Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Oct 2006 19:43 UTC, submitted by Charles A Landemaine
PC-BSD After the flood of Fedora Core 6 and Ubuntu 6.10 reviews, here is a review of PC-BSD 1.3 Beta. "PC-BSD has improved quite a bit and the use of its open-source PBI packaging system is a great idea. Although it obviously means there might be a minor delay in newly released products being ported over to the PBI package system, novice users will rejoice because the wait is well worth it. PC-BSD is a well oiled machine with its quick response times, even if you don't have that much memory in your system. Its implementation of a clean interface is welcomed by me and not having a 3D enabled desktop is not something I really would worry about unless you are an eye-candy lover."
Order by: Score:
Nice review
by TaterSalad on Mon 30th Oct 2006 20:08 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

Pretty good review for a linux site. Like he said, pc-bsd is pretty snappy.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Nice review
by sbergman27 on Tue 31st Oct 2006 01:55 UTC in reply to "Nice review"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The packaging system is going to be the bane of PC-BSD.

They took the expedient way out of that problem, and it will haunt them forever... until they admit that it was the wrong way to go.

It was a way to get something out, right now, that is perceived as "easy".

But mark my words, they will admit it was a mistake later.

The eventual announcement will likely be more like:

"PC-BSD now supports the use of a centralized set of libraries! This allows us to save huge amounts of memory and reduce the bandwidth needed for daily updates! (Aren't we cool?)"

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Nice review
by Joe User on Tue 31st Oct 2006 02:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice review"
RE[3]: Nice review
by sbergman27 on Tue 31st Oct 2006 02:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice review"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""You say that because you're jealous. They were the first to put this into practice and implement the same installation procedure as Windows applications."""

No. I say it because it is true. I do happen to prefer Linux. But I feel that Linux and BSD are brothers and applaud the BSDs when they do cool things like reverse engineer wireless drivers. They are beating our butts on that count.

This PC-BSD packaging thing is just a mistake.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Nice review
by Joe User on Tue 31st Oct 2006 02:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice review"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

This PC-BSD packaging thing is just a mistake.

Is it a mistake for you because of philosophical reasons or because of technical reasons? If it's for technical reasons, this has been discussed a number of times, and there is nothing wrong having several times the same libraries on your system. It just uses a little bit more RAM/HDD, which is a tradeoff they decided to choose, update allows you to have a secure system, and they did the right choice because their PBI system works remarkably good.

What better solution do you suggest instead of their technique, keeping installation like the PBI concept using a self-extracting package for the end user and to solve the dependency nightware of other systems? (DesktopBSD's package system is no-go for Windows and Mac users).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Nice review
by sbergman27 on Tue 31st Oct 2006 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice review"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""Is it a mistake for you because of philosophical reasons or because of technical reasons?"""

Technical, of course. Is there some deep philosophical dimension to all of this that I am missing?

A large, complex OS without shared objects is like a large complex program without functions (or methods or the equilvalent). Sure, you can do it. But it'll be a mess to maintain, and it won't be very efficient.

At any rate, it's no skin off my nose. I've decided to just sit back and wait, and watch as the "no dependencies" crowd figures it out for themselves.

Edited 2006-10-31 14:16

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Nice review
by lazywally on Tue 31st Oct 2006 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice review"
lazywally Member since:
2005-07-06

Its not as simple as saying "you're jealous". You have valid points about ease of software installation but the previous poster is also right about the design/technical deficiencies of the pbi system.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Nice review
by Joe User on Tue 31st Oct 2006 02:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice review"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

the previous poster is also right about the design/technical deficiencies of the pbi system

This discussion goes nowhere... You say it's bad but you fail to explain why. Isn't PC-BSD's system like Windows' or OS X'software installers? Are these wrong? Oh please...

Ok, they're wrong because the user doesn't have to type sudo apt-get install.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Nice review
by molnarcs on Tue 31st Oct 2006 12:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice review"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Well, they blow out of proportions one non-issue: the use of shared libraries. That's the only technical "deficiency" of the PBI system. You see, every PBI is self contained, and there might be a case when two separate programs have to load the same (otherwise shared) library twice. The only drawback of this might be increased memory use. But - as I said, this is not how the system works in reality. This is a theoretical problem that doesn't exist in practice, and those gripe against the PBI system probably never built a single PBI in their life.

In reality, you can safely depend on the presence of certain libraries on ALL PC-BSD installs. This means, that the theoretical problem described above is moot. When I did a Scribus PBI, there wasn't much to include, because it depends on what? Xorg, qt, and I'm not sure about kdelibs. All of these are present on every PC-BSD install. And 90% of every prog I encountered has dependencies present in the "base system" of PC-BSD. The rest, you include in the PBIs. There is a very small chance that you will use progs from that 10%, (well, it's 10%) - and you will have to run multiple of those to "suffer" the consequences: which is, 500K more RAM usage. LOL. So there ya have the "serious" technical issues with the PBI system.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Nice review
by dindin on Tue 31st Oct 2006 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Nice review"
dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

"In reality, you can safely depend on the presence of certain libraries on ALL PC-BSD installs."

