Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 21:54 UTC, submitted by Flatland_Spider
PC-BSD Two reviews of PC-BSD 1.4. The first one concludes: " If you are a new user, there is everything here for you; equally so if you are an experienced techie you can get into the FreeBSD ports tree and compile to your hearts content. Something for everyone here, no matter their level of knowledge or expertise." The second one: "PC-BSD is an extremely user friendly and secure BSD, based on the rock solid FreeBSD 6.2 stable core, with a easy to use package management system, a friendly installation GUI and great hardware recognition. It is easy enough for average users and interesting enough for advanced users."
Order by: Score:
GUI
by lqsh on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 00:55 UTC
lqsh
Member since:
2007-01-01
RE: GUI
by PJBonoVox on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 10:15 UTC in reply to "GUI"
PJBonoVox Member since:
2006-08-14

Please stop linking to that STUPID site that requires you to download a bazillion thumbnails just to view one image.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: GUI
by SCHWEjK on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE: GUI"
SCHWEjK Member since:
2006-04-05

I don't get your point. The site loaded reasonably fast, and looking at screenshots of an OS always gives you some first impressiion (at least this goes for me)

Reply Score: 4

Now if only
by Almafeta on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 01:41 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

I could figure out why the live CD goes dead...

Reply Score: 0

RE: Now if only
by antik on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 18:34 UTC in reply to "Now if only"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

I could figure out why the live CD goes dead...

LivePCBSD is not dead- I am too busy at work right now and with CCNA exams that I have no time to do it faster. Sry. Maybe I have more time this weekend.

You can try last version from here:
http://forums.pcbsd.org/viewtopic.php?p=56986#p56986

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Now if only
by Almafeta on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Now if only"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

I did not say it is dead. I said it went dead -- which means the last time I tried to use it, it fizled out and wouldn't even finish starting up...

Reply Score: 0

Every thing there...
by rshol on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 01:51 UTC
rshol
Member since:
2005-07-12

...except support for Intel PRO/Wireless 3945AGB. Bah.

Reply Score: 0

It's ok.
by Windows Sucks on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 02:10 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

I saw a review on it compared to KUbuntu. I love PCBSD but it's not much better then Linispire for real. It's not to the level of Ubuntu.

The installer is cool if you are a former Windows user but a pain in the butt if you are used to APT. Yes APT has its issues but I love the fact that when I install a machine I can just pick all the things at once and let them just install. No looking around the software website and then downloading each app and installing one at a time by hand. That is the old convoluted Windows way. Blah.

Also laptop support is very weak. But it's the best Desktop BSD next to Mac OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE: It's ok.
by raynevandunem on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 04:46 UTC in reply to "It's ok. "
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

Sure, if its drivers to search for, then the whole one-by-one routine sucks, especially if it is something that should've come with it in the first place. But if its an application that I can do without unless I find a particular need for it at a particular time, then finding the best application on a one-by-one basis is, IMO, the better route, since often the distro's repositories may not have it in store (like, say, http://www.kde-apps.org).

In fact, the "repositories" thing was one of the more annoying issues that I had with Ubuntu (Hoary). Any application that was available in the Ubuntu repositories was all that was available to use. I doubt that it has changed since then.

I seriously find the usual pro-repositories argument (that it ensures security) to be pretty ironic and silly in its assumption of user stupidity. I mean, if you wanted to ensure that the user didn't botch up his system through unknowingly installing a malformed application, then why is it that you sat them in front of an operating system that interacts so closely to the hardware in the first place, and not place the desktop system on a virtualization layer that the user can use without ever even hoping to botch the computer up?

I call that "distribution stupidity" at its finest. They expect Windows- (and Mac-)to Linux users to switch their preformed mentalities to the 30-year-old Unix model, which was designed for networks and servers in mind, not desktop computers.

Again, if you want to keep the user from botching the thing up without making him feel debilitated with a repository of "approved apps", then virtualize the desktop utilites - KDE, klik, the filesystem - through FUSE, and keep the ugly network operating system (GNU/Linux) running underneath, out of sight and out of mind.

