Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 28th Mar 2006 18:35 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives The DesktopBSD team has released their most important release to date-- DesktopBSD 1.0 is now available via .torrent or as a 'normal' download. The release includes KDE 3.5.1, FreeBSD 5.5-PRERELEASE, a user-friendlier package manager, and many more smaller improvements, which are detailed in the changelog and the release notes.
Order by: Score:
good to see this
by DKR on Tue 28th Mar 2006 18:57 UTC
DKR
Member since:
2005-08-22

its good to see that desktop projects for bsd have come into fruition.

Reply Score: 5

RE: good to see this
by spikeb on Wed 29th Mar 2006 11:51 UTC in reply to "good to see this"
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

what I would like to see is a similar project that uses GNOME and GTK.

Reply Score: 1

girlfriend
by firl on Tue 28th Mar 2006 19:13 UTC
firl
Member since:
2006-03-16

Ya, my girlfriend actually is using one of the release candidates.

If my girlfriend can use it.. you can too lol

Reply Score: 2

RE: girlfriend
by tkarlsen on Tue 28th Mar 2006 20:49 UTC in reply to "girlfriend"
tkarlsen Member since:
2006-03-28

Then again, I bet your girlfriend is smarter then you *lol*

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: girlfriend
by firl on Tue 28th Mar 2006 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE: girlfriend"
firl Member since:
2006-03-16

oh she is. trust me she is. she just doesnt' know computers

Reply Score: 1

needs more packages,
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 28th Mar 2006 19:24 UTC
modmans2ndcoming
Member since:
2005-11-09

and a greater community.

Reply Score: 2

RE: needs more packages,
by firl on Tue 28th Mar 2006 19:32 UTC in reply to "needs more packages,"
firl Member since:
2006-03-16

can still build from souce :-p

Reply Score: 2

RE: needs more packages,
by Daniel Seuffert on Tue 28th Mar 2006 20:00 UTC in reply to "needs more packages,"
Daniel Seuffert Member since:
2005-08-02

Sorry, but you can use every single package or port that's available in FreeBSD, you may want to look at www.freshports.org for more information. FreeBSD and DesktopBSD as well have the second largest collection of packages/ports only behind Debian (and that is questionable too for some reasons)...

Or do you think more packages should be included in the DVD images?

Sorry but I don't get your point at all.

Daniel Seuffert, DesktopBSD team

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: needs more packages,
by Joe User on Tue 28th Mar 2006 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE: needs more packages,"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

LOL, I don't understand his point either. What package does he want that you can't install on DesktopBSD?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: needs more packages,
by firl on Tue 28th Mar 2006 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE: needs more packages,"
firl Member since:
2006-03-16

I agree, as before I have not had a problem getting packages at all.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: needs more packages,
by Angel--Fr@gzill@ on Tue 28th Mar 2006 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE: needs more packages,"
Angel--Fr@gzill@ Member since:
2005-12-23

!!!

" Or do you think more packages should be included in the DVD images? "

Well, IMHO is a bit ridiculous to release a DVD ISO ith a bit more than 1 Gb.. They should have released 2 CD ISOs.

Is not worrthy to spend a DVD , above all a good one, for anything less than 3 Gb. An having such a big number of programs and ports comming from FreBSD , I do not see why they did not released a bigger DVD image!!!

Angel--Fr@gzill@

!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: needs more packages,
by Daniel Seuffert on Tue 28th Mar 2006 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: needs more packages,"
Daniel Seuffert Member since:
2005-08-02

Sorry, there are 2 CD Isos for i386. Not for amd64 because we assumed every amd64 machine has DVD...

And the images will get larger soon but not to 3 GB. Please think of people not having broadband internet.

Reply Score: 3

Overlap gives choices
by KenJackson on Tue 28th Mar 2006 19:33 UTC
KenJackson
Member since:
2005-07-18

DesktopBSD's main goal is to provide a desktop operating system that's easy to use... http://www.desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=32

PC-BSD has as its goal to be an easy to install and use desktop OS... http://www.pcbsd.org/?p=pcbsd

There's getting to be some overlap in the BSD arena, but that's good. The Linux world offers a wide and finely-differentiated set of choices. Now BSD is sprouting some more choices too.

