Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Jul 2007 21:11 UTC, submitted by kwag
PC-BSD The first beta of PC-BSD 1.4 has been released. "After months of hard work, the PC-BSD team is pleased to make available the 1.4 BETA release. This version includes many exciting new features and software, such as 3D desktop support via Beryl, KDE 3.5.7, FreeBSD 6.2, Xorg 7.2, new GUI tools & utilities, and much more." Get it from the download page.
Order by: Score:
Wow!
by cmost on Sat 21st Jul 2007 21:44 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Who knew that FreeBSD could be so user friendly and accessible to newbies. I first looked at this OS way back at version 1.0 and it was amazing even then. If things keep progressing, then PC-BSD may prove to be an attractive option to Linux refugees when the patent wars begin to heat up and Microsoft's meddling begins to pit the Linux community against itself. I'll be keeping an eye on this one. Others may wish to do the same.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Wow!
by Joe User on Sat 21st Jul 2007 21:54 UTC in reply to "Wow!"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

People don't choose a system according to legal issues, only companies do. Heck, people even pirate Windows, so they don't care if Linux has legal battles with MICROS~1 or not. The problem is that all these distros look the same. Try PCBSD, try Ubuntu, try PCLinuxOS, etc... They're all the same thing. They share the same drawbacks and advantages.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Wow!
by OSGuy on Sat 21st Jul 2007 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow!"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Yes the desktop is the same BUT the base isn't. They also do things their own way. With PC-BSD you install programs like you do in Windows. The good thing is, you can download the setup (PBI) file from ANY web location and then save it anywhere on your disk and install it from that location. With other systems such as Synaptic, what would happen if the "requested" server is down and you want the file right now? Ok ok, I know you have different servers but this is just an example. It also puts files all over the place because that's how normally is....With PBI, you have all your programs in one location called "Program Files"....ooops, I mean "Programs".

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Wow!
by n0xx on Sat 21st Jul 2007 23:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow!"
n0xx Member since:
2005-07-12

http://autopackage.org/
http://www.getdeb.net/
http://rpmfind.net/
http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages

Those actually do it the right way (the same can't be said about PBIs), cause none of those packages duplicates dependencies left and right which is kind of a nasty security issue. In an ordinary Gnome desktop, every installed application is listed in the applications menu.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Wow!
by Doc Pain on Sat 21st Jul 2007 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow!"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Those actually do it the right way (the same can't be said about PBIs), cause none of those packages duplicates dependencies left and right which is kind of a nasty security issue."

Don't confuse PC-BSD's PBI packages with the precompiled packages you can use in FreeBSD (and the same way in PC-BSD, too).

PC-BSD offers three kinds of installing applications:

1. PBI (recommended way)

Download, doubleclick, click, click... done.

2. Packages (very comfortable)

# pkg_add -r xmms

3. Ports (when compiling from source is intended or needed in order to compile with certain options)

# cd /usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer
# ee Makefile.local
...
# make install

Numbers 2 and 3 are not consistent with number 1, so be careful and know what you're doing.

" In an ordinary Gnome desktop, every installed application is listed in the applications menu."

PC-BSD is very KDE centric, but the installed PBI applications are listed in a special submenu. Applications installed by ports or packages need to be installed into the menu manually, if I remember correctly.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Wow!
by n0xx on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow!"
n0xx Member since:
2005-07-12

I wasn't confusing precompiled packages with PBIs. On Ubuntu, installing DEBs is as easy as intalling PBIs (double click, pass, ckick, done) except PBIs are bad. Saying that PBIs are nice because it makes the whole installation process easier is like saying that running as root all the time makes the installation process easier. It does indeed, but at the expense of security... without even mentioning the inefficiency and redundancy.

http://autopackage.org/

Autopackage a Linux distro agnostic package system is far superior to PBI, because it checks for dependencies and installs them using the your distro native package manager. Hence Autopackage is much more secure.

However nobody uses Autopackage because you can install stuff using repositories, which is much more convenient than having to search the internet for stuff. Period. If you think otherwise than either you've never used Ubuntu and its "Add/Remove Programs" tool or Synaptic more than once, or your part of that 0.001% of the population that thinks that installing stuff from repos is a bad idea, special when you can select alternate download mirrors with a click.

Hell, even clueless noobs say that being able to install apps and perform system wide upgrades from within an application is the way to go. Oh well...

2. Packages (very comfortable)

Standard issue on every distro, nothing to see here.

3. Ports (when compiling from source is intended or needed in order to compile with certain options)


Gentoo does that. It's a meta distribution, which means that you can stick it on top of your distro of choice, although i really have no clue if it will handle dependencies correctly (eg if it integrates with you distro native package management tool).