Don't let the "st00pid luser" touch the "perfect", "genius" Unix filesystem, gcc, the kernel, none of that, and you won't have any problems or issues.

/end rant

Edited 2007-10-03 04:48

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: It's ok.
by 6c1452 on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 06:41 UTC in reply to "RE: It's ok. "
6c1452 Member since:
2007-08-29

[...]
In fact, the "repositories" thing was one of the more annoying issues that I had with Ubuntu (Hoary). Any application that was available in the Ubuntu repositories was all that was available to use. I doubt that it has changed since then.
[...]


While unable to speak for anyone else, I find repositories helpful because they are convenient. Security is, of course, an added bonus.

There are no rules that say you only have to use the software in the repositories. If something's not in the repos, that's when to go out and get a copy somewhere else. There are official non-repository package-manager packages, standalone packages, or source available for everything. If you can't get something installed, your problem solving skills could probably use some work.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: It's ok.
by dwave on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 07:52 UTC in reply to "RE: It's ok. "
dwave Member since:
2006-09-19

> I seriously find the usual pro-repositories argument
> (that it ensures security) to be pretty ironic and
> silly in its assumption of user stupidity.

A somewhat limited selection of stable software packages with all the dependencies resolved is one of the characteristics of every package-based distribution. You would appreciate this more if you ever were in 'dependency-hell'. If you find that Ubuntu doesn't have the latest versions for software packages you need, you can switch to a more bleeding-edge distribution like debian-testing or fedora.

Apart from that you can always compile your own stuff from tar-balls or build your own packages.
What you call "distribution stupidity" is really only your own limitation, no offense meant.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: It's ok.
by raynevandunem on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 18:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's ok. "
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

You would appreciate this more if you ever were in 'dependency-hell'.


Well that's funny, because I was in dependency hell alot during the time that I spent on Ubuntu. Maybe they've cleaned it up in the three years since, I dunno.

Apart from that you can always compile your own stuff from tar-balls or build your own packages.


Which is actively advised against, unless you're, of course, a developer who keeps up with the distribution's release cycle and knows exactly how to compile a binary from source code.

That, apparently, excludes the majority of your users right there.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: It's ok.
by Windows Sucks on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE: It's ok. "
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Actually you don't have to use whats in the repositories with Ubuntu. You can download any .deb package that is compiled to run on Ubuntu and just like with PBI's or EXE's you can double click it and run it (Install it)

The repository only statement is a long gone myth from when Ubuntu first came out.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: It's ok.
by Mediv on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's ok. "
Mediv Member since:
2006-05-10

Actually you don't have to use whats in the repositories with Ubuntu. You can download any .deb package that is compiled to run on Ubuntu and just like with PBI's or EXE's you can double click it and run it (Install it)


Yes, and play at tracking all the dependencies manually :-)

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: It's ok.
by Windows Sucks on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's ok. "
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

No, because if someone has compiled it from hand to work with a particular version of Ubuntu then ether they know the dependencies are in the Ubuntu repositories or will let you know to add their repository to get the dependencies you need.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: It's ok.
by Mediv on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's ok. "
Mediv Member since:
2006-05-10

No, because if someone has compiled it from hand to work with a particular version of Ubuntu then ether they know the dependencies are in the Ubuntu repositories or will let you know to add their repository to get the dependencies you need.


Bravo !

So you see, it is beginning to become more complicated than simply "get and click on a .deb" ;-)

For you first idea, I have to manually collect several different .deb, be sure they do not conflict with older or newer versions of the ones already installed on my system, etc.

For your second idea, I have to update my source.list file in order to install only one software... hey, by the way, it conflicts with what you said as now you tell us to use a network repository and apt :-)

Edited 2007-10-03 14:20

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: It's ok.
by Windows Sucks on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: It's ok. "
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Only if you want to install Deb files which most regular users will never do.

Just like most regular users will never use the ports system in PCBSD but it's there if you want to use it.

But if you are a regular user in Ubuntu you can go to the add and remove software icon, search for almost any linux software that will run on Ubuntu, choose and install. You can choose one thing or 10 things! And from then on out it will be auto updated.

