pre-configured install, and in PC-BSD's case an additional alternative Package system

Reply Score: 3

Wireless connectivity
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 20:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Someone want to elaborate on the clean and manageable wireless configuration option for this KDE that is not in the KDE for Linux?

The single most annoying hindrance for Linux is that Wireless configuration is not a plug n' play as you go situation.

Between the Cardbus bios bypassing to resolve irq hangups to wpasupplicant to ifplugd to iwconfig/iwlist, etc., it rapidly makes it clear that until a simple 100% hotplug/ifplugd* aware for all 54g cards, combined with a point and click configuration app actually works without having to duct tape it together Linux will not be a desktop/laptop alternative.

If more laptops are being sold today than desktops would it not stand to reason that Wireless configuration options were rock solid and their accompanying client apps well suited for the distro of one's choosing?

*I'm speaking of chipsets currently available in source that either compile as a kernel module or are now part of the kernel tree. This moving target will always be moving as the kernel adds more cards it supports, but the ones supported should just work.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wireless connectivity
by phoenix on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 20:03 UTC in reply to "Wireless connectivity"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

That's something I absolutely cannot stand on Linux: the lack of standardisation on wireless configuration tools. It seems each wireless driver includes its own 802.11 network stack, its own configuration program, and its own quirks.

On FreeBSD, there is a single 802.11 network stack that all the wireless drivers use (or soon will use). There's a single configuration program (ifconfig, same one that's used for wired connections). If you need WPA support, then you just enable wpa_supplicant via /etc/rc.conf and configure it via /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf (you can even the supplicant for WEP connections).

Everything is standardised, everything works together. And you have 1 set of configuration tools for 802.11b, 802.11g, and 802.11a.

What really floors me is that the Atheros drivers are developed on Linux ... yet they work so much better on FreeBSD.

Reply Score: 1

wish them all luck
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 20:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It is good to have some easy to install and maintain FreeBSD based OSs. PC-BSD or DesktopBSD, both are going to ease the lifes of so many.

Cant wait till they stableize ;-)

Reply Score: 0

v gnome based freebsd...
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 20:35 UTC
re:{RE[5]: how about}
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 20:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

* Note that I'm not saying that apt or the likes suck, they're very good in what they do. In fact, on Linux I prefer apt.

Although i prefer emerge i agree with you that apt is a good package manager.However a GUI package manager can pose a threat to newcomers.They could easily get into a package frency and thus the risk of irreversible dependencies.

Reply Score: 0

question about openssl and pcbsd
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 20:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

i have installed pcbsd 7.5. It found my mouse, video and sound drivers at install time where "bare" freebsd never could on a "straightforward" install.

I have updated kde to 3.4.1 and nothing broke. am currently updating to 3.4.2. I am sure all will be fine.
FreeBSD rocks and as for as i can see, "for me", pcbsd is usefull as a time saver at install and post install time. any other time, it looks like good old freebsd.

to my question: i ran rkhunter and it found openssl with good version number but i could not see openssl in /var/db/pkg. "locate" found openssl though. I noticed the ports had a slightly higher version so i installed it thinking that it would overwrite/upgrade the mystery openssl. (previously "portupgrade -vRr" did not work!!!????). After the above "make install clean" i ran rkhunter and found that the two version of openssl where installed, the original in /usr/lib and the new one in /usr/local/lib, though i am not positive about these 2 locations as i am away from home.

pkg_delete would not remove the original openssl and it was not listed in pcbsd "remove programs app". so i manually removed them myself and then had kde control center find the new libraries.

just wondering what that was all about because rkhunter found 2 other items that do not show up in /var/db/pkg thus missing upgrading by "portupgrade"

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

OpenSSL is part of the base distribution, and thus the included copy is not handled through ports. FreeBSD separates packages from the base distribution with user-install packages between /usr/* and /usr/local/*. This applies to many packages other than FreeBSD. You can edit /etc/make.conf to exclude them if you want to compile a system without them.

Reply Score: 0

No need to reinvent the wheel
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 21:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Need a Gnome-based FreeBSD?

