Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Oct 2007 20:49 UTC, submitted by Flatland_Spider
PC-BSD Jan Stedehouder has used PC-BSD for thirty days to see what living with it is like. On day thirty, he concludes: "Does PC-BSD have the potential to be a serious contender for the open source desktop? I answered that question with a yes, because the potential is there. The solid FreeBSD roots, the very strong and very accessible information, the friendly and mature community and the PBI system provide the foundations for that potential. I don't think it is ready now and I couldn't recommend it yet to someone in the early stages of moving away from Windows to an open source desktop. But I do think that the PC-BSD team has the right target audience in mind and is building an system and a support system that addresses it's needs."
Order by: Score:
Some points
by zizban on Fri 5th Oct 2007 21:46 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

PC-BSD is positioned as a FreeBSD system with full compatibility. This is true as long as you keep the core system as it is and don’t start installing software via packages and ports. At that point I got the impression that PC-BSD is not completely in sync with FreeBSD. I have seen too many second and third digit dependency errors that made installing software via packages or ports a hit-and-miss thing.

This is very true. I found the ports simply terrible, hit or miss or simply broken was was odd if you are to say you have full FreeBSD compatibility. The PBIs are great but so few of them with bizarre hit or miss dependencies.

The second problem was with the graphics card. The suggestion to change the aperture in the BIOS was good and the solution worked. But PC-BSD is the only OS that needs this change and I have tried quite a few. Again, not something a novice user would understand and hence not something I want to see in an operating system that caters to the desktop user.

I had this problem as well. Stock Intel i810 thing that works flawlessly with every OS I've thrown at it (even Syllable and ReactOS) yet with PC-BSD I got unusual black lines and had to settle for a lower resolution to get rid of them. Even FreeBSD handles this card fine.

PC-BSD certainly has potential but also some truly annoying bugs.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Some points
by Doc Pain on Fri 5th Oct 2007 23:11 UTC in reply to "Some points"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I found the ports simply terrible, hit or miss or simply broken was was odd if you are to say you have full FreeBSD compatibility."

Don't forget to update your ports before doing anything. Furthermore, using the ports is only needed if you are forced to have some options set at compile time (e. g. for mplayer: usage of codecs, OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS etc.); in any other case, precompiled packages should work fine because needed dependencies are installed by the way (e. g. pkg_add -r xmms).

On PC-BSD, using the PBIs is highly recommended. The pbidir contains almost everything the average home user might need - this is who PC-BSD is targetted at.

Due to changes of X11BASE from /usr/X11R6 to /usr/local (in order to have only one directory containing everything installed that does not belong to the OS), some ports may crash, that's true.

Ports is nicht for Gewerken by das Dummkopfen. :-)

"The PBIs are great but so few of them with bizarre hit or miss dependencies. "

The PBI packages do already contain the dependencies. So you won't encounter any problems here.

- NMI -

Regarding the article, I had an interesting read. But it's really strange how many problems the author had. My neighbor uses PC-BSD for longer time now and didn't encounter any of them. Seems it depends on how you use your system... I still liked that the author tried so many things with PC-BSD, even strange (to me) ones.

Note belonging to day 28's crash test: You can set fsck to run in the background (while boot continues), so you won't have to wait. The OS refusing to install on a defective hard disk is nothing strange. What strange expections do people have, anyway? :-)

"But, overall, I did what I would normally do on a Linux desktop or at work on a Windows desktop [...]" - yes, hitting the reset switch all the time because the computer works with ones and zeros. I'm interested in how DesktopBSD will work under this condition in his next experiment. :-)

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Some points
by netpython on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Some points"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Neither would i classify the issues the author experienced as problems. In addition i know my way around *BSD as i presume you do as well.

See from an beginners point of view operating PCBSD for a while might be just enough to come around. So in this regard couldn't it all depend on the point of view?

Personally for me PCBSD is an appetizer. It isn't that different if you compare it with most other operating systems. Once you get the hang of any OS you can eventually grow and enter the more advanced concepts. The author of the article has done a decent job reviewing imho.

Reply Score: 3

Package Management
by saterdaies on Sat 6th Oct 2007 03:14 UTC
saterdaies
Member since:
2005-07-07

What's really missing from the BSDs is good, binary package management. It's what really separates the BSDs from most Linux flavors. Debian, RedHat, SUSE, Mandriva, Ubuntu, and many more just have great package management systems that wonderfully install software.