Also if you download Deb's in Ubuntu and run one it will tell you if there are any issues, if it's just a matter of an older version or different version of an application or the same application, it will tell you and then will ask you if you want to uninstall the old one and install the new one. No big deal.

Also it does not conflict with what I said. The person I was answering said that he hated being stuck with what was in UBUNTUs repositories. I never said that using Deb files didn't require APT. I said they let you go outside of Ubuntu repositories.

In PCBSD you have to go through their site, find the current version of the software you want on their site, download it and run it. One at a time. They do have an update program that you can turn on for auto updates but i am not sure if it updates applications. Also a lot of the applications on the site are out of date.

And boy if you have to set up a new machine and you have a lot of software to install APT is a god send! I can take a list of all the aps I have on my machine and then on a new machine run apt against that and it will do all the installs for me. I don't have to search for nothing. I can rollout a hundred machines and make them all the same with one command and just let it roll. Don't have to baby sit. Can you do that with Windows, Mac OS or PCBSD. Nooooo. To do that on Windows you will need Zen Works, SMS or Mirimba. (And making packages on any of those can take forever, if you can even do it cause it's a PAIN in the azz. At least it's easy to make PBI's)

No such system to quickly do that on the Mac or PCBSD. Will have to compile all the software and install it one by one, by hand on each machine. Hummmmmm!

Edited 2007-10-03 14:47

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: It's ok.
by anomie on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: It's ok. "
anomie Member since:
2007-02-26

you wrote:
No such system to quickly do that on the Mac or PCBSD. Will have to compile all the software and install it one by one, by hand on each machine.

For deploying a large number of installations you can create packages on a single box and roll them out to the rest. There are lots of additional strategies for deploying installations depending on your environment..

I don't think anyone is trying to sell packages, ports, or PBIs as an identical replacement to apt. If you're happy with Ubuntu/Debian/whatever, then stick with that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: It's ok.
by Sabon on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 18:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: It's ok. "
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

I can rollout a hundred machines and make them all the same with one command and just let it roll. Don't have to baby sit. Can you do that with Windows, Mac OS or PCBSD. Nooooo. To do that on Windows you will need Zen Works, SMS or Mirimba. (And making packages on any of those can take forever, if you can even do it cause it's a PAIN in the azz. At least it's easy to make PBI's)


Actually I use Ghost to close on the Windows computers that I setup. Carbon Copy Cloaner (CCC) is great for Macs.

Both of these are much faster because you don't have to wait for anything to download from the web. I've literally had over 50 cloaning at one time by using the same group of 5 five CD that that just have enough into to connect to the network and have it download the image from the network to the computers.

As for ZenWorks, I do use that at work but only to add people to groups in NDS and only if they are a member of group X do they get special apps for that group.

So ... cloaning with Ghost and CCC to make all machines exactly alike for base image. And ZenWorks for group specific applications.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: It's ok.
by google_ninja on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 12:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's ok. "
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Actually you don't have to use whats in the repositories with Ubuntu. You can download any .deb package that is compiled to run on Ubuntu and just like with PBI's or EXE's you can double click it and run it (Install it)


Both PBIs and EXEs have everything you need inside, debs usually have dependancies which must be installed first.

The repository only statement is a long gone myth from when Ubuntu first came out.


debs existed LONG before ubuntu was even a spark in Mark Shuttleworths eye

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: It's ok.
by Windows Sucks on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 14:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's ok. "
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Yes all us Linux users know that debs come from Debian. But there was no easy by hand installer in Gnome.

There is one now in Ubuntu. (And can be used in any version of Linux that uses APT)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: It's ok.
by zugu on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE: It's ok. "
zugu Member since:
2007-08-28

Wow, I'm extremely surprised someone said it.
PC-BSD is the ONLY *NIX distribution that got it right. Having bottled applications is the way to go.
PBIs make it easier to develop, deploy, use and maintain software. Everything is in one place, no dependency hell at all, both the developer and the user don't even have to care about what's already installed on the system and what's not.

Windows got it right: there's no central "repository", except for maybe updates and security patches. The software market is free and sky is the limit. Mac OS X made it trivial: just download the container and run the application. It's as simple as that.