1. Install FreeBSD
2. pkg_add -r gnome2,
or cd /usr/ports/x11/gnome2; make install clean

The meta-package handles all the dependencies and everything you need to run a standard installation of gnome. There are other meta-packages as well, if you like your gnome install a certain way.

You can also select Gnome during setup, but I personally prefer NOT to do that as I think an install should get the operating system up and running as quickly as possible.

As for a lack of "integration", the only thing lacking I can really see are menu items. An app that scans pkg_info, and adds launchers accordingly would be trivial to develop.

Other than that, a quick and dirty front end to packages/ports command line tools would be all the "desktop" you'd need for point and clicking.

To be honest, I'm glad BSD isn't "ready for the Desktop", if currently "desktop friendly" Linux distros are the inspiration. The more "desktop friendly" a distro is, the more stupidity it seems needs to be fixed to have a useful system. I'm not opposed to convenience, but it should not be at the cost of control.

Reply Score: 0

RE: No need to reinvent the wheel
by Lumbergh on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 02:42 UTC in reply to "No need to reinvent the wheel"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

The difference is that you're talking about a stock Gnome. The reason Ubuntu is so popular is because they go that extra effort to make it a gnome distro....same with Foresight Linux which i'm trying right now.

Reply Score: 1

RE: No need to reinvent the wheel
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 21:26 UTC in reply to "No need to reinvent the wheel"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"cd /usr/ports/x11/gnome2; make install clean"

You really expect people to be able to do that? I mean actually pressing 45 keys on the keyboard in order to do something? Without using the mouse to click on some icons? Have you any idea of how *hard* that is, how steep the learning curve is?

I'm shocked.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

And how hard can it be to copy and paste it in a terminal and press the Enter key? People who are close minded to their windows mentality will never learn to use alternate OS.

Reply Score: 0

Shane Member since:
2005-07-06

I hope you are being sarcastic.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Of course it was sarcastic :-)

Not that I have anything against projects like DesktopBSD, I'm sure that they are useful to some people.

It's just that I'm getting tired of constantly hearing that FreeBSD is not suitable as a desktop, that it needs a fancy gui installer and that "desktop" seems to be getting more and more synonymous with Gnome or KDE.

None of this is true.

Reply Score: 0

v Is this a live CD?
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 21:14 UTC
Why KDE?
by Ronald Vos on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 21:16 UTC
Ronald Vos
Member since:
2005-07-06

The third project to use KDE instead of another WM. Why is this? Anyone?

I find this really odd, as KDE and BSD don't seem like the ideal marriage, considering the license issues. Gnome under LGPL is a much more 'fit' choice than KDE under GPL in my opinion. At least, it makes more sense that the BSD guys would prefer LGPL.

And KDE seems an odd choice for another reason: with BSD I think of either 20 year old machines still running reliably, or server machines with the least encumbrance possible. When I think of KDE I think of encumbrance.
Why not XFce or Fluxbox like the FreeSBIE project? A lean simple environment seems much more apropiate. Especially considering KDE is Windows-like.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Why KDE?
by cr8dle2grave on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 21:22 UTC in reply to "Why KDE?"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

Please Ron, can't we have a single alternative desktop article without all the assinine KDE/Gnome trolls?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Why KDE?
by Ronald Vos on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Why KDE?"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Please Ron, can't we have a single alternative desktop article without all the assinine KDE/Gnome trolls?

Ok, I understand I've been modded down, but I realy really wasn't trying to start a KDE/Gnome war, I was asking what I thought was a legitimate question. KDE just doesn't seem to fit for me.

Oh well, it's been answered now.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why KDE?
by Lumbergh on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 02:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why KDE?"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Ron, the reason is that KDE is very simple to build compared to Gnome.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why KDE?
by aseigo on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 22:13 UTC in reply to "Why KDE?"
aseigo Member since:
2005-07-06

> When I think of KDE I think of encumbrance.

instead of asking "Why KDE" perhaps you should be asking, "why does my world view not match up with the reality of things that i am observing all around me?"

perhaps KDE really is more usable for the average user and doesn't introduce any licensing encumbrances that are of concern to anyone concerned with real world situations. that would explain things nicely, wouldn't it?

i'd also add that it could well be that the design of KDE resonates with the BSD people. perhaps the portability of KDE and the number of active KDE developers who use and develop on BSD has also had an impact on that community.

or maybe it's just all serendipity. at the end of the day the most important thing here is that more and more people are getting behind the open source desktop and putting their time and effort into promoting it.

this can only be a good thing.