So yeah... I'll give some credit do FreeBSD. I'm definitely gonna try it out this summer. To bad PC-BSD doesn't support Gnome, otherwise I'd stick to that. Linux has many flaws, god knows it has... You can say that the lack of standard directory structure, package management tools, console administrative tools among other things are enough to drive a man insane. But you can't say it's hard do install stuff on Linux.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Wow!
by Core Duo on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 01:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow!"
Core Duo Member since:
2007-06-24

installing DEBs is as easy as intalling PBIs (double click, pass, ckick, done)

This is easier for you but not for everybody. Not for me at least.

except PBIs are bad

If it were bad, the software developers wouldn't have invented it, they would have designed it differently. Also, it would be spread everywhere that it's bad. It's not the case, people are loving it.

It does indeed, but at the expense of security.

Why? Applications are run as user, like on Debian (not as root)

Autopackage a Linux distro agnostic package system is far superior to PBI, because it checks for dependencies and installs them using the your distro native package manager. Hence Autopackage is much more secure.

You didn't explain why it's more secure. Because it uses the package manager? That doesn't make it more secure. And PBIs already have dependencies so the job is already done, no need to look for them. So you don't have to be connected to the Internet to install an application. And it doesn't make a PBI insecure.

you can install stuff using repositories, which is much more convenient than having to search the internet for stuff. Period.

You seem to be the kind of Linux nazi who doesn't agree/accept that some people have different tastes and feelings. If you think having to use Synaptic, YaST, Adept or whatever tool to install applications, fine. But there are people who just don't want to use that.

If you think otherwise than either you've never used Ubuntu and its "Add/Remove Programs" tool or Synaptic more than once

I'm pretty confident that 90%+ of PC-BSD users have used it, they mention these tools all the time on the forum. They all ask the differences between Linux and BSD, and *many* of them are also Ubuntu users. I am one of them, since Hoary.

But you can't say it's hard do install stuff on Linux.

Yes I can. I have a hard time to do it, especially when you have to deal with applications of the non-free and multiverse repos. Please bear with me, I'm not a software developer.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Wow!
by n0xx on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 03:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow!"
n0xx Member since:
2005-07-12

This is easier for you but not for everybody. Not for me at least.

Lol, ok then... the hard part must be clicking on a button labeled forward. How can you say its harder if the damn interface is nearly identical? I dunno how it was back on horay, but ever since dapper came along that installing stuff on Ubuntu without the repos has basically been a forward forward forward issue.

Why? Applications are run as user, like on Debian (not as root)
...
You didn't explain why it's more secure

I'm sorry, iill try to explain the best I can. It goes like this:

You install a program via PBI. That program needs a library to run... a library is a piece of software that provides functionality to other pieces of software. The problem with PBIs is that in order to achieve the kind of forward forward forward forward installation simplicity, the guys at PC-BSD have chosen to install every dependency (every library, every application) on the same package. The problem with this approach is not as much one of PBEKAC, as it is a legitimate security threat: If someone finds a vulnerability on any of those ghost dependencies that where installed along with the PBI, the whole system can be compromised. Worst than that, the system updater doesn't apply security fixes to these ghost dependencies. So even if your system-updater fixes your systems lib-gtk2.8, your still pretty much in jeopardy cause every single application you installed with PBIs that uses that lib will still put yout system in jeopardy. This, is why I don't like PBIs.


And PBIs already have dependencies so the job is already done, no need to look for them.

That's the problem. And btw, Ubuntu users don't search for deps. At least I don't.

You seem to be the kind of Linux nazi who doesn't agree/accept that some people have different tastes and feelings. If you think having to use Synaptic, YaST, Adept or whatever tool to install applications, fine. But there are people who just don't want to use that.

Dude, i've used Windows 3.1->vista, DOS, Linux, BeOS and QNX. I've also played with various classic mac Systems (7,8,9), with the classic Amiga, Windows 2003, Hackintosh and Free/Net/OpenBSD. I'm not a Linux nazi, I'm an Operating System Nazi. And damn me if i wont get an OS running on your computer! ;) Seriously now, it's my firm belief that the Ubuntu way is the right way. IMHO, having a texbox 2 clicks away that finds what you want is mathematically simpler than having to browse web pages to find the exact same thing, plus installing. Less clicks, less distance traveled by the mouse. Less environmental variables to consider (eg Is this a trustworthy site?) Basically, more convenient. Period. (I'm gonna get so moded down for my arrogance but boy it tastes so damn sweet right now).

Yes I can. I have a hard time to do it, especially when you have to deal with applications of the non-free and multiverse repos. Please bear with me, I'm not a software developer.

Yeah, the pain of clicking two check boxes. Oh the humanity! ;) Seriously now, I haven't touched Horray for ages... I think you should consider an upgrade to dapper. If not edgy. Like i said, FreeBSD is cool. PBI, at least to my knowledge, its not. I like gnome, otherwise I'd install PC-BSD... Btw (since this discussion is getting kind of cool) How does it compare to Linux in terms of response to stress?