Whereas in Debian, Fedora or Ubuntu one has to upgrade the whole operating system just to get the latest version of Firefox or other basic piece of software. This approach is stupid, clumsy, messy and definitely a turn-off for users coming from the Mac or Windows world.

Of course, changing this paradigm in a Linux distro nowadays is almost impossible: the sheer number of libraries needed for various software could easily bring a modern HDD to its knees, not to mention the amounts of RAM required. But who am I to argue, when we all know "choice is good". Look where aimless development has brought the Linux world: in chaos. I am not arguing for voluntary boycott of toolkits, libraries or programming languages, but for more responsibility on behalf of developers and less ego.

Security issues are indeed more easier to fix when using a centralized package management system, however, that does not mean it's impossible or even hard to fix them when we use the decentralized approach. Staying current with the latest vulnerabilities should be the developer's job. Installing the security updates from upstream should be the user's job.

Since we're discussing package management, lame excuses like "you can always compile the software you want" are just that: lame. Compiled software is software the package manager is NOT aware of. Worse, try installing Firefox 2 on Dapper or Firefox 3 on Gusty - whether compiled or installed from a deb - it's the same thing. The means of installation are irrelevant, what's certain is you now have a more recent version of Firefox that can break the fragile ecosystem in the OS. Same for any software the Ubuntu Backports team refuse to backport. They clearly state they won't backport vital software since there's a high chance something will go wrong.

Centralized models such as Ubuntu's are a developer's hell. How is one supposed to write software for a constantly moving "platform"? Every six months the applications have to undergo major changes just to be compatible with the new release.

Where's the base system? Oh, right, there is none. The software on the install CD is just a part of a repository that is a snapshot frozen in time of whatever was available at the moment of the release. These guys managed to b0rk the definition of an operating system by trying to shove every existing piece of software in the repositories. A tedious, sisiphyc task that can be easily avoided if a decentralized model is used. Hell for testers, hell for package maintainers, hell for users.

And when something like PC-BSD appears the zealots bash it just because it's different. How about you continue to use your Debians, your Fedoras and your Ubuntus and leave PC-BSD alone?

FYI, I am not a PC-BSD user, because I dislike KDE. But I can praise real achievements when I see them. Kudos to the PC-BSD team for daring to create the PBI system in a world full of ignorance.

Reply Score: 14

v RE[3]: It's ok.
by Windows Sucks on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's ok. "
RE[4]: It's ok.
by Oliver on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's ok. "
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>Unless you use PORTS which is just like using APT

It's like Gentoos portage, but it's not even comparable to aptitude. You cannot change options with aptitude and yes it's possible even for the beginner, just mark the choosen option in the ncurses interface - it's that easy. Try this with Debian.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: It's ok.
by zugu on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's ok. "
zugu Member since:
2007-08-28

Yet ironically, in Windows I get to install whatever I want, and Microsoft does not act like a nanny, continuously telling me what I should install and not.

With great power comes great responsibility. I manage to keep my Windows installations safe because I know what I'm doing. People who get malware wholly deserve it.

As for the Mac people and the backwards compatibility that lasts no more than a version back, please notice the distance between OS X releases; or compare it with the 6 month cycle used by Ubuntu. Sure, Debian releases rarely, too, except it doesn't allow me the freedom to install whatever packages I want in the meantime. Unless I want to get into the dirty business of compiling, and believe me, I don't want to.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: It's ok.
by raynevandunem on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It's ok. "
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

The Bundle system would work if OS X was updated every 18-24 months. Unfortunately, Apple has a bad conception of backwards compatibility, particularly because of how much they want to 'release early, release often'.