Reply Score: 4

Well, I downloaded it and ...
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 21:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Tried it on the same Compaq Deskpro EN where PC-BSD would not install onto. DesktopBSD does not install either. My screen blanks and that's it. It's pretty much at the same point as PC-BSD. I might want to try this with the real FreeBSD stuff. That's for later tonight.

Then I installed it on an Asus portable. It goes ok during install, although it asks not that much questions (like keyboard, ...) When it reboots, by GRUB is gone and replaced by something of DesktopBSD where F1 and F2 are marked with "???" whereas those are my Windows partition and my Linux swap. F3 shows "Linux" which is correct (SuSE there) and F4 is for FreeBSD (should be DesktopBSD). When I boot into that, it holds on something with a prompt "mountroot>" that it does not find. Starting with option 2 "ACPI disabled" actually just reboots the portable.

Either I'm a complet idiot or there's something wrong with both BSD's. I ran Slackware 10.1, SuSE Pro 9.3, Kubuntu and Windows on the same machine without a problem, so I might not be me ... (?)

Anyway, perfect waste of a valuable blank CD.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Well, I downloaded it and ...
by judmarc on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 11:30 UTC in reply to "Well, I downloaded it and ..."
judmarc Member since:
2005-07-10

Either I'm a complete idiot or there's something wrong with both BSDs.

Heh, I think there's a third alternative. ;-)

What you saw with the F1, F2, "???," etc., is FreeBSD's current/old bootloader, which naturally replaced GRUB as that is what you selected during the installation. You didn't read the excellent FreeBSD documentation, which tells you what is going on during the installation - it gives you information so you can decide what option you want to select for the bootloader, for example. See <URL: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/install-s....

Another alternative is to install FreeBSD using the BSDInstaller. BSDInstaller is a very nice simple installer originally developed for DragonFlyBSD. Porting it to FreeBSD is one of the projects from Google's Summer of Code. There's an iso of FreeBSD with the BSDInstaller available at <URL: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/SOC2005/bsdinstaller/>.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Well, I downloaded it and ...
by phoenix on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 20:08 UTC in reply to "Well, I downloaded it and ..."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Either I'm a complet idiot or there's something wrong with both BSD's. I ran Slackware 10.1, SuSE Pro 9.3, Kubuntu and Windows on the same machine without a problem, so I might not be me ... (?)
You're a complete idiot who can't read. ;) During the install, it asks if you want to install the bootloader, and where it should put it. You chose the "install to Master Boot Record" option, which overwrites anything already in the MBR ... which is GRUB in your case.

Since you already have GRUB installed, you don't need a boot manager, and should have read the notice that popped up and select "None ... don't touch the MBR". After that, you're GRUB menu would still be there, and would just require a little editing to add a FreeBSD entry.

Don't blame the tools if you aren't willing to take 30 seconds to read the warnings.

Reply Score: 1

DesktopBSD and FreesBIE
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 21:19 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I downloaded the Iso on my mac. My mac opened it as a device. The device's name was .... FreesBIE.

So there must be some relation between the 2 ...

Reply Score: 0

RE: DesktopBSD and FreesBIE
by Daniel Seuffert on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 23:48 UTC in reply to "DesktopBSD and FreesBIE"
Daniel Seuffert Member since:
2005-08-02

Both PC-BSD and DesktopBSD use the FreeSBIE scripts to a very large extent, that's not a miracle. BTW the next FreeSBIE version will be avilable for PowerPC too...

Reply Score: 1

re{Why KDE?}
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 21:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why not XFce or Fluxbox like the FreeSBIE project?