Reply Score: 4

RE[8]: Wow!
by bubbayank on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 07:00 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Wow!"
bubbayank Member since:
2005-07-15

Your knowledge of "security" is quite entertaining.

PBIs are in no way inherently insecure. If there's a vulnerability, you get a new PBI.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow!
by bsdimp on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 05:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow!"
bsdimp Member since:
2007-02-23

One big difference between FreeBSD and any Linux distribution is that the base is completely standardized. This eliminates many of the dependency issues that you see with different linux distributions. The ports system takes care of it, and the packaging of the ports do handle all the dependencies correctly.

While there's a crying need for autopackage in the Linux work, the uniformity of the FreeBSD deployed base makes it unnecessary there.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Wow!
by Doc Pain on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow!"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"One big difference between FreeBSD and any Linux distribution is that the base is completely standardized. This eliminates many of the dependency issues that you see with different linux distributions."

You're completely correct. While Linux comes in many distributions, FreeBSD (and so PC-BSD) are only one distribution. FreeBSD and PC-BSD share the same core OS, while FreeBSD is "just the OS" and PC-BSD is "the OS with KDE, preconfiguration and some system related tools". Furthermore, PC-BSD extended the ways of installing software (packages, ports) with their own PBI system, but it does not force you to use it, as I have explained before (allthough it's recommended).

One disadvantage of PBI can be seen as follows: It consumes more space because dependent libraries are installed twice or more, specific to each application. Library update requires application updates of the applications refered to before. But because we have enough time and disk space, it doesn't matter anyway. :-)

"The ports system takes care of it, and the packaging of the ports do handle all the dependencies correctly."

The precompiled packages that you can install and download via pkg_add are based on the ports tree which is updated and precompiled in short time distances. Usually, you don't compile on your system, except you really need (or want) to. Precompiled packages are very comfortable.

Personally, I prefer the FreeBSD way with pkg_add, because it does not force me to sit at the computer to click next, next, next, done. You can even automate installation processes and be absent.

"While there's a crying need for autopackage in the Linux work, the uniformity of the FreeBSD deployed base makes it unnecessary there."

True. Applications that are present in the ports tree do run on any FreeBSD system, be it FreeBSD, DesktopBSD or PC-BSD.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Wow!
by Oliver on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow!"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Try Slackware and so on. To the rest, never heard such a nonsense before.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Wow!
by juno_106 on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow!"
juno_106 Member since:
2007-06-24

Those actually do it the right way (the same can't be said about PBIs)

The right way for you is the wrong way for me. I don't care if there are sometimes duplication of libraries. I don't feel the difference on my computer. But I *do* care if my system breaks because dependencies are missing, which has happened to me a lot.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Wow!
by n0xx on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 03:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow!"
n0xx Member since:
2005-07-12

The major problems is not the duplication of libs, it's the fact that they don't get updated...No security updates... At least to my knowledge.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wow!
by antik on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 06:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow!"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

The major problems is not the duplication of libs, it's the fact that they don't get updated...No security updates... At least to my knowledge.

According to MY knowledge *all* PBI packages have option to check updated version and update to latest package from "PBI Update Manager". That's the PBI developer responsibility to keep PBI freshed up.

Major feature of PBI is that you can install any application/update/whateveryouwant to your computer/server without internet connection.

PBI is not an installer only- it's container for commands, applications, data- you can make your own PBI and install drivers for example, you can install your commercial applications into PC-BSD without asking permission to put it on official pbidir.com page.

If you don't like PBI *THEN DON'T USE IT!*- use ports and packages as usual.

Case closed.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Wow!
by OSGuy on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 04:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow!"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Well said.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wow!
by OSGuy on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 04:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow!"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

I think you are missing the point.

Enough said....

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Wow!
by Oliver on Sat 21st Jul 2007 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow!"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Nonsense. You have to understand an operating system to actually see the differences. Try ... try *BSD or Linux. Distros aren't different operating system. But *BSD IS different.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Wow!
by Joe User on Sat 21st Jul 2007 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow!"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

You have to understand an operating system to actually see the differences.

This is true. I am a normal user, I don't know the internals of an operating system, this is why I don't see any differences.

Try ... try *BSD or Linux.

I have. For several years already.

Distros aren't different operating system. But *BSD IS different.

You see, they are different but I don't see the differences.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Wow!
by kwag on Sat 21st Jul 2007 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow!"
kwag Member since:
2006-08-31

"You see, they are different but I don't see the differences."

Well, do some heavy benchmarks with FreeBSD, like multiple Firefoxes running, a couple of running videos, and other "stress" tests.
Repeat the same tests on ANY Linux distro, and you'll clearly see "The *BSD difference" ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wow!
by Oliver on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 09:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow!"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

FUD! And massive lack of knowledge.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Wow!
by psychicist on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow!"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

What advantage would I be seeing when I currently run the most BSD-like Linux distribution (Slackware) with a custom compiled AMD Athlon kernel?