So yeah, Mac's Bundles + Debian's long-term release cycle. That would be awesome, IMO.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: It's ok.
by puenktchen on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 18:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's ok. "
puenktchen Member since:
2007-07-27

On the Mac it what you said sounds good, but that is really not the case which is why you can not user older versions of Mac OS (No more then 1 version back) because software will not work if there are newer library's in the newer version of Mac OS.

if you can't use an app with old versions of osx it's probably because it uses new functions of the os. of course it won't work. but most old apps will work just fine on newer versions of osx.

one example, just because it was the first app i could think of which has been around since nextstep: launchbar.

launchbar 1 = nextstep 3.0 and openstep 4.2 on m68k, hp-risc. sparc & x86.
launchbar 2 = osx server 1.2 (aka rhapsody)
launchbar 3 = osx 10.1 or later
launchbar 4 = osx 10.2 or later, ppc & x86

four major versions in ca. 15 years, and you can still use a 5 year old version on the last release of osx.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: It's ok.
by BluenoseJake on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's ok. "
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Whereas in Debian, Fedora or Ubuntu one has to upgrade the whole operating system just to get the latest version of Firefox or other basic piece of software. This approach is stupid, clumsy, messy and definitely a turn-off for users coming from the Mac or Windows world."

That is entirely untrue. You don't have to update the whole OS to get a new version of any app on Linux. You can install new apps from the backports repository in Debian or Ubuntu. You can download a .deb file and type dpkg -i yourapp.deb. You can compile the damn app from source. In Debian and Ubuntu, you can even install software from rpm files using Alien.

Compiling apps from source is not easy, but installing 3rd party .deb files is, and so is using backports.

My OS of choice is FreeBSD, and I really like PC-BSD. Exaggerating the problems in Linux package management does not help PC-BSD. It just confuses the issue.

"Where's the base system? Oh, right, there is none. The software on the install CD is just a part of a repository that is a snapshot frozen in time of whatever was available at the moment of the release. These guys managed to b0rk the definition of an operating system by trying to shove every existing piece of software in the repositories. A tedious, sisiphyc task that can be easily avoided if a decentralized model is used. Hell for testers, hell for package maintainers, hell for users"

What do you think the Ports system is? it is the same as the repositories in the linux world. Very similar to the portage system in Gentoo. The PBI system is very nifty, but it takes somebody to package an app into a pbi before it can be installed in that manner. If an application is not available as a pbi file, then you have no choice to fall back to the ports system, or the package system. To get the newest software on BSD, ports is the way to go, and if there is no pbi file, then it is the way to go in PC-BSD too.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: It's ok. (1/2)
by Doc Pain on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's ok. "
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Wow, I'm extremely surprised someone said it.
PC-BSD is the ONLY *NIX distribution that got it right. Having bottled applications is the way to go."


For average users, I completely agree, as long as stable and tested versions are botteled. For developers or professional users this may differ, because they may have the requirement to use and test bleeding edge software, along with the ability of updating underlying libraries without having to reinstall applications that are based on these libraries.

"PBIs make it easier to develop, deploy, use and maintain software."

I'm not sure if a command line driven PBI installer exists. The way of downloading and clicking makes it more complicated to automate software installation.

How much does the use of PBIs make it easier to develop software, or to maintain it? I don't understand, please elaborate on this.

"Everything is in one place, no dependency hell at all, both the developer and the user don't even have to care about what's already installed on the system and what's not."

That's correct and, by the way, a very comfortable thing. But finally, you sometimes "pay" for it with having to download bigger packages or getting more disk space occupied. But we do have enough of both, don't we? :-)

"Windows got it right: there's no central "repository", except for maybe updates and security patches. The software market is free and sky is the limit."

I don't think so. Requiring the user to google around for drivers and applications is annoying. In PC-BSD, you can simply advice a user to search for, let's say, "digikam", let him download and install it. Or you can tell him to simply enter "pkg_add -r xmms" inside a terminal. Can you do on "Windows"? No, of course not.

FreeBSD's classic ports are free, too. Every developer may contribute to it, let his piece of software enter the repository, and benefit from the already existing automations inside the ports system. Using this way, even precompiled packages are made available by the FreeBSD ports team.

To find out more, feel free to read here:

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports.htm...
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/

"Whereas in Debian, Fedora or Ubuntu one has to upgrade the whole operating system just to get the latest version of Firefox or other basic piece of software."

Pardon my question, but why do you think so? Allthough I'm not a regular Linux users, this sounds stupid to me and I never had to do a system update in order to get Firefox or any other piece of basic software running...

