Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Jul 2007 22:01 UTC, submitted by Oliver
BSD and Darwin derivatives "DesktopBSD 1.6 RC 3 is now available for download from our mirrors or via BitTorrent. This release candidate is considered a large step towards a final release 1.6 with major changes such as: X.Org release 7.2, improving support for modern graphics hardware; NVIDIA graphics driver, providing hardware 3D acceleration for NVIDIA video cards; latest FreeBSD 6-STABLE as base system with High Definition Audio support; support for multiple processors and multi-core CPUs; more up-to-date software packages from the DesktopBSD build servers; many small bug fixes and optimizations. Upgrades from 1.0 and previous release candidates are supported. An additional language CD and 64-bit (AMD64) DVD will be released soon."
Order by: Score:
v No troll comment so far?
by Joe User on Thu 26th Jul 2007 00:40 UTC
BSD rocks!
by OStourist on Thu 26th Jul 2007 00:53 UTC
OStourist
Member since:
2007-06-19

Just woke up ;)

BSD is alive! (sorry)
Can't wait to try this. I really believe DesktopBSD
is shaping up to be the most solid
desktop system.
What I'm waiting for in addition to a fast, robust
system is:

(1) full flash-9 support
(2) nice looking asian-language fonts like fedora has
(3) Realplayer (or a helixplayer replacement)

It would also be nice to have some kind of virtulization for BSD as a host. Maybe freebsd-7 will
have that.

When this happens it's goodbye linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: BSD rocks!
by JamesTRexx on Thu 26th Jul 2007 06:35 UTC in reply to "BSD rocks!"
JamesTRexx Member since:
2005-11-06

It would also be nice to have some kind of virtulization for BSD as a host.


FreeBSD has jails, and of course Qemu in the ports. (don´t know if DesktopBSD has a package but it probably will)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: BSD rocks!
by google_ninja on Thu 26th Jul 2007 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE: BSD rocks!"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Neither is really like KVM or Xen in Linux

Reply Score: 3

RE: BSD rocks!
by netpython on Thu 26th Jul 2007 08:56 UTC in reply to "BSD rocks!"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

FreeBSD can run linux binairies.
There's a commercial virtualisazion package called win4bsd though.

Reply Score: 4

RE: BSD rocks!
by Oliver on Thu 26th Jul 2007 09:55 UTC in reply to "BSD rocks!"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

I'm sorry so it will never happen. Of course there is work going on in terms of a native Realplayer. But Adobe/Macromedia has no interest in porting Flash to non-hype platforms. Asian-language fonts should be no problem. And virtulization, well, in terms of Vmware ask Vmware. Xen is an on-going project by the way and KVM a SoC project.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: BSD rocks!
by OStourist on Thu 26th Jul 2007 12:18 UTC in reply to "RE: BSD rocks!"
OStourist Member since:
2007-06-19

Well thanks for your comment Olive. I Think
there is a flash-9 player in ports if
I recall and i got it to work in PC-BSD for
about 3 seconds before it crashed ;)
I have heard someone has got flash-9 to work
in linux emulated firefox via greasemonkey extension
and hackery.
So it sounds like Someone is working on it..!
The korean langauge display was a nice touch..It's good
but could be better(www,yahoo.co.kr is a testbed and y the fonts spaghetti across the page)

Another problem is the playing of audio CDs..
Only Amarock could do it and only after I changed the default output engine to oss. Maybe some recompiling
of KDE binaries with freebsd ad not linux alsa is needed?
Overall it seems so far so good though!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: BSD rocks!
by Doc Pain on Thu 26th Jul 2007 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BSD rocks!"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Another problem is the playing of audio CDs.."

For initial checks, you can first ensure

% mixer cd vol 100

and then use

% cdcontrol play

or

% cdcontrol -f /dev/acd0 play 1

if neccessary. Refer to "man cdcontrol" and "man mixer". The program cdcontrol belongs to the base OS and is, along with mixer, a good starting point for diagnostics.

You can use xmms's audio CD player functionality or stick to "old fashioned" tools like xcd.

"Only Amarock could do it and only after I changed the default output engine to oss. Maybe some recompiling of KDE binaries with freebsd ad not linux alsa is needed?"

Uh, this sounds very complicated and should not be neccessary. Honestly, who wants to recompile KDE? If neccessary, use pkg_add -r with the proper package names. The situation you're describing seems to illustrate a problem with KDE and sound. Check basics first.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: BSD rocks!
by Joe User on Fri 27th Jul 2007 09:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: BSD rocks!"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

It's an audio cable not present, most of the time. If you don't have an audio cable between your CD drive and the main board, Linux/BSD won't play your audio CD because it relies on analogic technology instead of digital technology like Windows. Time of cavemen.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: BSD rocks!
by OStourist on Fri 27th Jul 2007 11:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: BSD rocks!"
OStourist Member since:
2007-06-19

You know you are right I think.I did try
the command line suggested above and
got NO SOUND and no errors either It's amazing
that KDE and maybe Gnome too have not cleaned
up their legacy applications to allow digital
option. I remember having this problem
5 years ago for &&** sake.
Fortunately SOME music jukeboxes will work
Amarok has no problem in Linux or FreeBSD.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: BSD rocks!
by Doc Pain on Fri 27th Jul 2007 13:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: BSD rocks!"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

As it has meen explained before, the use of the internal (analog) audio connector is neccessary to use the method of analog mixing. Some mainboards or audio cards provide more than one connector (the "cheap" stuff I'm using provides three internal, actually using one for the DVD drive, one for the CD recorder and one for the PD/CD drive, along with one external).