Before I installed the latest release it had been running for months under heavy stress since I use is as a VNC/file server and also compile jobs in VMware/QEMU even running Slackware ports for other architectures.

Aside from that I have Mozilla Firefox running with more than 10 windows each containing more than 15 tabs. So I would like to know if FreeBSD would perform better than this or not. Solaris does not, despite possible advantages for a server as ZFS and zones.

I briefly ran FreeBSD 4.5 on my laptop a few years ago and recently OpenBSD 4.0, both of which didn't perform as well despite the better security they have out of the box.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wow!
by Soulbender on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"both of which didn't perform as well despite the better security they have out of the box."

Maybe thats the very reason the didn't perform as well?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wow!
by Oliver on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 12:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow!"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>I briefly ran FreeBSD 4.5 on my laptop a few years ago and recently OpenBSD 4.0, both of which didn't perform as well despite the better security they have out of the box.

OpenBSD is only about security. FBSD 4.x did better in performance than Linux 2.4.x kernel. But FBSD4.x != FBSD5.x != 6.x != 7. In the end Linux 2.4 != 2.6. So this saying "I briefly ran .... few years ago" doesn't prove anything nowadays.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Wow!
by happycamper on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 08:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow!"
happycamper Member since:
2006-01-01

"You have to understand an operating system to actually see the differences.

This is true. I am a normal user, I don't know the internals of an operating system, this is why I don't see any differences. "

so you can't see the difference between windows, linux and Mac OS X.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wow!
by Oliver on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow!"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

What's a "normal user", a user using a browser and email application, surfing at Ebay and Amazon for some minutes? Yes, then you won't see any difference.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wow!
by happycamper on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow!"
happycamper Member since:
2006-01-01

"What's a "normal user", a user using a browser and email application, surfing at Ebay and Amazon for some minutes? Yes, then you won't see any difference."


a normal user, will see a difference when he visits a site that requires a plugin,etc, that is only available for windows and not for linux to view some of the website's content. or when the website streaming video can not play because it's having problems detecting non IE browsers. I have run into a few sites with this sort of problems.

Edited 2007-07-22 11:49

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wow!
by Oliver on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 09:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow!"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

For several year? Makes me smile ... I do know a lot of "normal" users which are aware of the differences and they aren't kernel hackers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wow!
by supergear on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 17:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow!"
supergear Member since:
2007-07-06

but PCBSD isn't a linux distro like Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS so it is different.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wow!
by happycamper on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 08:22 UTC in reply to "Wow!"
happycamper Member since:
2006-01-01

"Who knew that FreeBSD could be so user friendly and accessible to newbies"

what do you mean? FreeBSD is user friendly and accessible to newbies.

Reply Score: 2

PC-BSD
by hussam on Sat 21st Jul 2007 23:01 UTC
hussam
Member since:
2006-08-17

I might consider switching from Linux to PC-BSD.
Does it provide timely security updates for their releases (security fixes are very important to me)?
Is it easy to get programs like openoffice.org and the gimp to run reliably on it (I know they do install)?

Edited 2007-07-21 23:03

Reply Score: 2

RE: PC-BSD
by Oliver on Sat 21st Jul 2007 23:04 UTC in reply to "PC-BSD"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Security is the business of *BSD and if yes almost every application works like a charm.

http://www.freshports.org/

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: PC-BSD
by Tuishimi on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE: PC-BSD"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Security is certainly the business of OpenBSD. How is security any more important to the the other BSD flavors than the various linux flavors?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: PC-BSD
by Oliver on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 09:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PC-BSD"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>Security is certainly the business of OpenBSD

Security is a business of the other BSD too. If you want to see the difference have a look at Linux kernel releases or Linux distro release, they are always full of bugs and this isn't the business of *BSD!

*Release Engineering* is something Linux doesn't even know. Linux even hasn't got a proper documentation or stable ABI. It's ridiculous to try a comparison at all. Linux is full of hype, FUD, hacks to "prove" peaks in performance and a massive lack of quality and reliability. But it's the chosen pet of the media family, so "BSD is dying" since 1977 :o)

http://www.freebsd.org/releng/index.html

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: PC-BSD
by toomany on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PC-BSD"
toomany Member since:
2005-11-09

Well, is the "famous" phrase of Mr. Torvalds; "just do it". While in FreeBSD (and all rest of BSDs) is; test and test looking for quality.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: PC-BSD
by Doc Pain on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PC-BSD"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

You mentioned a point that is worth further commenting:

"*Release Engineering* is something Linux doesn't even know. Linux even hasn't got a proper documentation or stable ABI. It's ridiculous to try a comparison at all."

I highlighted the term "documentation". As a developer, you sometimes need to get information about system utilities you use, about system library functions or kernel interfaces. All parts of the FreeBSD OS (system utilities, configuration files, even maintaining procedures) have their own manpage installed. You don't need to search a web WIKI for information, you just use the designated tools: whatis, apropos and man.