With the BSDs, well, pkg_add isn't great at resolving dependencies and ports need to compile. PBIs are definitely not the answer. Really, they're a truly terrible idea. Package all dependencies in one binary so that when there's a security flaw in one common dependency, it needs to be updated in 50 places (by 50 different people creating 50 new PBIs).

This is what is really holding BSDs back from becoming mainstream (well, mainstream like Linux).

Reply Score: 8

RE: Package Management
by Chezz on Sat 6th Oct 2007 03:37 UTC in reply to "Package Management"
Chezz Member since:
2005-07-11

With the BSDs, well, pkg_add isn't great at resolving dependencies and ports need to compile. PBIs are definitely not the answer. Really, they're a truly terrible idea. Package all dependencies in one binary so that when there's a security flaw in one common dependency, it needs to be updated in 50 places (by 50 different people creating 50 new PBIs).


I have been using pkg_add -r add for the past 9 years and I never had any dependency issue. In fact I just throw the package name at it and it installs everything smoothly. And to be honest with you when I used to use Redhat GNU/Linux years ago I couldn't get rpm to automatically install dependencies but "pkg_add -r" did it at that time and it is still doing it smoothly. I am aware of the new fancy gui pkg managements introduced in debian/ubuntoo and others and I love the way they use the point and click install. PBI is not as perfect as that but it is doing well there.

Perhaps can you give me where pkg_add didn't meet your needs and it gave you some dependency "hell"? I will be more than happy to run that exact command on my box and give you my experience.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Package Management
by gireesh on Sat 6th Oct 2007 04:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Package Management"
gireesh Member since:
2005-07-24

the problem I had with pkg_add was that the binary package was too far behind the ports package. I would have liked having the binaries on par with ports all the time. Is that too much to ask for?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Package Management
by sonic2000gr on Sat 6th Oct 2007 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
sonic2000gr Member since:
2007-05-20

Try:

export PACKAGESITE="ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/Lat...

or:

export PACKAGESITE="ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/All...

(no line breaks!)

before issuing your pkg_add -r command.
(If you use csh, change export to setenv and replace "=" with a space)

If you use "Latest", you simply specify the package name. If you use "All" you need to specify exact version. You can browse the ftp location above to see what is available. Most of these packages are in sync or a few minor version behind the ports, and are continously updated.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Package Management
by Chezz on Sat 6th Oct 2007 06:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Package Management"
Chezz Member since:
2005-07-11

I think you switched gears here. First you were bashing pkg_add because there are *problems* with dependencies. Now are you bashing it because the mirror you are using is not up to date?

Would you specify the exact issue?

Did you try to use another Mirror? like stable branch?

I mentioned this long time ago but you can try it if you are using 6.x:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=12756&comment_id=64030

if you still can't find the latest version you can always compile your own with portupgrade -vaRrPp

If you are still not satisfied you can get the package from the 3rd party website like freshports.

If you are still not satisfied then donate some hardware to FreeBSD so they can build hourly ports for you.

Edited 2007-10-06 06:08

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Package Management
by edogawaconan on Sat 6th Oct 2007 08:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Package Management"
edogawaconan Member since:
2006-10-10

if you still can't find the latest version you can always compile your own with portupgrade -vaRrPp

don't forget to do a cvsup before starting portupgrade...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Package Management
by Flatland_Spider on Sat 6th Oct 2007 17:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Package Management"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Would a fresh portsnap do the same thing, or is it strictly configured to use what cvsup pulls down?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Package Management
by superman on Sat 6th Oct 2007 06:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Package Management"
superman Member since:
2006-08-01

> I used to use Redhat GNU/Linux years ago I couldn't get rpm to automatically install dependencies

Rpm does not automatically revolve dependencies. Yum or smart or drakerpm or up2date or apt (apt4rpm) ... does.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Package Management
by Chezz on Sat 6th Oct 2007 06:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
Chezz Member since:
2005-07-11

instead of just quoting the part you like... you should probably (out of honesty) finish your quote. I already said I am aware of the new fancy gui stuff. I know what yum and apt-get can do.

Btw at that time yum even exist.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Package Management
by null_pointer_us on Sat 6th Oct 2007 19:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Package Management"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

But many of those programs are not "new fancy GUI stuff"--yum and apt are command line utilities, for example, and they've been around for years. If they were not around at the time, great, but you seem to be missing the point: resolving dependencies by auto-fetching packages is not something RPM was intended to do.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Package Management
by Joe User on Sat 6th Oct 2007 23:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Package Management"
RE[3]: Package Management
by Doc Pain on Sun 7th Oct 2007 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"You are obviously lying. For me "pkg_add -r" aborts ~30% of times."