The last time I checked they had only Glib library installed and the version that was installed on the base system was conflicting with the version the system wanted to install when I did "pkr_add -r gedit". Then, only glib was installed. Are they now distributing the GTK and Gnome libraries as well?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Nice review
by molnarcs on Tue 31st Oct 2006 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Nice review"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Well, why don't you use FreeBSD? I mean, pkg_add is not the proper way of installing software on PC-BSD. You can, of course use it, just like ports, but then you are not exactly the target audience of PC-BSD. That's what you have to keep in mind. PC-BSD is targeted at users coming from Windows. They don't need gedit, they need a notepad like simple texteditor. PC-BSD comes preinstalled with kwrite.

My point was that most progs ex-windows users will ever need will depend on libraries already present in the base system. Mostly. There will always be exceptions, like the GIMP for instance, but there is a growing application stack based on QT/KDE that would satisfy most ordinary needs. Some of the "killer apps" in the free software world (amarok, scribus, tellico, and soon, koffice) are the easiest to package into PBIs, with very few extra-libs needs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nice review
by Yoke on Tue 31st Oct 2006 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice review"
Yoke Member since:
2005-08-28

The packaging system is going to be the bane of PC-BSD.

They took the expedient way out of that problem


Well, the expedient way might be the only way if your resources are limited. Look at the Debian Policy manual (http://www.us.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/), and you'll realize that proper packaging requires a lot of effort.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Nice review
by sbergman27 on Tue 31st Oct 2006 14:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice review"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""Well, the expedient way might be the only way if your resources are limited."""

Precisely. One day, the PC-BSD devs will come up with their own packaging system that takes advantage of shared objects, or adapt an existing one, and it will be heralded as a huge step forward.

I think that the best way to resolve this disagreement is to simply wait until the problems become so apparent that they cannot be denied anymore. The "No Shared Libraries" crowd will be much more willing to admit there was a problem after they have a solution in hand.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Nice review
by molnarcs on Tue 31st Oct 2006 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice review"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Please stop it! You repeat the same reasoning over and over, completely disregarding the facts (that I have pointed out at least twice now). Stop trolling - because that's what you are doing when you spread misinformation...

For the last time:

PC-BSD's PBIs do use shared libraries. I know, because I have built some in the past (I maintained Scribus and Tellico for a while). When someone builds a PBI, there is a set of libraries that you can expect to be present on ALL PC-BSD installs: xorg and supporting libraries, qt and kdelibs comes to mind. All software that depends on those libs (from amarok through scribus to koffice) will use those libs. There are no kdelibs packaged separately in all PBIs that are built on QT/KDE technology.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

There are only a few cases when extra libraries needs to be included in the PBIs - and the only drawback they have is increased memory usage (due to loading libraries twice), but only if you happen to be running some of these progs in parallel. How much RAM we are talking here? 500K? 2Mb? LOL.


So please stop repeating the same FUD over and over, and folks, please stop modding him up.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Nice review
by sbergman27 on Tue 31st Oct 2006 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice review"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
...

So please stop repeating the same FUD over and over, and folks, please stop modding him up.
"""

As I said in a couple of previous posts, I'm content to just wait to see how successful PBI is, relative to other packaging strategies. I'm guessing "not very". But hey, I could be wrong.

Judging from the bold and the BOLDED CAPS you seem kind of defensive.

Time will tell. No point in invoking the "FUD" acronym and telling people to stop voting in ways that you don't like.

One thing that we have learned in the Linux community is that you can't be rude and expect to be a hit with new users. Judging from your comments, this seems a lesson that BSD has yet to learn.

Chill and enjoy! ;-)

Edited 2006-10-31 22:28

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Nice review
by molnarcs on Tue 31st Oct 2006 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Nice review"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Judging from the bold and the BOLDED CAPS you seem kind of defensive.

Well, I thought it might catch your attention that way ;) Because clearly, you don't understand how PBIs work. Now it is clear that you simply don't want to understand. I gave specific examples in my posts, and yet, you are still at it: trying to convince people that PC-BSD's package management will fail, because they don't use shared libraries - which, as I pointed out numerous times, they actually do.

One thing that we have learned in the Linux community is that you can't be rude and expect to be a hit with new users. Judging from your comments, this seems a lesson that BSD has yet to learn.

This, like so many of your posts, doesn't make any sense. I can't reply with "we, in the BSD community" simply because this is not a sect or something, and I'm not qualified to represent the BSD community as such. It would be a sad day when you could make claims in the name of the linux community without being laughed at ;) Most of the BSD users I personally know are also linux users btw - and so am I (mainly archlinux). Besides, this has nothing to do with linux vs bsd (especially not about the relative wisdom of these communities ;) . Simply I pointed out - using specific examples - that your perception of the PBI system is wrong. You consistently ignored that, and kept repeating the same thing over and over. I consider this trolling. FUD is also an apt term for what you do: you harp about the doom of PC-BSD, while spreading obvious lies about its package management. At first, I gave you the benefit of a doubt that you are simply mistaken, and once you learn how actually PBIs work, you'll stop. Clearly, I was wrong.

Have a nice day.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Nice review
by sbergman27 on Tue 31st Oct 2006 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Nice review"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""Well, I thought it might catch your attention that way ;) """

It did. ;-)

"""I can't reply with "we, in the BSD community" simply because this is not a sect or something, and I'm not qualified to represent the BSD community as such."""