FreBSD's documentation is excellent. It does not only include manpages, it includes the great handbook as well. All infomation is accessible online or offline.

Some examples, try this (or the equivalent) in Linux:
% man intro
% man rc.conf
% man signal
% man tar
% man hier

Sadly, not all additional software conforms to the goal of having good centralized "man" based documentation. Is there any "man kde"? :-)

Please care to see a fine difference: While FreeBSD is only one OS distribution, Linux has many of them. While you can use one tool on one system, it does not imply that you can use the same tool (or same options to the tool) on another system, too. I see the situation getting better, but that's just because most operations are directed to KDE (or other GUI) administrative tools that tend to be included in the KDE distribution.

"Linux is full of hype, FUD, hacks to "prove" peaks in performance and a massive lack of quality and reliability."

I think Linux is a great approach to get UNIX powered systems to the user's desktop. This is mainly because of KDE (and Gnome, as a sidenote). But as you will admit, this brings problems. While computers are affordable for everyone, they're affordable for stupid users, too. This isn't the fault of Linux or KDE, please don't misunderstand! But the result is: More and more "hacks" (let me use this term) are needed to make the OS or the distro appealing to the user. Security barriers are falling step by step. That's why a stable and secure core system is absolutely required. I think the BSDs are offering such a base. But Linux does, too.

"But it's the chosen pet of the media family, so "BSD is dying" since 1977 :o) "

Very definitely... :-)

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: PC-BSD
by Oliver on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: PC-BSD"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Ack - "hacks" is my short form for Linus credo "just do it and fix possible problems later".

Reply Score: 2

RE: PC-BSD
by Doc Pain on Sat 21st Jul 2007 23:32 UTC in reply to "PC-BSD"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I might consider switching from Linux to PC-BSD.
Does it provide timely security updates for their releases (security fixes are very important to me)?"


Yes, they do. Even OS fixes are provided as PBI files. They provide updates of the KDE GUI and the base OS.

Additionally, you can use the FreeBSD way of updating.

# make update
# make buildworld buildkernel KERNCONF=FOO
...

Refer to the FreeBSD handbook for more information.

"Is it easy to get programs like openoffice.org and the gimp to run reliably on it (I know they do install)? "

Of course it is (pkg_add -r gimp). I'm using FreeBSD since the 4.0 days and have the applications mentioned running. No problems.

Reply Score: 5

Differences
by indiocolifa on Sat 21st Jul 2007 23:03 UTC
indiocolifa
Member since:
2006-06-20

You can put your hands at raw FreeBSD too, and learn from ground zero.

Edited 2007-07-21 23:04

Reply Score: 1

FreeBSD ROCKS
by indiocolifa on Sat 21st Jul 2007 23:09 UTC
indiocolifa
Member since:
2006-06-20

I've found FreeBSD more solid, compact and easier than any Linux distribution out there (altough I like Debian and Debian based distributions very much).

* Also, stability is equal or better, at least in the scenarios I've played on.

* The ports tree is great.

* Porting applications to FreeBSD or fixing already ported is definitely FUN.

* FreeBSD 7.0 promises to combine the rock-solid tradition of BSD-UNIX with advanced features like ZFS.

Many people says stupid things like 'BSDs are dying, BSDs are not used in commercial systems', etc,etc.

Just look at how the BSD family is performing on the arena of 'Longest Uptimes':

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

Yahoo trusts BSD, for example:

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.yahoo.com

Edited 2007-07-21 23:13

Reply Score: 5

Updates
by Doc Pain on Sat 21st Jul 2007 23:40 UTC
Doc Pain
Member since:
2006-10-08

I'm very impressed by the zpdates made, allthough most of them are not interesting to me, but to the designated user group of PC-BSD (that's why I prefer a "real" FreeBSD).

Interesting:
* Updated FreeBSD base OS to 6.2-STABLE
* Updated Xorg to version 7.2

Fun for KDE and eye candy lovers:
* Updated KDE to 3.5.7
* Includes support for Flash7 in native BSD browsers. (Konq, Opera, FireFox)
* Includes official NVIDIA drivers to simplify activating HW acceleration.
* Optional 3D desktop using Beryl

Can't wait to see it:
* Improved & Simplified system installer, now with the ability to load optional components from CD2

No need for it:
* NEW! Firewall Manager, enables easy GUI configuration of firewall Settings
Firewall setup once, touched never again. :-)

See below:
* NEW! Xorg GUI Configuration tool, allows easy setup of screen resolution & 3D support

Good idea:
* NEW! User manager GUI
I hope it includes an "Undo" button. According to my uncle: "I deleted my user account and removed all the files. How can I get it back?"

Let's see if I can see them. :-)
* Numerous other fixes / improvements to the core OS.