I won't mod you down allthough I think your first statement deserves it. Instead, I'd like to tell you this:

Don't insult someone, please, just because your individual experiences differ from his. I'm using pkg_add -r for most software I install and I cannot your confirm your "30%", so I'd have the right to insult you being a liar? No, I won't do that. But please take in mind that, depending on the PACKAGESITE you use, packages can be considered to be experimental, or at least non-RELEASE or non-STABLE. It can depend on what kind of software you're adding, too.

I can honestly agree to the one you replied at, the "liar" - call me a liar, too, if you like, but I say to you: I didn't encounter any major problems using the precompiled packages via pkg_add -r when adding software to the system.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 04:36 UTC in reply to "Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

With the BSDs, well, pkg_add isn't great at resolving dependencies and ports need to compile. PBIs are definitely not the answer. Really, they're a truly terrible idea.

"""

Thank you. I agree completely. I hope this PBI mania ends soon. I suspect it will be pushed to its limits before it dies, though. :-(

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Package Management
by Doc Pain on Sat 6th Oct 2007 05:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Package Management"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I hope this PBI mania ends soon. I suspect it will be pushed to its limits before it dies, though. :-("

PBIs are the way to go for average desktop home users. That's what they are used to. It's working as they expect it to do. Of course, it has it disadvantages that make nearly every professional avoiding to use it. But hey, PC-BSD is targetted at desktop users, to give them what they declare to want / seem to need.

NB: The worst solution always prevails. :-)

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

PBIs are the way to go for average desktop home users. That's what they are used to. It's working as they expect it to do. Of course, it has it disadvantages that make nearly every professional avoiding to use it.

"""

I don't suppose that killing the average desktop home users (my first choice) would be considered an acceptable solution. So I am forced to bow to your argument. ;-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Package Management
by Doc Pain on Sat 6th Oct 2007 05:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Package Management"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I don't suppose that killing the average desktop home users (my first choice) would be considered an acceptable solution. So I am forced to bow to your argument. ;-)"

You don't need to kill them. Just take away their PCs and give them a TV set and a gaming console, a calculator, and a typewriter. That's what they're using on their PCs. And they won't note the difference... :-)

Edited 2007-10-06 05:41

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

You don't need to kill them. Just take away their PCs and give them a TV set and a gaming console, a calculator, and a typewriter. That's what they're using on their PCs. And they won't note the difference... :-)

"""

And a VCR. Don't forget the VCR. It was all those blinking 12:00's that drove them to Windows in the first place! ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Package Management
by BluenoseJake on Sat 6th Oct 2007 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Package Management"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"You don't need to kill them. Just take away their PCs and give them a TV set and a gaming console, a calculator, and a typewriter. That's what they're using on their PCs. And they won't note the difference... :-)"

That won't work, you've given them nothing to download porn with.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Package Management
by meianoite on Sat 6th Oct 2007 04:53 UTC in reply to "Package Management"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

What's really missing from the BSDs is good, binary package management. It's what really separates the BSDs from most Linux flavors. Debian, RedHat, SUSE, Mandriva, Ubuntu, and many more just have great package management systems that wonderfully install software.
...
This is what is really holding BSDs back from becoming mainstream (well, mainstream like Linux).


I just love how people freak out about Gentoo and how brilliant it is to compile everything from scratch and how everything is so fast and so tailored to one's needs... And on the other hand the BSDs are chastised for offering the same damn functionality. I mean, the BSDs inspired Gentoo's way and it was kind of revolutionary on the Linux world, and now people want the BSDs to Ubuntuise themselves?

Give me a humongous break.

There's the mainstream (Windows), there's the alternative (Mac OS X), there's the rebels (*nix clones).

My humble opinion is that if you decided to drift from the mainstream, take the friggin' jump for real, instead of hoping for a freebie drop-in replacement for Windows. If you want to empower yourself, empower yourself.

But if you want to be hand-guided into what you believe is the Wonderland of OSs, don't bark at the wrong tree. There are people working on providing the features you wish on several strains of those alternative OSs, but you can't really expect everything to fit your vision of how things should behave. Even on Wonderland you can't expect not to bump into the Cheshire cat or (gulp) the Queen of Hearts.

Some things just aren't designed to become mainstream; get over it. I'm sorry, but reading "The Universe in a Nutshell" doesn't make one an astrophysicist. Either you accept the whole package that comes with pursuing knowledge that's outside of the mainstream, or you accept the fact that otherwise you'll never go deeper than watching documentaries on Discovery Channel. It's really that simple.