That's reasonable. I was wrong to try to speak for the Linux community. It makes me sound like Eric Raymond and I am suitably embarrassed. ;-)


"""I consider this trolling. FUD is also an apt term for what you do: you harp about the doom of PC-BSD, while spreading obvious lies about its package management."""

Hmmm. Those are harsh words. "Trolling", "FUD". "harp", "lies".

I know more about PBI now than I did at the beginning of this thread. It's not as bad as I thought it was at first. But I think that the BSD folks will be able to come up with something better. Something less source-centric than ports, but less binary-centric than PBI. That's a compliment.

For a few posts now, I have been saying that I am content to wait and watch how well PBI does relative to other package management systems.

Does that clarify matters? Do I still sound like a FUDing, lying, harping troll? ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Nice review
by Joe User on Tue 31st Oct 2006 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Nice review"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

Time will tell. No point in invoking the "FUD" acronym

Yes, it makes a lot of sense, what you're doing is FUD because you're speading lies to have people not to try a new technology. This is plain FUD.

Judging from your comments, this seems a lesson that BSD has yet to learn.

First, he is not being rude, he is being upset about you trolling and spreading FUD. Oh, and you can't judge a community from one of its members. Maybe you don't know that most BSD users are actually Linux users as well.

(however, I'm thinking decisions like this are often made by management and not the Engineers).

The management is made of engineers in case you don't know. Ever heard of Sergey and Larry?

At many times it hasn't worked or has not been available

Don't blame Adobe for you not being able to configure Flash on your Linux box. Damn, you only have to copy two files (flashplayer.xpt, libflashplayer.so) into the .mozilla subdirectory and to restart Firefox.

You're trying to justify your statement with unrelated arguments. Of course it doesn't make sense to use Flash for a troubleshooting section of a web site. This is not the point. The point is that Flash is the best technology to use nowadays for online video if you want to reach the greatest number of people, but you have failed to proove the contrary, and you have also failed to give us an alternative. Should YouTube use Theora Vorbis? LOL (unless they only want to target Linux users)

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Nice review
by sbergman27 on Wed 1st Nov 2006 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Nice review"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""(however, I'm thinking decisions like this are often made by management and not the Engineers).

The management is made of engineers in case you don't know. Ever heard of Sergey and Larry?

At many times it hasn't worked or has not been available

Don't blame Adobe for you not being able to configure Flash on your Linux box. Damn, you only have to copy two files (flashplayer.xpt, libflashplayer.so) into the .mozilla subdirectory and to restart Firefox.

You're trying to justify your statement with unrelated arguments. Of course it doesn't make sense to use Flash for a troubleshooting section of a web site. This is not the point. The point is that Flash is the best technology to use nowadays for online video if you want to reach the greatest number of people, but you have failed to proove the contrary, and you have also failed to give us an alternative. Should YouTube use Theora Vorbis? LOL (unless they only want to target Linux users)"""

Who are you talking to? You start out replying to my statements... and then you go off responding to someone else's posts as if they were mine?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Nice review
by Almindor on Wed 1st Nov 2006 10:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice review"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16


There are only a few cases when extra libraries needs to be included in the PBIs - and the only drawback they have is increased memory usage (due to loading libraries twice), but only if you happen to be running some of these progs in parallel. How much RAM we are talking here? 500K? 2Mb? LOL.


NO!

I'm the creator of LAZARUS PBI. See the forums for more info.

Long story short, if you need a PROGRAM which MAKES OTHER PROGRAMS and they ALL NEED THE LIB you're in a big bad problem.

You can either manualy put your required libraries to global lib directory, risking package/port corruption, or not, making your software work, but not it's products.

Eg: a compiler with IDE, see Lazarus PBI discussion in PCBSD forum. I gave up on PCBSD because of this and KDE (I prefer gnome)

So PRETTY PLEASE, stop spreading sweet ignorance

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Nice review
by Doc Pain on Wed 1st Nov 2006 11:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Nice review"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"You can either manualy put your required libraries to global lib directory, risking package/port corruption, or not, making your software work, but not it's products. "

Would /etc/libmap.conf be a possible solution?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Nice review
by Almindor on Wed 1st Nov 2006 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Nice review"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

Perhaps, but it would be tricky at best, and once again just a hack. I think that the PBIs need to handle this automagicly.

My idea is to add a "global libraries" list into the PBI creator, and also versions. So eg: you fill in "libgtk-12.so" version: "x.y.z".

The PBI would make some dir like /Programs/GlobLibs/libname/libversion and map it.

Uninstallation would be like in window (lib xx is not used by any other software, do you wisht to remove it?).

This would be clean solution which should work, but I'm sure there are hidden pitfalls as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nice review
by molnarcs on Tue 31st Oct 2006 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice review"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

There are centralized set of libraries in the system. It is very obvcious that you have no idea how the PBI system works.

I no longer have the time to build PBIs, but I did a few (scribus, tellico, some kde themes) a few months ago - and you could safely depend on the set of libraries that comes with the base system. In other words, you obviously don't have to package all the qt/kdelibs stuff when you do a scribus PBI, because you can depend on the presence of those on every PC-BSD system (the same with xorg and related packages).

So, the problem is moot... yeah, there will be some duplications, but how many exactly? Almost all important shared libraries are present in the base install, and PC-BSD is a noob oriented distro, so the average PC-BSD user won't "make deinstall" random components of the system. So you blow this issue out of proportions... what's your gripe with PC-BSD?