"Of course, changing this paradigm in a Linux distro nowadays is almost impossible: the sheer number of libraries needed for various software could easily bring a modern HDD to its knees, not to mention the amounts of RAM required."

That's the same way MICROS~1 OSes and applications develop. But for the average user, it does not matter, because he usually has a high-end PC at home. Users with limited ressources and basic UNIX knowledge surely would prefer to build an own system based on FreeBSD rather than using PC-BSD.

"But who am I to argue, when we all know "choice is good". Look where aimless development has brought the Linux world: in chaos. I am not arguing for voluntary boycott of toolkits, libraries or programming languages, but for more responsibility on behalf of developers and less ego."

Choice is what makes me able to get a full-featured UNIX system running on a 150 MHz Pentium with 128 MB RAM, because I can still use light-weight applications. I am not forced to use KDE or Gnome. This choice is available in Linux, as it is in PC-BSD.

But "aimless" development? I think the term development implies an aim...

"Security issues are indeed more easier to fix when using a centralized package management system, however, that does not mean it's impossible or even hard to fix them when we use the decentralized approach. Staying current with the latest vulnerabilities should be the developer's job. Installing the security updates from upstream should be the user's job."

I'd say, it could (!) be the OSes job, as long as the issue is system related, and the package subsystem's job, as long as the issue is related to an application or library that is installed. But let's assume applications A, B, C, D and E use library K. In K, a security problem has just occured. The developers of A up to E would need to be up to date here, and provide a new botteled update from A(K) to A'(K') etc., and the user would need to reinstall A .. E or install a binary fix from his A .. E to A' .. E'. He cannot simply update K to K'.

"Since we're discussing package management, lame excuses like "you can always compile the software you want" are just that: lame. Compiled software is software the package manager is NOT aware of."

FreeBSD provides a solution here: You can install portinstall / portupgrade with provides a package database to be used with pkgdb. Now ports and packages easily know about each other, and you can use frontends to the ports and the packages. Of course, you get warnings if you try to overwrite libraries. This way, "dependency hell" is avoidable.

Example:

# cd /usr/ports
# make update
# pkgdb -aF
# portinstall -P audio/xmms
# portupgrade audio/xmms

This example shows how to install xmms via package (equ. pkg_add -r xmms), and then update via ports. Of course, installation from source would have the same effect. One uses packages, one uses the ports. portinstall and portupgrade update the pkgdb before and after installation and check for the existance and version numbering of dependencies. So you cannot "smash" other applications that rely on a certain version of a library, for example. Furthermore, you can use the classical ports and packages together with pkgdb.

# pkg_add -r xmms
# pkgdb -aF

# cd /usr/ports/audio/xmms
# make install
# pkgdb -aF

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: It's ok. (1/2)
by antik on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's ok. (1/2)"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

I'm not sure if a command line driven PBI installer exists. The way of downloading and clicking makes it more complicated to automate software installation.

# ee /home/me/automated_PBI_install.sh
------------------
#!/bin/sh
cd /home/me/PBI
./YourFavoritePBI.pbi -text
./YourOtherFavoritePBI.pbi -text
...
------------------

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: It's ok. (1/2)
by Doc Pain on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It's ok. (1/2)"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Thank you, this works, of course - as long as the PBI files have been downloaded before. I thought about something that does not need that much interaction, e. g.

# pbi_add koffice

where the newest available PBI version is downloaded automatically and installed afterwards.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: It's ok. (2/2)
by Doc Pain on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's ok. "
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"[...] you now have a more recent version of Firefox that can break the fragile ecosystem in the OS."

How can additionally installed software do any harm to the OS? For example, you could remove every (!) non-OS software (rm -rf /usr/local/) and still have the OS running withoug any change.

"Where's the base system? Oh, right, there is none. The software on the install CD is just a part of a repository that is a snapshot frozen in time of whatever was available at the moment of the release. These guys managed to b0rk the definition of an operating system by trying to shove every existing piece of software in the repositories."

