Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Aug 2007 17:21 UTC, submitted by Lucas Holt
BSD and Darwin derivatives MidnightBSD 0.1 is now available. It includes several software packages such as ksh, sudo, OpenNTPD, gcc 3.4.4, BIND 9.3.4 (plus patch), and others in the base system. "MidnightBSD is a desktop operating system for x86 compatible, and soon amd64 compatible architectures. It was originally based on FreeBSD 6.1 Beta. The goal of the project is to create a BSD with ease of use and simplicity in mind."
Order by: Score:
User-friendly BSDs
by Almafeta on Tue 7th Aug 2007 18:31 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

I'm glad that the different alternative OSs are finally realizing that the user matters. It seems like all the major recent advances in OSs are happening not because of professors and coders hiding in ivory towers, but thanks to OSs actively pursuing what the public wants (with the occasional rugged individualist finding a way to do things better because they're tired of the old way). This is definately going into my OSs to watch list.

One quote concerns me, though: "The vast majority of the operating system will maintain a BSD license."

Vast majority -- not entirety. Does that mean they're including proprietary elements (questionable but safe), that they're including software from other BSDlike licenses (like MsPL or MIT), that they're including GPL elements (dangerous), or some combination of th3 three (riskiest of all)?

Reply Score: 1

RE: User-friendly BSDs
by poundsmack on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:01 UTC in reply to "User-friendly BSDs"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

since there are a lot of apps that dont have BSD licnce equivelents, gpl at least will need to fill in.

k3b and the gimp come to mind amoung many others. how many BSD licenced web browsers can u list off the top of your head ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: User-friendly BSDs
by Almafeta on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE: User-friendly BSDs"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

how many BSD licenced web browsers can u list off the top of your head ;)


... none.

And that's terrible.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: User-friendly BSDs
by raynevandunem on Wed 8th Aug 2007 06:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: User-friendly BSDs"
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

http://shiira.jp/en.php

Shiira is BSD-licensed, but its Mac only.

Reply Score: 2

RE: User-friendly BSDs
by renox on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:35 UTC in reply to "User-friendly BSDs"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

> that they're including GPL elements

Sigh, it's written that they provide gcc, you do know that gcc is GPL(v2 now, v3 later), right?

As for the 'risky' combination of 3 (GPL, proprietary and BSD), quit the drama: many Linux distribution have done so for a long time, without any problem..

Reply Score: 1

RE: User-friendly BSDs
by Archite on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:47 UTC in reply to "User-friendly BSDs"
Archite Member since:
2006-01-14

You should talk to FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, MirOS/MirBSD, DragonFlyBSD, PC-BSD... and any other BSD you can think and tell them to stop shipping GCC since it is dangerous and is licensed GPL. Seriously, this is a very common thing since there are very few viable alternatives.

Reply Score: 1

RE: User-friendly BSDs
by Soulbender on Wed 8th Aug 2007 11:02 UTC in reply to "User-friendly BSDs"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"or some combination of th3 three (riskiest of all)?"

Most likely, or at least a combination of 2 and 3. You'll want gcc so that's the LGPL (or GPL), you'll want KDE, GNOME or XFCE (or some other DE) which is most likely GPL or LGPL.
X.org is MIT(ish)s so you'll get that. Etc etc etc.
While a complete BSD(ish) system would be nice it's not a reality at this point in time. Neither is a (L)GPL only system for that matter.

Edited 2007-08-08 11:03

Reply Score: 2

RE: User-friendly BSDs
by wannabe geek on Thu 9th Aug 2007 14:58 UTC in reply to "User-friendly BSDs"
wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

"Vast majority -- not entirety. Does that mean they're including proprietary elements (questionable but safe), that they're including software from other BSDlike licenses (like MsPL or MIT), that they're including GPL elements (dangerous), or some combination of th3 three (riskiest of all)?"