Reply Score: 2

Nice idea
by DevL on Tue 28th Mar 2006 19:34 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

Although I'm more keen on PC-BSD. Still don't get why DesktopBSD base the distro on the 5-branch as it's next to deprecated these days.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nice idea
by vitae on Tue 28th Mar 2006 19:45 UTC in reply to "Nice idea"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Everytime I try and download PC-BSD, it quits near the end. I tried all the mirrors.

Reply Score: 1

try wget
by KenJackson on Tue 28th Mar 2006 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice idea"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

'wget' usually solves problems like that.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nice idea
by yanik on Tue 28th Mar 2006 19:45 UTC in reply to "Nice idea"
yanik Member since:
2005-07-13

the 5-branch as it's next to deprecated these days

I ain't no BSD expert, but why will they release FreeBSD 5.5 next monday then?

It seems the freebsd 5.x branch is well alive on the server side. And now on the desktop too with DesktopBSD.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Nice idea
by DevL on Tue 28th Mar 2006 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice idea"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

5.5 is likely the last member of the 5-branch. The 6-branch is basically a renamed 5-branch in order to get away from the poor reputation of the 5-branch, to get a clean start so to speak.

So in the regard, the 5-branch is deprecated and IMHO not worth basing a distro on.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Nice idea
by TheMonoTone on Tue 28th Mar 2006 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice idea"
TheMonoTone Member since:
2006-01-01

I believe the reasoning was to avoid instabilities usually found in early major number releases, however I agree, 6 is really just a renamed 5, and therefore didn't have the huge issues that the early 5's had.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Nice idea
by Daniel Seuffert on Tue 28th Mar 2006 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice idea"
Daniel Seuffert Member since:
2005-08-02

You are absolutely right, DesktopBSD is a bit more conservative than PC-BSD, so we stayed with 5.x for the moment.

Of course that will change soon after release 6.1.

Just in case nobody has noticed: We use RELENG_5 of February 5 instead of 5.4 release for some reasons (WLan etc.).

Best regards, Daniel

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Nice idea
by rycamor on Wed 29th Mar 2006 00:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice idea"
rycamor Member since:
2005-07-18

You are absolutely right, DesktopBSD is a bit more conservative than PC-BSD, so we stayed with 5.x for the moment.

Of course that will change soon after release 6.1.


And that is exactly as it should be. 6.0 was a little unstable on my laptop, but 6.1-PRERELEASE is doing great. And again good on you for running the latest 5 branch, as the early 5.4 was more unstable for me than 5.3.

Reply Score: 2

The big question
by Ronald Vos on Tue 28th Mar 2006 20:17 UTC
Ronald Vos
Member since:
2005-07-06

Which of the two FreeBSD-for-the-desktop distro's offer the best desktop experience?

Not necessarily for polemics' sake, but it would be interesting to see how the two compare to eachother. Idea for an OSNews article anyone?

(yeah I'm too lazy to do it myself)

Reply Score: 1

RE: The big question
by DevL on Tue 28th Mar 2006 20:26 UTC in reply to "The big question"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, PC-BSD offers a few "novelities" such as an alternative method of installing software (PBI) and is based on FreeBSD 6.x. I haven't tinkered as much with DesktopBSD, but it is based on FreeBSD 5.x.

Personally I like PC-BSD and look forward too the day when more software is available as PBIs (you got the normal FreeBSD ports system available too, but for desktop users, PBI is a Good Thing (TM)).

But, the only way to get a real feel for these two systems is to give them a spin yourself. Off to download ISOs with you! :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: The big question
by the_randymon on Tue 28th Mar 2006 20:56 UTC in reply to "The big question"
the_randymon Member since:
2005-07-06

Somewhat of an incomplete but interesting mini-review and comparison here:
http://therandymon.com/content/view/87/79/

Reply Score: 3

SEJeff
Member since:
2005-11-05

I haven't had much of a chance to test this out yet, but how well does it really work? Sure they have a recent version of KDE installed, but how well does hardware detection work? I don't think FreeBSD (what this is based off of I believe) has anything similar to HAL in Linux to make hardware "Just Work TM".

Am I wrong in saying that this wouldn't be a great desktop distro because of hardware support, or am I just behind the times and simply wrong? I'd love to see a project like this succeed, but the last time I played with FreeBSD, Linux killed it in regards to out of the box hardware support and overall hardware support.