Reply Score: 2

Was that a review?
by ElectricDevil on Mon 30th Oct 2006 20:22 UTC
ElectricDevil
Member since:
2006-08-22

To me it looked like a quick read up you read to catch up with the latest events. Kind of when you read the back of a popular book just in case the topic will arise at a party.

None the less, it's nice to see PC-BSD on the rise to something really good.
As a regular user I like the no-hassle installation of apps with PBI, and as a sys admin I like the ability to deploy a pretty competent server i no time.

Reply Score: 3

Good operating system
by cmost on Mon 30th Oct 2006 20:28 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

I've played with PC-BSD since it was in a pre-1.0 release and I found it excellent. Among the *NIX's, I actually prefer BSD, but I need to have easy-to-use virtualization a la VMware or Parallels. As soon as one of these is ported to the BSD's, i'll probably switch from GNU/Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good operating system
by antik on Mon 30th Oct 2006 21:59 UTC in reply to "Good operating system"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

virtualization a la VMware or Parallels
Qemu PBI is ready for PC-BSD and ships even with GUI: http://forums.pcbsd.org/viewtopic.php?t=5361

Win4BSD Pro Desktop allows FreeBSD/PC-BSD users to run Windows applications and desktop from the safety and security of their BSD desktop.
http://www.win4bsd.com

Edited 2006-10-30 22:00

Reply Score: 5

h3rman
Member since:
2006-08-09

Linux operating systems shouldn't get lazy, bloated or buggy (I'm not saying they do, but well, it's tempting, if you know you're so good, to sit back, after all ;) ), so it's great to have a BSD system that is fast, solid, and appealing to new *n*x users, who just want to have a productive system, easy to set up and use.

If mainstream mass user Linux feels this very promising competition, both Linux (more impetus for making an OS just as solid as BSD) and the BSDs (more impetus for providing all the nice features that the Linuxes have) will profit.

Reply Score: 2

PC-BSD, PBI, etc
by animus on Tue 31st Oct 2006 04:14 UTC
animus
Member since:
2005-11-29

I haven't used PC-BSD since the 1.1 release. I wasn't so keen on that release because: a) there was less software to choose from; b) many of the PBIs on pbidir.com were flaky (the gimp one with no jpeg support, or the screwy xmms one with no mp3 support); and c) the system seemed to do things a lot slower than a regular FreeBSD installation (eg: playing video resulted in more frames dropped -- vs vanilla FreeBSD + gnome).

However, I'm imagining some of these things have been fixed since then, and the general idea of the distro is probably pretty good for your average windows user that isn't used to Unixy stuff.

The PBI system for packaging is okay for what they're trying to do. I still prefer the centralized FreeBSD packaging system as the quality and selection is still a bit better. At the moment there isn't really any solution to great packaging systems. Yeah, we can talk about how great the debian/ubuntu system is, but last time I upgraded my ubuntu system (which was a year or so ago) a bunch of random things broke (like sound in xmms)... which is what lead to me installing PC-BSD in the first place.

Reply Score: 2

The PBI system
by pcbsdusr on Tue 31st Oct 2006 08:28 UTC
pcbsdusr
Member since:
2006-01-23

It is true there are some technical issues that need solving but the easy way for users is the right way.

The problem with shipping with full dependencies comes from open source software.

In closed source software rarely do companies use shared libraries as they are plagued by copyright and patent issues.

Open source on the other hand is all about sharing. This means most projects use shared libraries. Now this is not te actual problem. The problem is library writers keep breaking compatibility with older versions as new ones ship. Aditionally, there seems to be no teamwork from the library maintainers and app maintainers to do joint testing before libraries ship.

This means the shared library maintainer will work on the library to achieve whichever his goals are (for his app) and releases it even if it breaks other apps using it. This is bad.

I see some ways out of this.

1- Lib maintainers and lib users work together and libs take a little bit longer to release but keep backwards compatibility.

2- Libs start being named with full version number "libblabla2.2.3.4" so they can be used side by side with different versions and app maintainersupgrade when they are ready.

3- Something like GoboLinux

4- PBI

Dependencies are not an option, this issue must be killed.


Having said this, the PBIs are the best end user experience so far when well built. notice this is sometimes hard as some apps are just nasty either because legal reasons or technical.

But as i agree the PBIs aren't perfect YET, i think PC-BSD is on the right way...

Reply Score: 2

I just don't get it...
by nullpt on Tue 31st Oct 2006 10:22 UTC
nullpt
Member since:
2006-10-20

All of you who say PC-BSD sucks because the design of the package system doesn't use a share libs design can go take a walk outside and cool for a bit. The PBI's are for persons who probably don't even know what a lib or a dependency is. If you want to optimize your software usage under PC-BSD just use ports and leave PBI behind.

Reply Score: 5

RE: I just don't get it...
by Doc Pain on Tue 31st Oct 2006 11:20 UTC in reply to "I just don't get it..."
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"The PBI's are for persons who probably don't even know what a lib or a dependency is."

For me, the PBI system seems to be good solution for PC-BSD users with smaller experiences in computer administration. It's okay so.

"If you want to optimize your software usage under PC-BSD just use ports and leave PBI behind."