With the last release (1.3), I had problems getting PC-BSD installed with screens smaller than 1024x768 (installer caused blurr on 14" CRT), I hope the new release will provide a way to make use of older monitors. But I think this is not important for the PC-BSD developers because of their choice of KDE et al. - this aims at users who have PCs with sufficient power (2 GHz up), and these power users usually use biiiig flat panel displays. :-)

Reply Score: 4

PC-BSD 1.4 Beta
by protagonist on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 00:08 UTC
protagonist
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have been using V1.3 for some time now and have been testing 1.4 on a second HD on the same system. V1.4 is really taking shape and looks like it is going to be very good.

I was also playing with a number of Linux distributions, including U/Kubuntu, on the same system. While PC-BSD does have some problems, but then so does every other OS, I have always returned to it. It has become my OS of choice on my Intel based HW because of the ease of use and stability.

Anyway, this release will be a good step forward. If you either haven't looked at it or haven't looked at it for some time, do so. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Do keep in mind that V1.4 is BETA so expect some problems.

Reply Score: 3

Firefox + JRE?
by cfrankb on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 01:03 UTC
cfrankb
Member since:
2006-01-03

Can it run Firefox + JRE (5 Update 11 through 6 Update 2)?

Reply Score: 1

my problem with pc-bsd
by OStourist on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 01:06 UTC
OStourist
Member since:
2007-06-19

Is it just me who doesn't get it; I mean
when you only have support natively for flash-7
and have to use ANOTHER static version of firefox with
some kind of linux emulation to get flash-9 working
- isn't this situation just absurd? Never mind
about opera.
Until freebsd has ALL the stuff needed for a desktop,
java, flash-9 and some kind of realplay support
for cnn sites..it won't replace my linux desktop.
The fact that freebsd lags behind linux in good software is a real problem.
I am much more interested in DesktopBSD..at least
they don't use such hacks

Reply Score: 2

RE: my problem with pc-bsd
by Chuck Norris on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 01:20 UTC in reply to "my problem with pc-bsd"
Chuck Norris Member since:
2007-03-24

The fact that freebsd lags behind linux in good software is a real problem.

FreeBSD has the same applications as Linux. Virtually more because it potentially has all BSD and Linux applications while Linux only has Linux applications.

I am much more interested in DesktopBSD..at least
they don't use such hacks


Are you serious? How do you want to solve your problems without hacks? LOL

If you don't use hacks you have a raw BSD system with everything to configure yourself. Try to configure FreeBSD entirely to your taste with Flash, JRE, codecs, Acrobat Reader, etc... See how long it takes.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: my problem with pc-bsd
by OStourist on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE: my problem with pc-bsd"
OStourist Member since:
2007-06-19

Well it may have potentially more software
but a lot of packages are broken..Gnome for example.

You are right that you need hacks to get flash working
and to me it seems like what you wind up doing
is running all of the essential desktop stuff like
flash or java in linux emulation mode.
Fair enough but I would rather have native
stuff like Solaris has.(yes flash is ported natively
to solaris)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: my problem with pc-bsd
by Dr_J on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 03:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: my problem with pc-bsd"
Dr_J Member since:
2005-07-06

Well it may have potentially more software but a lot of packages are broken..Gnome for example.
This is just not so. I've run Gnome on FreeBSD for four years now, and it is not broken. It works very well in fact.

You are right that you need hacks to get flash working
One needs no hack, just a compatibility layer to join a Linux plugin (or program) with BSD. That has worked for a long time.

running all of the essential desktop stuff like flash or java in linux emulation mode.
Java is native. For Flash, Adobe does not support BSD, and linux Flash7 works very well. Give linux Flash9 a few months, and it will work. That's been the history.

I would rather have native stuff like Solaris has.
Solaris has good Flash support (and Java of course) but what version of Acroread can it run? 4.x?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: my problem with pc-bsd
by antik on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: my problem with pc-bsd"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

flash or java in linux emulation mode.

Repeat after me: "JAVA IS FREEBSD NATIVE BINARY!"
If you don't get it, repeat: "JAVA..."

http://www.freebsd.org/java/

Uhh, I am so tired of Linux users incompetence...

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: my problem with pc-bsd
by cfrankb on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: my problem with pc-bsd"
cfrankb Member since:
2006-01-03

But "JAVA" isn't static; native support of JRE 1.5.0 Update 7 is currently seven updates old.

Reply Score: 2

RE: my problem with pc-bsd
by antik on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 07:05 UTC in reply to "my problem with pc-bsd"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

Is it just me who doesn't get it; I mean
when you only have support natively for flash-7
and have to use ANOTHER static version of firefox with some kind of linux emulation to get flash-9 working - isn't this situation just absurd? Never mind about opera.

Who said that Flash 7 is native- it's a Linux version? PC-BSD got Linux Compatibility Layer *ONLY* because of Adobe FLASH and GAMES. So your statement is ABSURD. And Linux Emulation doesn not mean you are using somekind of XEN or VMWARE on your computer- that would be really stupid thing to do- it means you got layer between Linux applications and FreeBSD kernel that translates Linux specific API to FreeBSD API. Sometimes in FreeBSD Linux emulation Linux apps are working faster than in native Linux itsef....