Reply Score: 11

RE: Package Management
by Oliver on Sat 6th Oct 2007 09:19 UTC in reply to "Package Management"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

pkg_add resolves dependencies, if there are dependencies to install. So it's okay to do so after the release, but later it will fail, if you don't know better sources (and yes they are available).

>It's what really separates the BSDs from most Linux flavors.

Yes *BSD are source based operating systems like Gentoo.

>This is what is really holding BSDs back from becoming mainstream

And this is good most of the time, like in Gentoo too. Almost 30 years of BSD and guess what, it's alive and kickin ;)

>well, mainstream like Linux

Of course there is just no mainstream 'like Linux', there is maybe just mainstream 'like distro xyz'.

Flavours like DesktopBSD or PC-BSD will fill the gap for the desktop. And most users migrating from Linux are just amazed about the quality of the OS.t

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Package Management
by dylansmrjones on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Package Management"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I'm looking forward to the series on DesktopBSD. It's much more to my liking than PC-BSD.

DesktopBSD isn't a FreeBSD distribution as such. It's actually "just" a pre-configured FreeBSD installation, rather than a distribution built on FreeBSD as PC-BSD is. Installing applications on DesktopBSD is done through ports, which is much more to my liking.

Personally I use Gentoo Linux (apart from Windows, Syllable, SkyOS and DesktopBSD) but IMHO Portage is a bloated overengineered version of ports. Or put this way: ports are portage done right ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Package Management
by antik on Sat 6th Oct 2007 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

DesktopBSD isn't a FreeBSD distribution as such. It's actually "just" a pre-configured FreeBSD installation, rather than a distribution built on FreeBSD as PC-BSD is. Installing applications on DesktopBSD is done through ports, which is much more to my liking.

Again I hear FUD from die hard FreeBSD fan who never tried PC-BSD- there is no difference in DesktopBSD and PC-BSD at all- PBI is add-on package manager- that's all. Everything in PC-BSD is built from ports (without any modification BTW) and just added couple of separate tools for system configuration like "user manager" and "Firewall GUI" which is not ready for production because there is so much options in PF (OpenBSD Packet Filter). It take a time to complete and polish operating system- Microsoft developed Windows for 10 years until it become barely usable.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Package Management
by Oliver on Sat 6th Oct 2007 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

I'm in the DesktopBSD team, but I really don't see any difference apart from some tools or the design of KDE itself. So there is no real competition like in many Linux distros. I meet some of the PCBSD on a regular base in IRC for example.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Package Management
by pandronic on Sat 6th Oct 2007 10:53 UTC in reply to "Package Management"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

PBIs are definitely not the answer. Really, they're a truly terrible idea.

Give me a break ... having a standalone installer packaged in one file IS the answer. It's so much more convenient. Take Windows for example ... I can use Google (or whatever search engine I like) to find the application I need, I download it and install it. Take Linux for example ... I search a database using a simplistic search engine for an application that might or might not be there (depending on the developers' mood or agenda); if I don't find it then I have to install some repository and search in there and then another one, and so on.

And what about updating? I don't mind every application doing it on its own when I use it, or doing it myself. I actually find that some old versions fit my needs better (for example Photoshop 7 works better for me than CS3). I don't care about vulnerabilities - not even once did one of my unupdated applications on my Windows box had any problems with this (of course, I don't use IE ;) ). If you ask me its just paranoia.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

Give me a break ...

"""

So many gems in this post:

1. "so much more convenient."

2. Take Windows for example

3. "I don't mind every application doing it on its own when I use it"

4. "I don't care about vulnerabilities..." and "If you ask me its just paranoia."


Why don't you just go ahead and say it. You know you want to: "Mediocrity is the level of standard we should be shooting for".

P.S. Please stop sending me Viagra offers.

Edited 2007-10-06 12:57

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Package Management
by dylansmrjones on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The problem is not individual installers. The problem is that updating them usually requires hunting the net for the updated packages.

Combine decentralized installation with central management (like the way one can update extensions for Firefox) and the problem is solved.

Think "Software Store". Or think "Package Update API". One click and the "Software Store" will search for new versions available of installed packages. It will then ask if it should download the installers. When downloads are finished it can either run them silently or possible run the inter-active installers.