PC-BSD offers various ways to maintain software (e. g xmms):

1. PBI system
Enough said, just click on "xmms". :-)


2. Ported applications (ports collection)

a) Use "old fashioned" way:
# cd /usr/ports/multimedia/xmms/
# make install
# make clean

b) Use helper programs:
# cd /usr/ports/
# portinstall -pp -P multimedia/xmms

Note: Use "make update" to get up-to-date ports collection; know targets "fetch", "extract", "patch" and "package" as well.


3. Pre-compiled packages
# pkg_add -r xmms && pkgdb -aF


4. Build from (external) source
(insert tar xjf and cd commands here)
# ./configure
# make
# make install

So you have the choice. You can do everything a "real" FreeBSD can PLUS using the PBI system.

I took a look to the 1.3 Beta. Wow, not bad! Runs with ATI Radeon, bktr0 and stuff. Even on "older" hardware. (Imagine what's "older" x86 hardware on your own.)

But... not so good... german I18N, "as usual"... :-( Admitted... most german users won't notice because we have a high rate of (functional) illeratatism here; many people have certain problems on language issues.

(Personally, I prefer a "normal" FreeBSD with WindowMaker GUI and in english please - because the german I18N is too bad to use.)

Edited 2006-10-31 11:23

Reply Score: 2

RE: I just don't get it...
by Brandybuck on Tue 31st Oct 2006 15:00 UTC in reply to "I just don't get it..."
Brandybuck Member since:
2006-08-27

Why is this an either-or situation? You don't solve the dependency problem by banning dependencies. Windows can use local per-app DLLs, but mostly shared libaries are installed in shareable locations. And Windows users deal with this just fine. Even though they "don't even know what a lib or dependency is"! Really!

You can have your one-click installs AND shared libraries at the same time.

p.s. Class exercise: multiply the number of executables on the system by the size of all shared libraries present.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I just don't get it...
by sbergman27 on Tue 31st Oct 2006 15:08 UTC in reply to "RE: I just don't get it..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""Why is this an either-or situation? You don't solve the dependency problem by banning dependencies."""

I commend you on your sanity. OK. Maybe sanity is something that we can take for granted of the participants in *most* threads on OSNews. (And then again... maybe not.) But in this one, it is definitely worth noting. ;-)

Edited 2006-10-31 15:08

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I just don't get it...
by molnarcs on Tue 31st Oct 2006 19:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I just don't get it..."
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Actually, you completely missed the point of Brandybuck's post:

You can have your one-click installs AND shared libraries at the same time.

Actually that's how PBIs work - and I say this as a ex-PBI maintainer (no time these days). PBIs are a nice way of avoiding the user-visible dependency part of package management, while relying on those libraries that are expected to be present on all PC-BSD installs. For example, I didn't have to include kdelibs/qt (and all suppported libraries) in the Scribus PBI. No matter how many times you repeat the same lines over and over, PBIs is not an either/or solution. Do some math: the openoffice PBI is 93Mb. How large it would be if you included every library that it needs? It doesn't, because it assumes the presence of certain libraries (like xorg). Yes, PBI's are more self-contained than regular RPM or DEB packages, because you have the ability to include libs that are not necessarily included in the default install, but that doesn't mean - like you erroneusly assume - that they banned dependencies. Having a PC-BSD system installed is a dependency itself if you think of it, and almost all progs present on a PC-BSD install can be relied on when you build PBIs.

Reply Score: 4

still no easy drivers
by unixtourist on Tue 31st Oct 2006 11:50 UTC
unixtourist
Member since:
2006-08-11

THIS is the bane of BSD systems in general.
NO easy way to install FLASH(even flash 7)
NO easy way to install java though i managed before.
On their site a lookup of flash produces a whole
lot of conflicting and wrong advice.

Opensolaris (nexenta) is straightforward by comparison.

The good news is that gnash is getting near another major release..maybe it will work on bsd..and java will
soon be totally open soursce(maybe).

The bad news is that these are two KEY things needed for a successful desktop and until they are easily installible i will stick to linux and maybe nexenta.

Also amule pbi file was unstable and crashed ..
the pbi quality control seems poor..

Edited 2006-10-31 11:51

Reply Score: 1

RE: still no easy drivers
by Joe User on Tue 31st Oct 2006 12:28 UTC in reply to "still no easy drivers"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

NO easy way to install FLASH(even flash 7)
NO easy way to install java though i managed before.
On their site a lookup of flash produces a whole
lot of conflicting and wrong advice.


Did you have a look at their software web site? They have all you mentioned (java, flash player). You can install those as easily as on windows and on the mac.

Where did you see "a whole lot of conflicting and wrong advice"?

When you start critisizing without knowing, people start laughing at you.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: still no easy drivers
by unixtourist on Tue 31st Oct 2006 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE: still no easy drivers"
unixtourist Member since:
2006-08-11

I saw it on their forums dude..

I have been using pc-bsd for a LONG time and am no newbie

so how do I install Java System wide(not just on one version of firefo?)? I mean complete applet and stand-alone. BSD comes with many versions
of java..but not as pbis and most are useless for
the average user..

Here's a thread that gives u a taste
"flash, what are your ways around it?"

another "sign the flash on bsd petition"

another

"add flash to opera ports"

Maybe u see a pattern now?
In some cases using ports linux compatibity
applications is suggested..but is this easy?
I have tried and it is often buggy.