But how can a GPL'd program be more risky than a proprietary program? In the worst case, you can always treat the GPL'd program as if it were a proprietary one, that is, borrow no code from it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: User-friendly BSDs
by Archite on Fri 10th Aug 2007 02:23 UTC in reply to "RE: User-friendly BSDs"
Archite Member since:
2006-01-14

I believe that person was talking about the licensing issue and not the security of the code. There are many pieces of GPL code that are both created with security in mind and increase security on a given system. The issue he was trying to make is that GPL code can completely change the licensing model which BSD systems prefer to use. While GPL is great and has its place, we prefer BSD code in our system whenever possible. Personally, I would stay away from all proprietary drivers...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: User-friendly BSDs
by wannabe geek on Fri 10th Aug 2007 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: User-friendly BSDs"
wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

Umm, I was talking about the licensing issue, not security. My point is, If you include a proprietary program in your system, you can't take anything from its code, period. If you include GPL'd programs, in the *worst* case you can't take anything from its code and you have to treat it as if it were proprietary. You can argue that GPL'd code is more risky than BSD-licensed code, regarding licensing issues, but not more risky than proprietary code, except in the sense that proprietary code is not *risky*, it's worst-case from the beginning.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: User-friendly BSDs
by Archite on Fri 10th Aug 2007 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: User-friendly BSDs"
Archite Member since:
2006-01-14

Ah, that is a little more clear. I totally agree with your statement. I'm personally not a huge fan of the GPL and would prefer not to use anything that is licensed such. Obviously this would be quite an impossible task though. I know that someone brought up the ideas of browsers, which is a big one but there are other more pressing issues, such as a compiler.

Reply Score: 1

More BSD distros than Linux distros soon?
by Joe User on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:12 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah! One more BSD distro...Who's next?

Reply Score: 0

Archite Member since:
2006-01-14

This is not a BSD distro. While we startede with FreeBSD code, we are in the process of diverging from it. Unlike linux distros which essentially use the same kernel as every other distro, we are in the process of creating our own kernel and changing the userland to fit our needs. This is a fork, not a distro.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Midnight BSD
by protagonist on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:14 UTC
protagonist
Member since:
2005-07-06

If you decide to go to their site and DL the iso take mirror 2. I just snagged the 461 MB iso file in under 7 minutes using it. :-)

Reply Score: 2

meh
by estrabd on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:46 UTC
estrabd
Member since:
2006-01-18

I am not sure what is new about the goals of this "fork". At least DfBSD has a central, interesting goal. After going through the entire site, I have found nothing compelling about this "fork"...and why even fork off of a beta?

I have a strong suspicion that they are going to end up tracking FreeBSD's 6.x similarly to PCBSD - only MNBSD will do it much more poorly.

If anyone knows what is so darn special about their goals, please let me know because I really want to find a reason to look at this project in a positive light.

Reply Score: 1

RE: meh
by dbolgheroni on Wed 8th Aug 2007 00:08 UTC in reply to "meh"
dbolgheroni Member since:
2007-01-18

I do not want to flame this forum, but I actually thought the same thing.

Reply Score: 2

Re: meh
by lazywally on Wed 8th Aug 2007 01:35 UTC
lazywally
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have a strong suspicion that they are going to end up tracking FreeBSD's 6.x

What exactly is this "strong" suspicion of yours based on?

- copied and pasted from the website

We hope to create something unique. Project goals include:

1. A new window and login manager.
2. Centralized system preferences while maintaining the BSD style on the command line.
3. A graphical ports and package management system. Currently we use a derivative of FreeBSD ports.
4. Work on various portions of the kernel including syscons, process and disk scheduling, imports of FreeBSD and OpenBSD drivers, etc.
5. Importing useful features from OpenBSD and NetBSD.
6. Improving security with little distraction to the end user.

Reply Score: 2

Oh no...
by plepser on Wed 8th Aug 2007 08:26 UTC
plepser
Member since:
2007-08-08

Please, don't make the Beastie like Linux. A few names are enough. I do not like to see 100's of them. That is not user friendly. I even do not see a great difference between PC-BSD and DesktopBSD. Better to join forces instead of inventing the wheel.