For this to work the installed application must register itself in the Software Store. All this would require is a text file containing the URL to a directory containing future updates. Yeehaa... decentralized installation with optional centralized management and updating ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Would it not be better for the software distributor to create an rpm and a deb and send them to the proper repos?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Package Management
by dylansmrjones on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Package Management"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I don't see anything bad about combining the solutions. Central repositories have some downsides and decentral installers have some downsides. Combining them would hopefully create a solution with the best from both worlds.

It does of course put some limitations on the nature of distributions (particularly binary distributions). They can't keep breaking binary compatibility between each distribution update (which is quite usual with Fedora), which again leads to them having to support multiple versions of the same packages (e.g. using slotted versions of most libraries). Or put differently, packages for Linux Distribution XYZ Core 1 should also work with Linux Distribution XYZ Core 9. If this isn't the case individual installers will have a hard time working. Maintaining a central repository usually means quite limited number of packages available - and 2-3-4-5 months waiting time for the package to go stable (and who wants to use an unstable version of glibc?).

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Package Management
by zombie process on Sat 6th Oct 2007 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Package Management"
zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

How does that solution resolve, say, library version issues? Personally, I think that all inclusive bin files probably *is* the solution - yes, there are certain security caveats, but for 99% of the people out there, fscking around with dependencies is a nightmare.

Most people want to be able to install software that is meant for "their OS" w/o having to compile or fight with their package manager - even very intelligent people with decent tech savvy have issues with this kind of thing. Right now, it's extremely difficult for me to explain to people who run linux part-time that, no, you cannot get that rpm and expect it to "just work" on your ubuntu box, or whatever. It's kind of a mess whether we want to admit it to ourselves as uber-1337 g33x or not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Package Management
by dylansmrjones on Sat 6th Oct 2007 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Package Management"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

How does that solution resolve, say, library version issues?


Hmm... we could store dependency information in one or more text-files included in the installer, put them somewhere sane (if possible with that crappy FHS) and simply let the installer download installers for missing dependencies. In regard to reverse dependency resolution we could have a dependency counter (think semaphore or memory management in non-managed languages) and when the counter reaches 0 there is no packages depending on it. Removal would be safe (except for packages compiled by the user outside the package management).

In order for packages from one distribution to work on another we need at least two things:

1* A common package format (or at least ONE common installer format, or at least ONE open standard for this task)
2* A common binary installation (LSB is a step in that direction, I guess - at least for Linux)

#2 is what pretty much kills this idea for GNU/Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Package Management
by pandronic on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

No need to use that condescending tone ... It wouldn't hurt if you actually wrote some arguments instead of presuming that they are so obvious that you just need to quote me and everybody would understand immediately why you think I'm wrong.

And yes, I'll give Windows as an example since it has 90% market share. I can also give Mac OS as an example if you want.

And yes, I don't update my applications except Firefox which updates itself, and I haven't had any problems because of this. I'm running Acrobat Reader 6.0 (unupdated), Open Office 2.2, ACDSee 2, ZoneAlarm (6.something, probably not the latest), Yahoo Messenger 8.0, Photoshop 7 and I could go on. If I upgrade an app is because I like a feature in that app and rarely because of security. And let me emphasize this: I don't have worms, trojans, viruses or any other kind of malware.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
No need to use that condescending tone ...
"""

No condescent intended. :-)

"""

I don't have worms, trojans, viruses or any other kind of malware.

"""

How do you know that, for sure?

Most of the people who participate in sending me the Viagra ads don't think they are doing it. Windows botnet software has gotten pretty stealthy, these days.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Package Management
by pandronic on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Package Management"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

How do you know that, for sure?

Well, the fact that I'm using Windows since 3.1 and the fact that I'm a programmer for the past 15 years and the fact that I scan my system with AVG and Adblock (manually updated) every couple of month.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Package Management
by netpython on Sat 6th Oct 2007 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Package Management"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

the fact that I scan my system with AVG and Adblock

Just curious, how do you scan with adblock?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

Just curious, how do you scan with adblock?

"""

His 15 years of programming experience, of course! All you've got to do is modify the Heisenburg compensators a tad! ;-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Package Management
by pandronic on Sat 6th Oct 2007 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Package Management"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

sorry, I meant adaware.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
How do you know that, for sure?