Until freebsd has ALL the stuff needed for a desktop, java, flash-9 and some kind of realplay support for cnn sites..it won't replace my linux desktop.
Java = FreeBSD native
Flash 9 = Linux binary- crashes a lot, using infamous ALSA s**t, etc.
Realplayer = FreeBSD native

The fact that freebsd lags behind linux in good software is a real problem.
What you mean by good software? Skype, Flash? I think that is Linux problem that there is problem porting some app to FreeBSD because of complete lack in POSIX compliance of Linux developers minds and some questionable Linux only features.

I am much more interested in DesktopBSD..at least they don't use such hacks

Err, now give me ONE example where DesktopBSD differs from PC-BSD? I still don't get it about what hacks you are talking about? They are both FreeBSD 6.2 currently, both use latest KDE, both does not modify any freebsd underlying code and both using ONLY FreeBSD repositories to install 3rd party applications from ports. Most PBIs are generated from ports also.

PC-BSD is not a FORK- it's a FreeBSD with pimped up configuration and additional tools not found in original FreeBSD installation.

Feel free to ask any question, I am a PC-BSD Quality Assurance Manager and can help you.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: my problem with pc-bsd
by OStourist on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE: my problem with pc-bsd"
OStourist Member since:
2007-06-19

OK good software..at least 3 modern
jukboxes let's say rhytmbox, exaile and amarak
Video: mplayer , totem-xine and vlc + full set
of codecs(Fedora has this down pat)
P2P: emule, apollon, frostwire, bittorent
Web: Opera with flash-9 and java applets
same for firefox
Must be able to launch CDs and DVDs automatically
if desired like Fedora or windows..

I did try PC-BSD a year ago and found that while
the kernel seemed more stable and snappier
than linux it failed due to missing applications above.

Don't get me wrong..I would rather have BSD than linux as my kernel because linux is a hack in
many more ways than PC-BSD. But, like windows, it kinda works..
Anyway I will give the new PC-BSD a fair shake and
report back..do u know if PC-BSD runs well as
a vmware guest in linux?

Edited 2007-07-22 12:40

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: my problem with pc-bsd
by Doc Pain on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 13:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: my problem with pc-bsd"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Please forgive me reformatting your text, but I think it's better to read without forced line breaks (aligning and linebreaking work automatically here).

"OK good software..at least 3 modern
jukboxes let's say rhytmbox, exaile and amarak"


All of them are available. Amarok comes with KDE, I think, but is available as PBI. Rythmbox and Exaile can be installed additionally (ports, packages).

"Video: mplayer , totem-xine and vlc + full set of codecs(Fedora has this down pat)"

Via PBI you get kmplayer, xine and VLC. The codecs can be installed via PBI too, if I remember correctly, but of course you can compile your own mplayer with any options you like (and are permitted to use by law).

# cd /usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer
# ee Makefile.local
... insert your options here, see documentation ...
# make install

"P2P: emule, apollon, frostwire, bittorent"

PBIs include KTorrent and Opera 9 has a torrent client included. The rest - with exception of frostwire - can be installed via ports / packages.

# pkg_add -r apollon

"Web: Opera with flash-9 and java applets same for firefox"

Fine! Opera 9 via PBI, Flash 9... not yet, but Flash 7. maybe you can use the Linux Flash 9 plugin via Linux ABI (alternative binary interface, "Linux emulation"). Java (JDK, JRE) is native on PC-BSD. Firefox too.

"Must be able to launch CDs and DVDs automatically if desired like Fedora or windows.."

I think KDE has this annoying habit. :-)

"I did try PC-BSD a year ago and found that while the kernel seemed more stable and snappier than linux it failed due to missing applications above."

You didn't know about http://www.pbidir.com/ did you? Most of your applications are there, and the rest can be installed via ports or packages. Just take a look.

# cd /usr/ports
# make search name=bittorrent

"Don't get me wrong..I would rather have BSD than linux as my kernel because linux is a hack in many more ways than PC-BSD. But, like windows, it kinda works.."

Personally, I would prefer a system that is good for a long period of time, rather than a systen that is "the best" (or claims to be) for a very short period of time. BSD offers stability, but Linux supports more hardware. Just think about what you're going to do. Always use the right tool. As a sidenote: I've seen lots of "Windows" that... kinda not works.... :-) same for Linux (allthough just a very very small percentage), when FreeBSD did the job perfectly. So I think it depends on you what your system will be able to do.