This is exactly where PC-BSD did a great approach: Take a complete and "only" OS, FreeBSD, add KDE, add applications. But you can get rid of KDE and all these applications and still have a fully functional OS ready to be used with XFCE, if you want to. The applications provided by PC-BSD and the PBI repository nearly include everything the average user seems to need.

"And when something like PC-BSD appears the zealots bash it just because it's different."

I honestly applaude the developers of PC-BSD for their great work, but I may say that PC-BSD definitely is not designed for me, because I first would have to deinstall everything. :-) I prefer a system built on the basis of FreeBSD with applications installed one by one, exactly as needed and intended. Mst of them I install via pkg_add. Some (e. g. mplayer) I need to install from source due to the selection of several options.

My neighbor uses PC-BSD since 1.2 and is completely happy with it. He's not very "computer literate", but he didn't have any problem. This was different when he tried to use "Windows".

"FYI, I am not a PC-BSD user, because I dislike KDE. But I can praise real achievements when I see them. Kudos to the PC-BSD team for daring to create the PBI system in a world full of ignorance."

I agree and may add: PBI has it disadvantages as you will surely acknowledge, but it's a great thing for the average user. This is who PC-BSD is targeted at. PBIs provide basic and tested functionality.

One downside of PBIs is that they don't cover the existing requirement of having options set at compile time. As an example I'd like to mention mplayer where several settings can be customized via Makefile.local in order to get codecs running the way as intended. You may want to select codec Y and not to include codec Z. What would the PBI solution be? For every possible combination one PBI? One for WITH_SDL, WITH_VORBIS, WITH_GUI, WITHOUT_RUNTIME_CPUDETECTION each, and one for every possible combination, and everything with various combinations out of CFLAGS+= -O3 -pipe -mfpmath=sse -ffast-math? No, of course not, that would be too much. Just to complete this: PC-BSD encourages the user to use Kaffeine instead of mplayer / kmplayer because of the better integration with KDE, but still codecs need to be installed afterwards.

To come back on topic: The reviews mentioned were interesting. There's something I'd like to ask. One thing I have noticed: The desktop themes used today (in general, but to be seen in the review, too) usually look like "Vista". There are even Linux distros that tend to ecactly copy "XP"'s look and feel. Why is imitating "Windows" so popular when presenting a Linux / UNIX OS (or GUI)?

Reply Score: 4

RE: It's ok.
by vermaden on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 06:00 UTC in reply to "It's ok. "
vermaden Member since:
2006-11-18

"The installer is cool if you are a former Windows user but a pain in the butt if you are used to APT. Yes APT has its issues but I love the fact that when I install a machine I can just pick all the things at once and let them just install. No looking around the software website and then downloading each app and installing one at a time by hand. That is the old convoluted Windows way. Blah."

Did you even read the headr of this news?

(...) equally so if you are an experienced techie you can get into the FreeBSD ports tree and compile to your hearts content."

PCBSD = FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE + KDE + Graphical Installer + PBIs + ...

FreeBSD Ports ars still AVIALABLE and ready to use at AYNTIME, same for binary packages added by pkg_add -r package.

PBIs are mostly user for applications that require a lot more then pkg_add -r package, for example installation of Photoshop, Dreamweaver or even Internet Explorer (since developers need it) using wine, check this link for details: http://forums.pcbsd.org/viewtopic.php?t=8467

Next time read at least a news header before spreading misinformation.

Reply Score: 8

v RE[2]: It's ok.
by Windows Sucks on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 12:41 UTC in reply to "RE: It's ok. "
RE[3]: It's ok.
by Oliver on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's ok. "
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>I am sorry but if you have used PCBSD you will notice that they push their installer and don't tell you anything about ports!

Have a look into the forum.

Ports aren't difficult to use, just time consuming.

>Now I know ports can be used and you know ports can be used but would a regular user know that?

Yes if he isn't brain dead and can read ...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: It's ok.
by orfanum on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's ok. "
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

I am a user. I am average.

PCBSD folks are upfront about the ways you can install stuff:

http://docs.pcbsd.org/guide/chap4.1.html

The do recommend using PBIs, but that's hardly 'pushing' this option. A quick read of the rest of it doesn't indicate to me that they are saying 'use ports only if you like Japanese game show torture-type activities' (no disrespect to any Japanese reading this forum).