Reply Score: 1

garymax Member since:
2006-01-23

I have to agree. FreeBSD seems to lag behind Linux in hardware support. And let's face it: an OS is no good if it doesn't support your hardware. Linux runs happily on the hardware that I have and it recognizes everything. FreeBSD on the other hand is a pain to get working--especially with X windows.

Edited 2006-03-28 21:53

Reply Score: 1

Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

FreeBSD on the other hand is a pain to get working--especially with X windows.

I disagree. I use both systems (FreeBSD and Gentoo). FreeBSD is very easy to install using SysInstall. Also, configuring X.org is exactly the same way as on Gentoo.

Reply Score: 3

garymax Member since:
2006-01-23

Hi Joe,

The "pain" enters into the equation when you use the /same/ commands as in Linux and it still doesn't give you the correct xorg.conf file.

So, depending on your HW it can be a *pain* not because the tools are different but because FreeBSD does not recognize HW correctly in many instances where Linux does.

That was my point. FreeBSD definitely lags behind Linux in HW support.

Edited 2006-03-28 22:09

Reply Score: 1

Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

FreeBSD definitely lags behind Linux in HW support.

Maybe. But to tell you the truth, I didn't have many incompatible hw issues over the years, and when FreeBSD didn't detect my hw, neither did Gentoo. I never saw any piece of hw that was detected in Gentoo that wasn't in FreeBSD. This is maybe because I don't use exotic hw though...

Reply Score: 1

lopisaur Member since:
2006-02-27

Actually, I had better experiences on FreeBSD than on Linux with some odd-hardware. configuring a multi-head system w/ AGP & PCI graphics cards has been a lot easier on FreeBSD, as well as getting Bluetooth to work.
I've been using FreeBSD as my main Desktop OS for over 9 months now & I can't complain, you just have to (somewhat) know what you're doing.

Reply Score: 1

garymax Member since:
2006-01-23

When Linux works and FreeBSD doesn't... has to be the OS

Reply Score: 1

TheMonoTone Member since:
2006-01-01

FreeBSD doesn't have the same thing as HAL no, but things "do just work", and with the future KDE solid project, there will be no need. Also, hardware support is fairly good for most desktops. The big missing pieces are usually with multimedia devices, like my professional soundcard does not work unless I use commercial OSS drivers. The real difference is seen when looking at how well things are put together in a BSD box though, the jigsaw puzzle fits together in, what appears to be, a very clean way. Sometimes I think the linux distro's try slapping together pieces that sort of fit, but in the end create a sloppy job of things. One of the other big differences in the FreeBSD/DesktopBSD world is they are completely compatible. Meaning that in the end, if I were a commercial distributor of software, I don't have to worry about binary compatability with 10 different systems that all essentially do the exact same thing.

Reply Score: 1

garymax Member since:
2006-01-23

TheMonoTone

Do you see FreeBSD HW support improving as FreeBSD gets more popular? It would have to...I'm seriously considering switching to it from nearly 4 years in Linux...

Reply Score: 1

TheMonoTone Member since:
2006-01-01

FreeBSD hardware support improves gradually, the key being that the FreeBSD developers don't say hardware is supported until it really will work, all the time, in almost every situation. I've had numerous problems with linux hardware support, the kernel says it supports something, you go to use it, and it doesn't work properly. I can't recall a time I've ever had that happen in FreeBSD.

Of course hardware support will improve as time goes on, the key point I'm trying to make however, is that while it may take more time for it to be supported in FreeBSD, when it is, its assured that it will work. If it doesn't work, then it will likely be fixed very quickly, or dropped from the support list until it can properly be fixed.

So by all means try FreeBSD, and if your hardware works with it (its pretty likely these days), you will probably end up liking it quite a lot.

Reply Score: 2

eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know about that. On every machine I've tried, FreeBSD support has eclipsed that of Ubuntu and SUSE by at least an order of magnitude.

I'm sure that on some esoteric propreitary NDA'd crap Linux distros have better support, but I try to avoid such anyhow.

Reply Score: 1

SEJeff Member since:
2005-11-05

So you are trying to tell me that out of the box FreeBSD hardware support eclipsed that of Ubuntu and SUSE... Why am I feeling sceptical and say I don't believe you?