Oh you do know there is firefox 2 and Opera don't you?

I'm sorry if the truth hurts..but I call 'em
as I see 'em

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: still no easy drivers
by Joe User on Tue 31st Oct 2006 13:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: still no easy drivers"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

I know Flash is not available for BSD, but they do offer a Flash PBI. It's also normal to sign a petition to have Flash ported to BSD. Nothing wrong about that.

Also, I see 2 versions of Java available. Are there others that are not listed?

Oh you do know there is firefox 2 and Opera don't you? I'm sorry if the truth hurts..but I call 'em
as I see 'em


Yes, I know there is firefox 2 and Opera, but I don't understand why you say this.

Reply Score: 1

RE: still no easy drivers
by Brandybuck on Tue 31st Oct 2006 15:03 UTC in reply to "still no easy drivers"
Brandybuck Member since:
2006-08-27

Don't blame the lack of Flash on BSD, blame Macromedia. They're they one's who first declared it to be illegal under BSD, then later announced they would never ever make a BSD version.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: still no easy drivers
by sbergman27 on Tue 31st Oct 2006 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE: still no easy drivers"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""They're they one's who first declared it to be illegal under BSD,"""

Could you elaborate on that a bit? I seem to have missed that whole business. I'm used to stuff being declared illegal under GPL by various parties for their own reasons... but BSD???

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: still no easy drivers
by Doc Pain on Tue 31st Oct 2006 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE: still no easy drivers"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Macromedia doesn't like do publish a free definition of their "Flash" format. That's the problem. I think, thatt there are many developers out there who would love to implement "Flash" plugins and players - but they can't.

Let's take a look on the ports collection (remember, it can be used in PC-BSD like I mentioned before):

graphics/flashplayer - GPL standalone Flash (TM) player
graphics/libflash - GPL Flash (TM) Library
www/flashplugin - An implementation of Macromedia Flash plugin for Netscape
www/flashplugin-mozilla - A GPL standalone Flash (TM) plugin for Mozilla web browser
www/linux-flashplugin7 - Adobe Flash Player NPAPI Plugin
www/xpi-flashblock - Replaces Flash objects with a button you can click to view them (GOOD IDEA!)

So "no support" isn't correct. Complicated support would be better. :-)

Furthermore, there are some procedures to include "Flash" support in Firefox or Mozilla - these ones are in german, sorry ("mit" = with).

Title: "BSD:Firefox mit Flash-Plugin" - http://wiki.uugrn.org/wiki/BSD:Firefox_mit_Flash-Plugin

Title: "FreeBSD - Mozilla mit Java- und Flashsupport" - http://wiki.unixboard.de/index.php/FreeBSD_-_Mozilla_mit_Java-_und_...

But... why are people so keen about "Flash"? It makes it impossible for disabled (blind) people to even enter a web page or gaining information on what the page is about. (Friendly reminder: "Flash" is no substitute for HTML, kids!) Isn't this stupid? Haven't (yet?) found a need for "Flash" for myself...

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: still no easy drivers
by Joe User on Tue 31st Oct 2006 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: still no easy drivers"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

This is not because you don't like Flash that you should ban us from it. I like watching Flash movies once in a while. Not everybody uses Flash for navigation menus. Flash used properly (for videos) is not evil at all. Blind people won't be able to watch these, but what can we do? Ban Flash as a sympathy?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: still no easy drivers
by Doc Pain on Tue 31st Oct 2006 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: still no easy drivers"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"This is not because you don't like Flash that you should ban us from it."

I don't do this. You're nearly correct in one point: It's not that I don't like "Flash", it's just that I don't care about it because I have no use for it. Seems that you have, as you pointed out.

"I like watching Flash movies once in a while."

Wouldn't you prefer to watch the same movies in a standard format, maybe MPEG? They could be watched on any platform that supports this standard.

"Not everybody uses Flash for navigation menus. "

At least. But I could name you a few web pages that carry no viewable content if you havent't got "Flash" - simple blank pages.

"Flash used properly (for videos) is not evil at all."

I didn't say so. But - in my opinion - it's not necessary to have videos in "Flash" format when you can have them a cross-platform standard format. You even can have videos animated GIFs... So, "Flash" really is not evil, it's simply useless (to me). :-)

"Blind people won't be able to watch these, but what can we do? Ban Flash as a sympathy?"

No, you don't see the point. My advice: Use everything for what it's good for. What is "Flash" good for that doesn't exist already in better and standardized quality? Excuse me, I really don't know what "Flash" could be needed for. Blame me for lack of experience, I'm an "old fashioned" mainframe guy. :-) Just imagine how you would handle (handcrafting) tools. Of course you can hammer a nail into the wall using a screwdriver (or at least its grip), but wouldn't you prefer a hammer if you have one?

If you like, explain to me the necessarity of "Flash", allthough it might be seen as too far off-topic.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: still no easy drivers
by sbergman27 on Tue 31st Oct 2006 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: still no easy drivers"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""If you like, explain to me the necessarity of "Flash", allthough it might be seen as too far off-topic."""

The real need for Flash is that it is much better than animated GIFs at distracting the user and causing them to notice the advertisement at the top of the page... and in the bottom right corner, and in the left sidebar, and in the top left corner, and in the right sidebar, and the one above it in the right sidebar, and at the bottom, and in the iframe that floats by in the middle of the page.