They are not what you call newbie friendly.Personally i prefer fluxbox with fluxbox-styles-fluxmod etc.Working with KDE is more intuitiv and i think that's one of the desktop/PC-BSD goals,to provide a intuiv environment.

Reply Score: 0

Don't forget Debian-kFreeBSD
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 21:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Don't forget Debian-kFreeBSD !

http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/

It is a debian with FreeBSD kernel.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Don't forget Debian-kFreeBSD
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 17:19 UTC in reply to "Don't forget Debian-kFreeBSD"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Don't forget Debian-kFreeBSD !

Who would want that ?! So we get to wait 2 years for a release ?!

Ever seen the FreeBSD "Thou Shalt not Commit Bikesheds" ? D'you know what it means ?

Besides, what's the point with GNU userland ?! I don't think it beats BSD userland.

Sorry, we don't want that, hell no!

Reply Score: 0

A plea to the BSDs
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 23:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Please please PLEASE don't go the way of Linux distros in the sense of having stuff in different subdirectories and overall confusion. Keep it all up to BSD standards and you'll all do well =)..

Reply Score: 1

RE: A plea to the BSDs
by mawei on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 00:15 UTC in reply to "A plea to the BSDs"
mawei Member since:
2005-08-02

There are no BSD file system layout standards! FreeBSD's layout for example is different from NetBSD's...

What we need is additional package management for /home/user!! And I don't mean ports, pkgsrc or pbi, because they are system-wide and have to be managed by root.

I don't see what's so cool about PC-BSDs package management? "Konvalo" and "Zero Install" were there before and they work for Linux and the BSDs now! The only thing missing is more support from users and packagers.

Infos:
http://www.konvalo.org
http://zero-install.sourceforge.net

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: A plea to the BSDs
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE: A plea to the BSDs"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I don't see what's so cool about PC-BSDs package management? "Konvalo" and "Zero Install" were there before and they work for Linux and the BSDs now!

So I went to take look and Konvalo and Zero Install.

You are just spreading disinformation.

They have very little to do with PBI:

1) First let me say that it's hard to discover what konvalo does, since the documentation is soo bad.

2) They both assume a custom repository, and that people will just think that their solution is great, to the point of, say, stop using ports to start using Konvalo. Maybe an easy sell for Debian. Not for a ports user (14000 in FreeBSD)

3) All use the command line. PBI aims, in the end, at point and click.

4) Here's what Zero Install says: "The Zero Install system makes software installation not merely easy, but unnecessary. Users run their applications directly from the Internet from the software author's pages."

As you can see, you obviously don't know any of the tools you mention. Thank you for making me waste my time and reafirming my faith in PBI.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: A plea to the BSDs
by mawei on Thu 4th Aug 2005 11:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A plea to the BSDs"
mawei Member since:
2005-08-02

1) Agreed, Konvalo's documentation could be better. But I'm sure it's just a matter of user feedback and contacting the developer.

2) Of course, they cannot substitute build systems like pkgsrc or ports. And they cannot compete with the thousands of ready-to-use packages, built from ports.

3) So the coolest feature of PBI is the KDE-only GUI??
Yesterday, I ran gmplayer from Konvalo. That was "/coda/konvalo.org/start gmplayer" from the command line and waiting some time until the program fires up. This would be in contrast 9 (!!) clicks with PBI from Downloading to Finishing Installation. Not to forget the additional typing of the root password. Compared to this click-mania even the standard procedure via "sudo pkg_add -r gmplayer" + "gmplayer" is less cumbersome.

A now imagine what a Konvalo GUI could look like: Go to a webpage (Toolkit independent!), choose the application and ready!!

Okay, PBI automates the addition of menu entries and that's a nice feature.

4) Zero Install and Konvalo do software installation via downloading and caching. No root passwords for installation, every user can "install" or run the already cached programs. Cached programs will work offline, without network connection. Zero Install tools offer GUIs, can create Icons, etc.