Well, the fact that I'm using Windows since 3.1 and the fact that I'm a programmer for the past 15 years and the fact that I scan my system with AVG and Adblock (manually updated) every couple of month.
"""

20 years, here (professionally, that is.). You scan your system with adblock? (Every couple of months?) That must be a newer feature. I gave up on Windows 11 years ago. It *has* gotten better since 3.1. But it has also gotten a lot more dangerous. I don't trust it. Even with the 28 years of computing experience I have behind me. The Altair 8800 at the high school I attended got hacked by a couple of my fellow students. Smart guys, those were. I was just getting started back then. It was running one of those Basic-based OSes written by some company operating out of a Seattle suburb.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Package Management
by BluenoseJake on Sat 6th Oct 2007 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Package Management"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"I don't have worms, trojans, viruses or any other kind of malware."

Are you sure?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Package Management
by Doc Pain on Sun 7th Oct 2007 16:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Package Management"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I'm running [...] ZoneAlarm (6.something, probably not the latest [...] And let me emphasize this: I don't have worms, trojans, viruses or any other kind of malware."

*ping* You have. Isn't "ZoneAlarm" the famous firewall imitation with built in spyware? :-)

As others have replied, you cannot tell for sure that you don't have a virus. First, you don't run an antivirus application (at least, none on your list), and if you would, you cannot be sure because in "Windows" you lack simple diagnostic tools that enable you to look "under the hood". Can you imagine how many "No visus Pappanheimers" I could convince using a simple packat scanner (i. e. Ethereal used inside a LAN) that their machine was working as a spam sender, spy host, file sharing base etc.?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Package Management
by Oliver on Sat 6th Oct 2007 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Package Management"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>I don't care about vulnerabilities

Mmh, strange? Why not just use Windows?

>If you ask me its just paranoia.

No it's knowledge. And to some extent this is part of the problem with Windows. People don't know anything, but they want to use everything.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Package Management
by pandronic on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Mmh, strange? Why not just use Windows?

Well, *shocker* I'm using it almost exclusively, but I'd like to see a free viable alternative.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

"Why not just use Windows?"

Well, *shocker* I'm using it almost exclusively, but I'd like to see a free viable alternative.

"""

Windows eats your BRANE. ;-)

Edit: What can I say? It's Saturday morning. Slow news day. :-)

Edited 2007-10-06 15:12

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Package Management
by dylansmrjones on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Package Management"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Bot to ne pedabtic, nut the spellibg is Nraib abd bot Nrabe.

Abd what happebed to my keynoard? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

the spellibg is Nraib abd bot Nrabe.

"""

BK. Baybe bou bidn't bet bhe bemo:

http://lwn.net/Articles/83360/

Benjoy!

:-)

Edited 2007-10-06 15:50

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Package Management
by dylansmrjones on Sat 6th Oct 2007 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Package Management"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Hey, I'm netter at misspellibg thab you are ;)

Reply Score: 2

v Lets get serious
by daedliusswartz on Sat 6th Oct 2007 04:49 UTC
RE: Lets get serious
by dindin on Sat 6th Oct 2007 05:05 UTC in reply to "Lets get serious"
dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

"Servers, for sure. Desktop, not a chance."


I use FreeBSD at work and have tried it on laptops and I tend to agree with you. I use FreeBSD at work simply because there is no substitute for Dummynet (maybe the Linux guys can point me to one if they know). But I have been frustrated with some of the pkg_add issues; especially desktop apps. Don't get me wrong. Once you install 6.2-RELEASE and change PACKAGESITE to point to packages-6-stable you can install some of the newer ones, but pg_add does not have upgrade capability. Have tried portupgrade and have run into many issues.

So yes. If server where things don't get installed very often then FreeBSD is great. Not on the desktop - not right now. But I don't seem to be able to let go.

I am currently experimenting with Debian unstable. Gotta love apt-get.

-D

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Lets get serious
by Doc Pain on Sat 6th Oct 2007 05:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Lets get serious"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"But I have been frustrated with some of the pkg_add issues; especially desktop apps. Don't get me wrong. Once you install 6.2-RELEASE and change PACKAGESITE to point to packages-6-stable you can install some of the newer ones, but pg_add does not have upgrade capability. Have tried portupgrade and have run into many issues."

It's because portupgrade relies on the ports collection. If you use portupgrade -P or -PP, it reads from the precompiled package repository pointed at by PACKAGESITE, but these packages may be older than the content of the ports collection.

You're right, upgrading installed applications can be probelmatic if you're using pkg_add. But if you use the ports collection and run portupgrade properly, only defective ports entries may harm your additional applications installation. You can also use the make update / deinstall / reinstall facility of the ports tree.

"So yes. If server where things don't get installed very often then FreeBSD is great. Not on the desktop - not right now. But I don't seem to be able to let go."