If I choose a desktop BSD then it will probably be PC-BSD, but I like to configure things myself ;-) FreesBIE is of great help (rescue). I have a feeling that DesktopBSD and MidnightBSD are not going to make it... Only making efforts for nothing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oh no...
by Doc Pain on Wed 8th Aug 2007 20:29 UTC in reply to "Oh no..."
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Please, don't make the Beastie like Linux. A few names are enough. I do not like to see 100's of them."

Don't mind. If a BSD's fork does not find an appropriate user acceptance, it will surely vanish.

"I even do not see a great difference between PC-BSD and DesktopBSD."

PC-BSD and DesktopBSD are very KDE centric, PC-BSD has PBI, DesktopBSD doesn't. More differences are possible, but I can't tell because I have not used both of them very intensively.

"Better to join forces instead of inventing the wheel."

Because all the BSD derivates / forks mentioned to share the same kernel and OS conception (except DragonFlyBSD because of other goals), a join in the future should be possible. Up to this point, development interchange is possible, too, as long as licensing allows it (BSDL).

"If I choose a desktop BSD then it will probably be PC-BSD, but I like to configure things myself ;-) "

Same here, too.

"FreesBIE is of great help (rescue)."

Again: Same here, too.

"I have a feeling that DesktopBSD and MidnightBSD are not going to make it... Only making efforts for nothing."

Not quite... I think both of them do great development where other BSD forks can participate and profit from. From my point of view, PC-BSD is the best solution for a BSD powered desktop, while "pure" FreeBSD is better for professionals who have the recommended knowledge and experience. I'm always curiois about new developments in BSD land, but finally, I'd always stick with "real" FreeBSD. It's just because no BSD fork until today covery my needs. :-)

Reply Score: 2

Ease of use?
by Laurence on Wed 8th Aug 2007 11:15 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

"It was originally based on FreeBSD 6.1 Beta. The goal of the project is to create a BSD with ease of use and simplicity in mind."


I can't say i've found FreeBSD to be anything other than easy and simple to set up. Maybe that's just me though?

I'd be interested to see what improvements MidnightBSD add.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ease of use?
by Flatland_Spider on Wed 8th Aug 2007 13:31 UTC in reply to "Ease of use?"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

I agree, but I was thinking they meant GUI when they said ease of use and simplicity.

FreeBSD is nice and easy enough to work with, the handbook is great. I can see someone thinking that editing miscellaneous text files sucks, and then writing a ncurses program where all the configs are accessed through one program. There could be a tab for WPA Supplicant where the information is entered and it creates the file with an option to edit.

They could even take the concept a step further and have their ports register themselves in the program to make it a universal OS config.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ease of use?
by Doc Pain on Wed 8th Aug 2007 20:40 UTC in reply to "Ease of use?"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I can't say i've found FreeBSD to be anything other than easy and simple to set up. Maybe that's just me though?"

The great OS conception and implementation, the excellent (!) documentation (man pages, doc subdir, handbook etc.) and the good examples provide a system that is very easy to install.

Most users coming from Linux land do confuse FreeBSD with a Linux distribution. FreeBSD is "just" an OS. An operating system, nothing more, nothing less. Of course you need to install the software you are going to use on top of the OS, or, after you installed the OS. The OS does not do it for you. PC-BSD, DesktopBSD et al. do help you here: They install the OS, KDE, lots of applications. In fact, they are distribution-like more than the OS.

"I'd be interested to see what improvements MidnightBSD add."

I will have a look at the internationalization development of MNBSD. While PC-BSD and DesktopBSD rely on KDE's settings, internationalization does not work properly outside KDE. In Germany, users get panic if they see "ARTS error: Could not open /dev/pcm: Foobar Eggog" or something similar. They get confused and install their (illegal copy of) "good XP".

Furthermore, I'm interested in which fields MNBSD gets incompatible with traditional FreeBSD installations. Mentioned kernel changes could be interesting here.

The MNBSD developers mentioned the command line as a means of solving problems - good approach. I'm interested in if or how they improved the CLI interface - some work usually done after you installed a "real" FreeBSD.

Reply Score: 2

A java only..
by fithisux on Sun 12th Aug 2007 09:35 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

web browser is a must. Try warrior. It has a long distance to cover but these browsers are an emerging alternative

Reply Score: 1