Surely you don't have this special cable installed. Your diagnostics show it:

"I did try the command line suggested above and got NO SOUND and no errors either"

Interpret this in the correct manner: If no error message is displayed, the CD drive plays audio correctly. You just don't hear it. If your CD drive has a headphone connector on its front, you can check it easily: You will hear the CD playing. Maybe a LED is blinking, too. Of course you can create a strange (but working) bypass by plugging a 3.5mm stereo cable from the front connector of the CD drive into the line in connector of your audio card. :-)

"It's amazing that KDE and maybe Gnome too have not cleaned up their legacy applications to allow digital option. "

I don't think analog audio is "legacy", but I see the problem. Maybe the inability to play audio from digital data ("over the ATA cable") is a problem at kernel level? Maybe someone can rectify... but...

"Fortunately SOME music jukeboxes will work Amarok has no problem in Linux or FreeBSD."

... maybe the functionality described above is at application level? Unfortunately, I cannot find any hint within the according manuals.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: BSD rocks!
by OStourist on Fri 27th Jul 2007 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: BSD rocks!"
OStourist Member since:
2007-06-19

"Of course you can create a strange (but working) bypass by plugging a 3.5mm stereo cable from the front connector of the CD drive into the line in connector of your audio card. :-)"

Well like any computer sold in the last 5 years(at least in Korea) there is NO audio card. These are
prosumer things now, and AC'97 or HDA audio on-board
is more than good enough for most people.
Again I think it is the case that these tools
simply haven't kept pace with computer hardware
development. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: BSD rocks!
by psychicist on Thu 26th Jul 2007 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE: BSD rocks!"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

Although I really like BSD and Solaris I mostly run Linux. I have recently ported Slackware to MIPS and am soon going to do a SPARC port and am having the same problems as the BSDs on x86.

In my opinion the only solution is to complete projects such as Gnash and/or BSD/CDDL licensed equivalents to make these platform and architecture dependent binaries obsolete.

While these proprietary companies once had an advancing role for platform uptake they are now mainly a hindrance to the free development and use of platforms and in that respect they are taking choice away from users.

Reply Score: 1

PC-BSD
by ebasconp on Thu 26th Jul 2007 01:30 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

Have PC-BSD and DesktopBSD thought about merging efforts towards just one killer product?

Reply Score: 5

RE: PC-BSD
by ThawkTH on Thu 26th Jul 2007 02:25 UTC in reply to "PC-BSD"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Anybody know of any reviews comparing the two? Pros/cons of each? I've done some searching but haven't found anything, especially dealing with the two new versions. I would, but I'd like another HD first... ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: PC-BSD
by Oliver on Thu 26th Jul 2007 09:52 UTC in reply to "RE: PC-BSD"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

-both of them are FreeBSD. Period.
-it's no Linux distro competition approach
-both of them are using FreeBSD-stable, KDE, Xorg 7.x
-PC-BSD is using the optional PBI installation
-DesktopBSD is using the tools of FreeBSD

So in the end it's different. If you're "in need" of benchmarks, test FreeBSD. Comparing two FreeBSD systems is just nonsense, because FreeBSD is always the *complete* operating system, not just a kernel.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: PC-BSD
by Joe User on Thu 26th Jul 2007 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PC-BSD"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

So in the end it's different. If you're "in need" of benchmarks, test FreeBSD. Comparing two FreeBSD systems is just nonsense

There *ARE* differences between these two systems, and you know it, so asking for a comparison is not "just nonsense".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: PC-BSD
by google_ninja on Thu 26th Jul 2007 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PC-BSD"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

from the FAQ


Why DesktopBSD? There's already PC-BSD!

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

What is the difference between DesktopBSD and PC-BSD?

DesktopBSD uses all of the powerful and functional features that FreeBSD offers while PC-BSD rather introduces new, alternative systems instead. The best example of this is DesktopBSD’s Package Manager, which is in fact simply a comfortable front-end to the reliable and well-established FreeBSD “Ports” system. PC-BSD on the other hand utilises a new system of installing packages using a *.pbi package. The latter does not integrate with the system installed but wraps itself around the operating system and uses what it needs.

(http://www.desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=33)

This is what people were asking.

Reply Score: 5

RE: PC-BSD
by OSGuy on Thu 26th Jul 2007 09:22 UTC in reply to "PC-BSD"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

I believe merge isn't possible without a consent of the company that bought PC-BSD. In other words, this company would have to buy DesktopBSD too and the guys at DesktopBSD need to agree in order for a merger to go ahead. PC-BSD is no longer a stand alone non-commercial project but this is good.

Edited 2007-07-26 09:25

Reply Score: 1

RE: PC-BSD
by Oliver on Thu 26th Jul 2007 09:44 UTC in reply to "PC-BSD"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Why should we do it? There is just a different approach of doing things and it's good if people have the choice.

Reply Score: 5

PC-BSD vs DesktopBSD
by Xaero_Vincent on Fri 27th Jul 2007 15:09 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

PC-BSD now has GUI tools like DesktopBSD and also has PBI.

DesktopBSD has a 64-bit version.

I think a merge would make sense.

Reply Score: 2