What am I doing wrong that I don't reinstall or upgrade my applications that often? Some of them were installed two years ago without any requirement of upgrade. If it works - don't touch it. Never touch a running system. :-)

Furthermore, I've installed desktop systems built upon FreeBSD for "computer illiterate" users some time ago. The systems are still running and doing everything that the users expect from it. Why is this? Maybe because some users aren't keen to do experiments with their system all day long. Allthough I have to admit that no one of them could have installed and configured such a system within a finite time, now as it's running, they're fine with it. (I think that's the approach PC-BSD is taking with its design and its connection to KDE.)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Lets get serious
by Doc Pain on Sat 6th Oct 2007 05:12 UTC in reply to "Lets get serious"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"There's a real shortage of drivers, technical support, usable desktop applications and general industry support."

let me add shortly:

Drivers: Yes, Linux is much better here. But driver support (offering drivers or at least release specifications) is a matter of hardware manufacturers. You cannot expect OS and driver developers to invent everything for free, especially if the hardware manufacturer creates something non-standard.

Technical support: The camps who develop the BSDs are no commercial corporations such as MICROS~1, they can just deliver documentation, along with platforms where users can discuss. By the way, the BSDs always impressed me by the high quality of the documentation. Here, Linux can learn a bit. Or an octett. :-)

Usable desktop applications: Now you can blame nearly all Linusi, too. What do you think the big KDE is for? It offers nearly everything a desktop user might need. The rest is available from the PBIs, and the rest of the rest is available via ports or packages. Not to insult you, but what do you mean with "usable desktop applications", then?

General industry support: Another problem, I agree. Indistry is extremely poisoned by MICROS~1 marketing strategy and decisions made where no usable education is present - many hardware and software managers don't have a clue what they're talking about. But finally, the BSDs are all standard-compliant. Nearly every existing standard is implemented in one or more ways, so if it's about standards, the BSDs are inside the boat.

"Servers, for sure. Desktop, not a chance."

When you're talking about a significant usage share (and maybe oh joy oh market share), you are right. PC-BSD is not wide spread. This is because the BSDs are simply not designed to be used by average desktop users. They require a bit time to get into it, the ability to read some documentation and, of course, the opinion that you sometimes have to get your hands dirty in order to get something working. It's simply for people who don't have strange expectations (such as "If I plug in my camera, I want the OS to download all the pictures." - you can implement this easily.).

Finally, please note: FreeBSD (and the other BSDs, too) are not a Linux distribution. They are "just" an OS - nothing more, nothing less. PC-BSD now extended the OS with a GUI (KDE) and some preconfiguration and autodetect / automount / autofoobar functionalities in order to make it more appealing to users who know the same functionalities being brought by a Linux distribution out of the box.

But I have to say it clearly: In general, I agree to your statement.

There are exceptions: I'm using FreeBSD (not PC-BSD) as my main desktop OS since approx. 2000 now and I can't imagine to use something else. It perfectly fits my needs (my "desktop needs", to say so). Of course, I would not claim this could be true for average users, this can be assumed simply because I built the system myself, I am not using KDE or Gnome, and I have some nonstandard and "obsolete" hardware I need to use. FreeBSD is the only OS where everything works perfectly.

That's nothing bad - maybe the BSDs are not for Gewerken by das Dummkopfen... computers aren't easy... or, in other words: The BSDs are user friendly, they're just picky about their users. :-)

Edited 2007-10-06 05:15

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Lets get serious
by SK8T on Sat 6th Oct 2007 16:38 UTC in reply to "Lets get serious"
SK8T Member since:
2006-06-01

Mac OS X is a BSD, too.
Drivers…: Software and Hardware came from the same company, products you buy for this system have a driver included.
Market share: not too much yet, 25 million is the last number I know, but growing ;-)

So I think BSD has a chance on the desktop. But I think, the Desktop is not the target for the FreeBSD developers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Lets get serious
by marafaka on Mon 8th Oct 2007 09:02 UTC in reply to "Lets get serious"
marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

What's your definition of serious? Like: accept my crap without thinking? I do not feel any greater shortage of drivers for FreeBSD than for any other OS; maybe it's exactly the opposite: every time I have to reinstall a MS infested machine I curse because I can't even get on the net without some long lost CD's!

I manage several FreeBSD desktops and my clients run mostly native Gnome + multimedia + office + net stuff with some Java, Wine, Linux and game console emulation. I'm not a casual buzzword victim so would you care to enlighten me what's missing here for the holy desktop nirvana?