Can you post the exact hardware details and versions of FreeBSD, Ubuntu, and SUSE you used?

Reply Score: 1

garymax Member since:
2006-01-23

"FreeBSD support has eclipsed that of Ubuntu and SUSE"

Find this hard to believe from my experience. It is admitted by most users of FreeBSD that FreeBSD and the other BSDs lag behind Linux in drivers and hardware support. I have found this to be true first hand.

Now, you may have had a good experience but that is hardly enough objective evidence that FreeBSD "eclipses" that of Ubuntu...highly, highly unlikely.

Reply Score: 1

freebsd 5, 6
by Espectro on Tue 28th Mar 2006 20:33 UTC
Espectro
Member since:
2006-02-01

I'm no freebsd expert either, but i've had problems w/6 (freaks out at the cardbus on my laptop)that weren't in 5x and i've heard many others say similar about 6. 5x is actually supposed to have more features, 6 is supposed to be a leaner/meaner direction, which is all well and good, but from what i've seen i'll wait until fbsd 6.5 or so comes out then maybe switch to it or a distro that uses it.

Reply Score: 1

Curious...
by tristan on Tue 28th Mar 2006 20:57 UTC
tristan
Member since:
2006-02-01

Out of interest, what advantages would I get from running KDE on DesktopBSD as opposed to a Linux-based distro like Kubuntu or Mepis?

And are the disadvantages?

Apologies if that sounds like I'm doing the project down -- that's certainly not my intention. I'm just genuinely curious about what advantages the BSD architecture brings over the usual GNU/Linux set up.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Curious...
by Daniel Seuffert on Tue 28th Mar 2006 21:17 UTC in reply to "Curious..."
Daniel Seuffert Member since:
2005-08-02

Sorry, I don't want to start a flamewar and I'm not able to go much into details here, maybe you start with a general look at BSD and Linux here:

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php

It's not a matter of KDE at all, that is really fine on BSD and Linux.

Best regards, Daniel

Reply Score: 4

RE: Curious...
by Joe User on Tue 28th Mar 2006 22:03 UTC in reply to "Curious..."
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

what advantages would I get from running KDE on DesktopBSD as opposed to a Linux-based distro like Kubuntu or Mepis?

KDE will be exactly the same on *BSD or Linux. The big advantage is the underlying system: FreeBSD. I use both Linux and FreeBSD, and I tend to use almost only FreeBSD nowadays. I prefer it to Linux. Some of the explanation here: http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Curious...
by porcel on Wed 29th Mar 2006 01:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Curious..."
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

That link is a thinly disguised diatribe.

Please don't post it as some sort of objective analysis of the differences because that isn't what it is and you know it.

Reply Score: 1

HAL
by Carnevill on Wed 29th Mar 2006 01:53 UTC
Carnevill
Member since:
2006-01-18

A few of you have mentioned HAL, I thought I would point out that HAL is on its way to FreeBSD.

Reply Score: 1

my only problem with this
by spikeb on Wed 29th Mar 2006 11:54 UTC
spikeb
Member since:
2006-01-18

is that it and pc-bsd aim to do the same thing mostly the same way, and it wastes the desktopbsd name that could be used for a gnome based bsd desktop ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: my only problem with this
by Daniel Seuffert on Wed 29th Mar 2006 13:34 UTC in reply to "my only problem with this"
Daniel Seuffert Member since:
2005-08-02

Sorry, this is not the place to go too much into technical details but think of it again. There are a lot of reasons for Kris Moore (PC-BSD) and Peter Hofer (DesktopBSD) why they have choosen KDE instead of Gnome.

For a user it's not a prob at all: Use Ports, packages or use the Ports-GUI to install Gnome and you are happy again with your Gnome.

For a developer there's nothing wrong with Gnome itself and I would really like to see a similar project using FreeBSD and Gnome. All the code is public and can be used under BSD-license at will, do it! Or find people willing to start a project! Both projects will help you as much as they can, we are BSD.

DesktopBSD-CVS: http://websvn.desktopbsd.net/

(Note: Server is currently under extreme high load! Please wait a bit!)

PC-BSD: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/pcbsd/#dirlist

Best regards, Daniel

Reply Score: 1