But maybe I am incorrect - it's been known.

Reply Score: 4

RE: It's ok.
by biteydog on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 10:02 UTC in reply to "It's ok. "
biteydog Member since:
2005-10-06

I'm not the biggest fan of the package installer in PC-BSD, but there is the alternative of "ports", which covers just about everything.

Personally I prefer it to Kubuntu because, as a former SuSE user (since 6.2/1999) until Novell messed it over, I like a "classic" KDE desktop, IMHO Kubuntu, though very usable to a new Linux user, omits many of the best KDE features, and isn't as well integrated.

Reply Score: 3

RE: It's ok.
by Oliver on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 16:07 UTC in reply to "It's ok. "
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>It's not to the level of Ubuntu.

Thanks god :-)

Reply Score: 8

Klik2 for linux
by chris_dk on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 18:46 UTC
chris_dk
Member since:
2005-07-12

If you don't want to mess with package managers, klik2 will probably be something you want:

From http://code.google.com/p/klikclient/issues/detail?id=1

"Linux users can't easily run every software yet without interfering with their distro

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Install the Linux distribution of your choice
2. Decide that you want to use, let's say, fooapp (which is not part of
your distro)
3. Try to use fooapp while leaving your distro intact as it is

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
I want to download and run software with just one click. After I am done, I
want to remove the software and all its traces by putting it into the trash.
Instead (without klik), I have to mess with package managers which change
my base system, change sources.list, compile stuff, mess with dependencies,
recompile, an in the end have a messed up system. When I remove the
application, I can never be sure whether I have really deleted it and
really have reverted all the changes that were made to my system for
satisfying dependencies.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
Practically any Linux distribution.

Please provide any additional information below.
Using virtualized applications that follow the "1 app = 1 file" philosophy,
things get really easy.
"

Reply Score: 2

RE: Klik2 for linux
by raynevandunem on Thu 4th Oct 2007 07:57 UTC in reply to "Klik2 for linux"
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

I'm personally rooting for klik2, particularly since any current hindrances in speed are going out because they're building this new version on FUSE.

http://klik.atekon.de/wiki/index.php/FUSE

However, building an application platform on FUSE, IMO, will be tricky, since none of the major desktop environments - at least, neither KDE nor GNOME - are willing to incorporate FUSE + dbus into their developer base; they both have their own virtual filesystems (KIO slaves for KDE, Bonobo>GNOME-VFS>gvfs for GNOME) and at least one GNOME dev has expressed reluctance for FUSE + dbus to be incorporated into GNOME. http://aruiz.typepad.com/siliconisland/2007/05/re_my_thoughts_.html

Plus, I think that, if klik2 becomes popular, the desktop environments should come with it, rather than the distributions, since klik2 is primarily a desktop software distribution system, not an operating system software distribution system.

It just seems more logical that way.

Finally, once klik2 comes out, I just might go on a masochistic distro-swapping binge again, LOL!

Edited 2007-10-04 08:09

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Klik2 for linux
by anda_skoa on Thu 4th Oct 2007 10:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Klik2 for linux"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

However, building an application platform on FUSE, IMO, will be tricky, since none of the major desktop environments - at least, neither KDE nor GNOME - are willing to incorporate FUSE + dbus into their developer base...


Aside from the problem of too few supported operating system, there is still a lot of work to do before desktop environments could consider it.

If you read the article which is reference from the one you linked here, you'll see that FUSE would first need a couple of interaction interfaces, e.g. for asking user credentials, passing connection parameters, etc.

Once these are in place, the desktop environment projects will reconsider FUSE, either as a replacement or as an additional option.

Reply Score: 2

ATI Driver Issue
by TaterSalad on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 19:39 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

PC-BSD is great from what I have used of it in VMWare Player. However after loading it on my local laptop and selecting the ATI driver it works for about a minute then freezes up. I want to help make pc-bsd be all it can be so can someone tell me how to file this bug as a bug report?

Reply Score: 2