I'm using Gimp, gmplayer, mplayer and gv from Konvalo and a few ROX-apps via the "Zero Install Injector", OS is NetBSD 2.02

Reply Score: 1

3D acceleration
by japail on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 00:17 UTC
japail
Member since:
2005-06-30

At least NVIDIA finally updated support for FreeBSD/x86 recently. For a while I had given up any hope of continued support.

Reply Score: 1

RE: 3D acceleration
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 04:49 UTC in reply to "3D acceleration"
Anonymous Member since:
---

What are you talking about? NVidia has been pretty decent at keeping the FreeBSD version of their driver up-to-date. Sure, the Linux driver typically is released before the FreeBSD driver but it does get released within a reasonable amount of time.

Now that there is also a Solaris driver, perhaps they'll be able to keep more up-to-date because there's more Unix know-how being put into it.

It would be pretty neat if they would just release some DragonFlyBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD drivers as well. The more the merrier. ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: 3D acceleration
by japail on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 04:53 UTC in reply to "RE: 3D acceleration"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

1. Post the dates of the last three FreeBSD driver releases.
2. Define reasonable.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 3D acceleration
by japail on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 05:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 3D acceleration"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

I'll just do the first part for you, instead of being lazy: http://www.nvidia.com/object/freebsd_archive.html

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: 3D acceleration
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 3D acceleration"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Here's the link to the Linux archive: http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_archive.html

As you can see by comparing the two archive lists, the release dates are pretty much the same for that last few driver releases. It's also evident that in the begining (when the FreeBSD driver was young) the FreeBSD releases weren't in sync with the Linux releases (some releases were even skipped), but NVidia was new to FreeBSD so I'm sure they had to figure out the differences.

I will admit, they do cater to Linux but since their Unix driver support is growing that may change. Again, I really wish they added support for DragonFlyBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.

I will also admit, that they should redo the documentation now that they have a Solaris port so that the documentation could be more generic and just point out the differences between OS's when needed. Now, if you read the FreeBSD documentation for the diver it usually points you to the Linux documentation for more info. That just doesn't seem right to me.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: 3D acceleration
by japail on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 3D acceleration"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

I don't think that it has much to do with the technical differences, but rather the financial incentive. While NVIDIA has a clear financial incentive for Solaris and Linux, I'm not certain that they have one for FreeBSD. While the March and June difference is much more tolerable, the releases over the years were several months apart.

The documentation really doesn't concern me much because installing and configuring the driver is rather easy. Instead of worrying about OpenBSD or Dragonfly, I would rather see regular updates and support for x86-64, among other things.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: how about
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 00:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Not only that.. but whats wrong with Choice. I love linux as much as the next guy.. But if they did the gnome based PC-BSD or somesuch it would give me an option if somethign happens with linux.. There is no real preference except it would be neat to see a tightly integrated BSD desktop OS, much like they did with Ubuntu.
Anyway it nice to know others would like a gnome based bsd desktop OS.. Maybe I should get a little more savvy and do it myself. I dont know where to start though.

Reply Score: 0

RE[8]: how about
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 17:22 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: how about"
Anonymous Member since:
---

...tightly integrated desktop OS

You're really a Linux fanboy who's never used BSD. Right?
You think BSDs are like the same mess the Linux distros are. That's why you you ask a question with your premises.
Try it out, dude. Get over Linux.

Reply Score: 0

v Why do all these use KDE?
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 01:09 UTC
Project Evil
by anand78 on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 03:04 UTC
anand78
Member since:
2005-07-07

WTF where can you download this SH**, Google and all point me to an article.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Project Evil
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 03:31 UTC in reply to "Project Evil"
Anonymous Member since:
---

It's already in the system. Check "man ndiscvt".

Reply Score: 0

Keeping up-to-date
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 06:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Adding users, installing it, it is not that difficult imho.
My main issue with FreeBSD is to keep it up-to-date without having to compile from sources.
I know about these:

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9266
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9073

Does DesktopBSD do it something itself ?