I just cannot believe that *anyone* (especially an OSNews reader, as OSNews.com has a particular affinity for Flash ads), in this day and age, could ask what Flash is good for.

Sheesh! ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: still no easy drivers
by netpython on Tue 31st Oct 2006 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: still no easy drivers"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Well i don't see the use either for flash other than advertisements.An utter waste of bandwith.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: still no easy drivers
by Doc Pain on Wed 1st Nov 2006 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: still no easy drivers"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"The real need for Flash is that it is much better than animated GIFs at distracting the user and causing them to notice the advertisement at the top of the page... and in the bottom right corner, and in the left sidebar, and in the top left corner, and in the right sidebar, and the one above it in the right sidebar, and at the bottom, and in the iframe that floats by in the middle of the page."

I know such things from a study about ADHD (attention deficite and hyperactivity disorder, ICD-10 F90.1) I did a few years ago. You simply cannot set attention to more than one target. So, using "Flash" ads, you could completely distract the attention from any possible content of a web page, when the "Flash" ad is not the content. (For video pages, "Flash" videos may be the content as you are able to see them.)

This may lead even people that are not suffering from ADHD to loose attention and finally interest on such pages. That would be sad, especially in the case thatt the content is interesting and / or important in fact.

Finally, it could lead to a pathological development of an ADHD type disease. People won't be able (!) to see the content even if it beats their heads. :-)

Even some UIs use these strategies with blinking and squaking buttons, funny animals jumping around and message bubbles floating over the desktop. :-)

"I just cannot believe that *anyone* (especially an OSNews reader, as OSNews.com has a particular affinity for Flash ads), in this day and age, could ask what Flash is good for."

I don't see "Flash" ads here, and the OSNews isn't blocked by "Flash" stuff. Or did I misunderstand you? (English is not my native language, so please don't blame me.)

Furthermore, there are no silly questions, there are only silly answers. Yours not included. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: still no easy drivers
by Joe User on Tue 31st Oct 2006 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: still no easy drivers"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

Ever wondered why all video web sites (Google Video, YouTube, BlueMontain, etc...) use Flash instead of MPEG? Because Flash is present on every computer. Period.

MPEG doesn't work on every computer, especially Linux (default installation without codecs). For Linux, if you don't want to use Flash, you need to use .ogg but then it doesn't work in 99% of Windows computers because users don't have the free .ogg codec installed.

So the best solution is Flash for online video.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: still no easy drivers
by Doc Pain on Wed 1st Nov 2006 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: still no easy drivers"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Ever wondered why all video web sites (Google Video, YouTube, BlueMontain, etc...) use Flash instead of MPEG? Because Flash is present on every computer. Period."

Excuse me, but that's not true and you (should) know this. It can't be true because "Flash" is not available for every computer OS platform, please consider especially non-"Windows" and non-Linux platforms. Maybe "Flash" is present on some or even many computers, but not on all. Be careful using all-quantified statements - only one example against it will evaluate the statement the sentence as untrue.

I'd like to see the following solution: If "Flash" is availabe, use it. If not, display a "Download Video as MPEG" button (on the same page!) instead. That would be great and would lead Google Video, YouTube, BlueMontain etc. to even more success and polularity. These services sould be available not just for "Windows" users, but for everyone.

"MPEG doesn't work on every computer, especially Linux (default installation without codecs)."

As far as I know - I am no Linux user, so I can't tell exactly - players like mplayer come with MPEG codecs. Default installations (like KDE or Gnome desktop environments), as they are used by many Linux distributions, seem to include MPEG codes, as well as other video formats. I'd be glad to have a corresponding statement from a Linux user.

Even non-Linux systems support MPEG, some of them even out of the box. So far, your statement, except the Linux part, is true.

"For Linux, if you don't want to use Flash, you need to use .ogg but then it doesn't work in 99% of Windows computers because users don't have the free .ogg codec installed."

This is a problem of MICROS~1. The OGG/Vorbis standard is widely used and the specifications are free. But I'm sure you can install the codecs if you want.

"So the best solution is Flash for online video."

No, it definitely isn't, as I was able to proof. Read carefully, please. (And I know, my english is not the best one, but it should serve here.)

As I mentioned, a "mixed solution" would be better - the alternative (but combined) use of "Flash" and a standard (!) format.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: still no easy drivers
by Joe User on Wed 1st Nov 2006 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: still no easy drivers"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

Are you stupid? This is the last time I repeat my self:

Excuse me, but that's not true and you (should) know this. It can't be true because "Flash" is not available for every computer

Yes, Flash is on every computer because every computer nowadays is connected to the Internet, and you can hardly use the Internet without Flash. So the first thing you do when you set up a new computer is install Flash. Flash is available for Windows, OS X and Linux at least. So this accounts for 99% of computers.

I'd like to see the following solution: If "Flash" is availabe, use it. If not, display a "Download Video as MPEG" button

Ok, but this doesn't solve your problem. A platform that doesn't support Flash isn't legally allowed to use the MPEG codec because of software patent. If you use MPEG on Linux/BSD, you are outlaw. Ever wondered why MPlayer codecs are hosted in Hungary?

That would be great and would lead Google Video, YouTube, BlueMontain etc. to even more success and polularity.