"Anyway I will give the new PC-BSD a fair shake and
report back..do u know if PC-BSD runs well as a vmware guest in linux? "


Uh... never tried this... but I think it is possible, but may lack in speed. Don't you have a spare hard disk floating around? Or a space PC? :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: my problem with pc-bsd
by OStourist on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: my problem with pc-bsd"
OStourist Member since:
2007-06-19

Well I think we agree on the same goals..I would love a Desktop unix that is as rock solid, fast and efficient on your PC as say Solaris is on an Ultra 20 workstation ;)
Of course I knew about the PBIs..I just found that many had a lot of bugs and that doing things like
watching utube or cnn videos caused crashes way too often.

Reply Score: 1

Multiple Free OS Platforms are Cool!
by PunchCardGuy on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 10:33 UTC
PunchCardGuy
Member since:
2006-04-14

I have never tried any of the free *BSD alternatives, but it seems like the time is rapidly approaching to jump in. It looks like the PC-BSD project has gotten to the point that a useable, modern, free *BSD-based desktop system can now be installed without a lot of bit-twiddling and text editor munging. That is cool for someone like me who has become lazy in his old age ;-)! That's why I like fiddling with Mepis and Sabayon more that I like messing with Slackware or Arch.

I am constantly amused by the OS(kernel)-centric evangelism I see here and elsewhere. I say that multiple platforms and choices are GOOD, and I am happy to see that the free *BSDs are alive and kicking, along with the other more obscure OSes, too. There is no need or reasonable purpose that I can see for denigrating any OS. We need them all (and maybe more) in order to keep the flow of fresh ideas coming. Ultimately, the best ones will live on and the bad ones will die, to all of our benefit.

It is true that LINUX is not as carefully engineered as the *BSDs, but the goals of each are different as well. And even with some of the quasi-experimental code that sometimes makes its way into the LINUX mainline tree, this usually stabilizes after a few kernel revisions. As for the *BSDs, I can speak to this as a Sun Solaris user and administrator back in the day, as the Solaris code base is BSD. This was and is a very well engineered, robust, stable and secure OS platform. So, we get both worlds when looking at the most popular free OS platforms: stability and security with *BSD, and bleeding edge new technology and ideas with LINUX. All good, nothing bad here.

Reply Score: 3

follow different path
by happycamper on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 11:33 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

* Updated KDE to 3.5.7
* Includes support for Flash7 in native BSD browsers. (Konq, Opera, FireFox)
* Includes official NVIDIA drivers to simplify activating HW acceleration.
* Optional 3D desktop using Beryl
* Improved & Simplified system installer, now with the ability to load optional components from CD2
* NEW! Network configuration manager, including tray apps for WIFI and ethernet connections
* NEW! Firewall Manager, enables easy GUI configuration of firewall Settings
* NEW! Xorg GUI Configuration tool, allows easy setup of screen resolution & 3D support
* NEW! Added support to Add / Remove programs tool to easily install optional KDE / System components
* NEW! User manager GUI
* NEW! Battery Tray Application for Laptops
* Numerous fixes / tweaks to KDE configuration, making downloading & running PBIs easier
* Numerous other fixes / improvements to the core OS.


these features sound exciting, but i don't understand why they would want to add these features to pcbsd, if they are not helping linux in the desktop. linux still has a very small desktop market comparing to windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE: follow different path
by Doc Pain on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 13:19 UTC in reply to "follow different path"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"these features sound exciting, but i don't understand why they would want to add these features to pcbsd, if they are not helping linux in the desktop. linux still has a very small desktop market comparing to windows."

I think some Linux distributions already have most of the features you cited. I think most of the administrative stuff relies on KDE, so there would be no problem porting them to Linux.

But allow me a question: Why should the PC-BSD developers keep in mind "helping Linux in the desktop"? Why should they? Do Linux developers do? No. PC-BSD and Linux are two different OS mainstreams with different audiences, different kernels, different APIs.

Personally, I don't care about the oh joy oh glory oh market share. Mind share (knowing it exists) and usage share (using it) are more interesting. And I don't care about "Windows" because it offers me nothing I could make use of.

You're right, UNIX OSes still have a small peace of the desktop market, but the piece is constantly growing. I won't discuss the size of the piece of the server market at this point. I'm sure you're better informed than me. :-)

Reply Score: 4

Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Security is certainly the business of OpenBSD. How is security any more important to the the other BSD flavors than the various linux flavors?"

For that statement? It was an honest statement and question. Everyone KNOWS that OpenBSD is about being the most secure operating system around. I realize that the BSDs use a different development model, but that doesn't necessarily imply that security is why it is done.

Apparently people are still removing points simply for disagreeing with a statement. Apparently the scoring system is still not working.

Reply Score: 4

I tried 1.3 & well that didn't go well.
by Edward on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 17:18 UTC
Edward
Member since:
2005-09-17

I bought & tried 1.3 a few weeks ago, I never could get the thing to setup. So after a week I thought, skrew this & ended up installing OpenSuSE 10 again. I had it up in like 25ish minutes. So 1.4 I dont think I want to deal with that headache again.

Edited 2007-07-22 17:25

Reply Score: 0