Sincerely it seems to me that many GUI oriented tools are created to install it easily but it seems to me that Freebsd guys have not spent their time to develop one simple command such as: ``bsdupdater upgrade"

The two links I posted are too complicated, imho.
Also the latter is talking about how to keep the os/kernel up-to-date but as you can see that's a personal initative of a guy.
Even if a package exists I think that the patches are build by him and not by the freebsd team.
http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-update/

Last but not least.
Because due to Java issues, how can you promote a Desktop system if you cannot distribuite java package binaries ?!?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Keeping up-to-date
by sean on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 13:08 UTC in reply to "Keeping up-to-date"
sean Member since:
2005-06-29

Sincerely it seems to me that many GUI oriented tools are created to install it easily but it seems to me that Freebsd guys have not spent their time to develop one simple command such as: ``bsdupdater upgrade"

https://bsdupdates.com/

Reply Score: 1

Linux helps here...
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 08:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Some people at the PC-BSD forum have been using Linux's Java, Flash, etc... After all, one of the most apealing features of FreeBSD is that it is possible to run most linux programs on it!

The linux compatibility layer is available as a .pbi
linux's firefox/Java/flash may as well be soon as the freebsd versions are older and often dont work 100%

We have Nvidia driver pbi which right now seems to work for most pl (bugs are being squashed)

We have some Games running "like a mad thing" according to the users...

But of course, lots of work is needed. The installation routines still ave to be fine tuned as many people still have issues... Luckily i have no problems here...

For the critics:

Why dont you try the os and help us fixing what you think is not working?

Cheers!

Renato Flórido

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

When I got Ubuntu to redo sources.list under linux after pc-bsd made that drive inert on that box: I was only able to recover 6 of 12 *nix distrition install partitions to booting and will install over the others; so I won't try this until I know I won't go through this again, despite the fact that only my travelling desktop got hosed because re-installing the w98se = major pain.
-- same ananymous coward

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Will someone please release "Enlightened BSD" (e17 + gtk/qt/whatever)? But more to the point:

I am coming from a Windows (user) background a couple years ago, but I was sick to death of MS behavior (the software and the company). It's enough to throw anyone that understands the implications into a fit, aside from the unstellar aspects of the user experience...

Honestly, when I started toying with linux and bsd's I was afraid of the command line, but I liked what I had read about the *nix "way". The me-too desktops (KDE/GNOME; no offense to the developers) were less fully featured and kind of buggy compared to Windows, and before long I found myself doing things at the terminal. Less daunting tasks at first.

One of the things that I absolutely HATED about MS software is how it assumes it knows what you want (even if you adjust the hell out of preferences), and as often as not its WRONG. One of the things that appealed to me about the *nix world is that it doesn't make an ass-out-of-u-and-me.

So there's your tradeoff. If you know what you want to do, you want command of the computer, and you won't be happy with patronizing coddling by the desktop environment. But without that handholding, you MUST know what you're doing in order to do it.

For me, KDE/GNOME both turned out to be a no-win. To be happy, I needed to be in control. To be in control I needed to learn how the OS works. Once I understood what I was doing, and how to do it, all those GUI "utilities" just got in the way.

Now I prefer a simple window manager that is fast and clean, stays out of my way and presents the my simple tool set (filemanager, editor, terminal, browser, im, mail, spreadsheet, dvd/audio player) in a minimal, graceful, beautiful way.

My point is that while maybe there is a GREAT deal of value in bringing the desktop environment to *nixland, perhaps there is even MORE value in helping users get comfortable as *nix users.

Like:

1) Making it easier to learn your way around the shell. (not that its hard, but it is cryptic and therefore can seem harder than it is to noobs)

2) Less attitude from people that already know and think that if you don't you're a mental vegetable

3) keeping directory structures very consistent (I LOVE BSD FOR THIS REASON), and name them less crypticly (tab at the shell and you dont have to type the whole name, so don't tell me its too much to type). Granted, this is something that would have to be done very gradually and probably moot by the time anyone learns their way around.

4) encourage developers to use cross-platform libs so that the killer apps from one platform look identical on the other (kind of beside my point but still...); if my apps all WORK the same and are laid out the same will i notice half the time its not (pick your desktop)?