This would account for the 1% of users who use MS-DOS, and Google and YouTube are right not to care. They are companies made to make money, and they shouldn't bother, not to mention the overhead of having 2x more disk space used for just 1% of users.

players like mplayer come with MPEG codecs

Yes, but this is illegal in most countries. AFAIK, these codecs can only be legally used only on commercial OSes.

Even non-Linux systems support MPEG, some of them even out of the box.

Yes, but non-Linux systems (and Linux systems) have Flash (because people install it), so I don't see any benefit offering MPEG.

This is a problem of MICROS~1. The OGG/Vorbis standard is widely used and the specifications are free. But I'm sure you can install the codecs if you want.

Please, this is not MS's problem. Although Ogg Vorbis is excellent, MS doesn't give a f#ck. This is the user's problem. Of course you can install the codecs because they're free, but don't people install them? Because no web site uses them! Why should you bother installing codecs is virtually no web site uses them? Do you understand? I haven't seen any computer user installing Vorbis codecs.

As I mentioned, a "mixed solution" would be better

You know you're wrong. How can a web site like YouTube double its disk space just for less than 1% of its user base? This doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. They chose Flash and they were right. If they had to offer an alternative, it could be .ogg, but definately not a proprietary patented format like MPEG that you are not allowed to use on free OSes in countries like the USA.

Reply Score: 1

RE: still no easy drivers
by BluenoseJake on Tue 31st Oct 2006 16:29 UTC in reply to "still no easy drivers"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

FreeBSD has a java distribution license, so that is no longer a problem.

Flash remains a problem, but not a showstopper, IMHO, as most flash is annoying.

Nexenta driver support is not any better than FreeBSD's, I've had no problem installing FreeBSD/PC-BSD on any system in my house, but have not had the same luck with Nexenta, could be because it's beta, let's hope so.

Reply Score: 2

Flash & Java
by animus on Tue 31st Oct 2006 19:04 UTC
animus
Member since:
2005-11-29

Both flash and java were easy to setup on PC-BSD the last time I did it -- as easy or easier than they would be on windows. Flash is a little bit harder to setup on vanilla FreeBSD if you want support in natively compiled browsers because you have to piss around with a plugin wrapper and patching & recompiling some other thing. It's a nuisance.

In my opinion there are very few things that truly need flash. In fact homestarrunner.com is the only thing I can think of at the moment. I loathe flash and only idiots make their site needlessly dependent upon it. The fact that so many corporate or professional sites use flash is somewhat alarming.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Flash & Java
by Joe User on Tue 31st Oct 2006 19:19 UTC in reply to "Flash & Java"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

I loathe flash and only idiots make their site needlessly dependent upon it.

YouTube and Google Video relies on Flash. Are their software engineers "idiots"?

Reply Score: 0

Following the style trends
by Endica on Tue 31st Oct 2006 20:28 UTC
Endica
Member since:
2006-07-07

I knew the Windows 95 style command buttons would get trendy again! PC-BSD is a true pacesetter in modern system appearance.

Reply Score: 2

KDE
by eggman on Tue 31st Oct 2006 21:12 UTC
eggman
Member since:
2006-05-09

KDE is still ugly as sin. How long could it possibly take you to copy OS X or Vista (or hell, Windows 95)?

Reply Score: 1

RE: KDE
by Doc Pain on Wed 1st Nov 2006 09:27 UTC in reply to "KDE"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"KDE is still ugly as sin. How long could it possibly take you to copy OS X or Vista (or hell, Windows 95)?"

Can't KDE be set to look like OS X, "Vista" or "Windows 95"? :-)

You may switch to WindowMaker, Enlightenmend, XFCE (3 or 4), Blackbox, IceWM or even fvwm95, if you like. They can be used with PC-BSD as well. The choice is yours.

KDE as the default desktop environment seems to state thatt PC-BSD is targetet as ex-"Windows" users primarily. If you don't need a desktop environment, but prefer an accurate window manager, you should simply chance it. It's not that it's impossible like in "Windows". :-) And if you removed KDE, you'll have a lot more disk space available.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Flash & Java
by animus on Tue 31st Oct 2006 22:22 UTC
animus
Member since:
2005-11-29

YouTube and Google Video relies on Flash. Are their software engineers "idiots"?

Let's recap for you -- I said: "[...] only idiots make their site needlessly dependent upon it." Do you see the word 'needlessly'? If either Google Video or YouTube could have been done better (or even as good) without flash, then I'd conclude that yes, they are idiots (however, I'm thinking decisions like this are often made by management and not the Engineers).

I haven't ran Windows in about 7 years now, and my experience with Flash has been less than enjoyable (on Linux, the BSDs, etc). At many times it hasn't worked or has not been available -- certain times I've needed access to important information on various websites only to discover they were flash only. Tell me, why did my [old] ISP need a website that is entirely made with flash? I'm thinking it didn't, and that falls under the category of "needlessly" using flash. How useful is a troubleshooting website made with flash? Did they really gain anything over using basic HTML?

Try going a year or two without flash and you'll quickly discover the number of websites that are are using it for stupid reasons -- and what can you conclude about their creators? They're either idiots, ignorant, or purely negligent. 80% of the time it's not the right tool for the job and shouldn't be used just because it can be used.

Reply Score: 1