5) STOP FLAMING AND COPYING MS AND DEVELOP SOMETHING BETTER. (btw, Enlightenment & its libs, especially e17, are a good example)

6) set expectations for new users as "this is different, and you will need to adjust, but we like it better because x,y,z, and here is how you get started".

OK. Now, congradulations to the DesktopBSD people, please keep doing what you're doing. My rants above are not intended to discourage you from doing your thing.

Peace - C

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Will someone please release "Enlightened BSD" (e17 + gtk/qt/whatever)?

That would be pretty awesome! I saw Raster demo'ing his evas technology at a Linux Expo in SoCal a few years back and it was simply awesome! Back then, one of the things I was looking forward to was the "desktop shell" and the file management being built into Enlightenment. I guess that's because I'm using to seeing my files and folders graphically.

Alot has been done (changes, rewrites, etc.) to Enlightenment .17 and it's components since then. I hope everything for the better. I check their website from time to time to see what's up with the project.

I have noticed that there's an enlightenment-devel port in the ports tree. I have been tempted to give the development snapshot a try. I guess we'll see how it goes when it's done.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Definitely check e17 out from cvs. I'm using it as my full time wm and in spite of a little work it takes to get running/themed/new background etc, its the coolest wm ever. The only thing IMHO that comes close or is more polished is e16. Go Raster!

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

I asked for BSD Desktop friendly a long time ago. When I first brought it up. I was met with hard words from BSD hardcore code hackers who wanted nothing to do with easy to setup graphical BSD system. Guess I am getting what I asked for.

Reply Score: 0

Has nothing to offer
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 17:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Contrary to PC-BSD, there are no new ideas here. PC-BSD is attempting a new packaging scheme that does not interfere with the FreeBSD core or ports.
DesktopBSD is just a vanilla FreeBSD. I see no point.

Reply Score: 0

bsd
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 17:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

bsd is not 4 me

Reply Score: 0

Resonance between KDE and BSD
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 10:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Well, to the poster that suggested this, your assumption is completely off base. The fact that both DesktopBSD and PC-BSD both use KDE, beyond just being an absurdly small sample space of 2, is no basis to draw any conclusion whatsoever, as many BSD users don't use any graphical interface at all. The only thing you might possibly even hypothesize is, a small fraction of the BSD community who believes BSD needs to have an integrated desktop, and point and click installation prefer KDE to Gnome.

I guess I'm just one of those people who feel that anyone who isn't capable of learning how to use ports is too technically inept to spend any time on whatsoever. No, it's not because I'm arrogant and feel that BSD users should be for the elite, but that BSD as it is is already so mindnumbingly easy. It doesn't get any easier or logical than to install packages built from source the exact same way you compile source. Worse comes to worst, you just browse a file directory and type the "magic" command sequence. After all, aren't so-called "users" just looking for the magical all-in-one solution that automagically handles all possible situations?

Reply Score: 0

@jutmark and phoenix
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 17:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I have a problem with the comment of phoenix.

When I installed SuSE as the second OS, I installed GRUB and it added my Windows stuff correctly. Off course, I installed it in the MBR.

When I now added the third OS, I also allowed it to write its bootloader in my MBR. Just like any decent install program under Linux can do.

Unfortunately, the boatloader sucks. Not only does it depict a swap partition, it does not allow me to boot my Linux partition anymore. And it did not say that on my screen "After rebooting you will not be able to boot your Linux partition, are you sure ?"

That is not because I did not read what the screen says, but because I trusted the program to do something decent with the boatloader.

I tend to read what's on the screen, but I also know when something sucks ...

@jutmark: I did not have many options during the install of the thing. I did not install FreeBSD but the DesktopBSD. So no, I did not read that part of the FreeBSD manual before installing another product, just as I did not read the Microsoft manuals on TCP/IP before configuring my network on Linux ;-))

Reply Score: 0

DesktopBSD is older then PC-BSD
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 21:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"DesktopBSD development started about one year before PC-BSD suddenly appeared, therefore DesktopBSD is definitively no copy and not about rivalry against PC-BSD. It's quite possible that PC-BSD and DesktopBSD can profit from each other in the future."

Read the FAQ ;)

Reply Score: 0