Reply Score: 2

BSD not a desktop contender?
by Bartoli on Sat 6th Oct 2007 05:44 UTC
Bartoli
Member since:
2007-10-06

Sorry mate, but you are misinformed. I have run FreeBSD as a desktop OS for two years past. Does all the usual stuff and plays movies (yeah, with hardware accelerated video driver), desktop publishing, printed circuit board layout and CAD. What "usable desktop applications" are you missing?

FreeBSD is the most stable, simple to configure and easy to maintain OS I have ever used. Such comments as yours do a disservice to a fine operating system with a lot of potential for the more intelligent computer user.

Reply Score: 8

Second that
by JamesTRexx on Sat 6th Oct 2007 08:54 UTC in reply to "BSD not a desktop contender?"
JamesTRexx Member since:
2005-11-06

I'm using FreeBSD on my laptop since version 4.8 or 4.9 and I never regretted it.
When I wanted to dump Windows years ago I looked at various Linux distros and the three big BSDs. Things like a messy directory structure, everything eth? in networking instead of clear nic names per brand put me off Linux.
For newbies I advised Ubuntu and PClinux and I use Ubuntu server now because my work involves a lot of VMware, but for those with more savvy than the average user that want to run a stable server/desktop that's easy to manage I advise FreeBSD.

Reply Score: 5

BSDs not good desktop?
by zizban on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:22 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Servers, for sure. Desktop, not a chance."

Perhaps you missed the memo but Mac OS X is a BSD.

Reply Score: 4

RE: BSDs not good desktop?
by dylansmrjones on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:43 UTC in reply to "BSDs not good desktop?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually no. OS X is _not_ a BSD. It is merely BSD-like but has never been a BSD.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: BSDs not good desktop?
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE: BSDs not good desktop?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

It is merely BSD-like but has never been a BSD.

"""

How BSD-like does it have to be before it qualifies? We don't normally consider it to be a *BSD because Apple doesn't want us to. And they have slick marketing and PR departments to insure that we don't. That doesn't change the fact that it *is*, though.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: BSDs not good desktop?
by dylansmrjones on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BSDs not good desktop?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

How BSD-like does it have to be before it qualifies?


Got me there. I don't know. But a BSD-like kernel does not make a BSD IMHO.

It contains BSD-elements but that's all. OS X is no more BSD than Windows with Cygwin is GNU/Linux.

But since there is no standard here, you are free to have your own opinion. You are btw. free to have that anyway, but since it's saturday I'll grant you a special right to your own opinion today ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: BSDs not good desktop?
by zizban on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE: BSDs not good desktop?"
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course it's a BSD. It uses the mach kernel with FreeBSD 5 userland stuff. Seems pretty BSD to me.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[3]: BSDs not good desktop?
by dindin on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BSDs not good desktop?"
RE[4]: BSDs not good desktop?
by BluenoseJake on Sat 6th Oct 2007 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: BSDs not good desktop?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Windows uses the BSD stack for its networking and Unix services for Windows is derived from BSD toolsets"

Uh, no. Windows used to use the BSD stack for it's networking, oh, back 10 years, but the NT stack was home grown, I believe.

Services for Unix is based on Interix, which is a Windows NT subsystem. Interix was written in the 90s as a fully functioning Unix subsystem to replace the crappy Posix subsystem that NT shipped with. I believe (I may be wrong) that it is based on System V.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: BSDs not good desktop?
by meianoite on Sat 6th Oct 2007 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BSDs not good desktop?"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

Of course it's a BSD. It uses the mach kernel with FreeBSD 5 userland stuff. Seems pretty BSD to me.


Repeat after me:

XNU is not Mach. XNU is not Mach. XNU is not Mach.

And isn't FreeBSD's kernel either. But a heavily modified amalgamation of the two? That's better, but don't forget the completely reworked VFS and device driver API, which definitely count towards entitling XNU its standalone life and recognition.


And the FreeBSD 5 sync was done during Panther's development days (10.3), and was evidently updated to more recent codebases since them (again, evidently, when it made sense; plenty of stuff is comprised of API wrappers to functionality built by Apple engineers -- which, in case one didn't notice, Apple has, it's not simply lifting code from the "upstream" FreeBSD CVS; FreeBSD is not XNU's upstream).

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: BSDs not good desktop?
by Oliver on Sat 6th Oct 2007 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: BSDs not good desktop?"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Mac OS X is based on NextStep and NextStep was based on BSD 4.x. Furthermore MacOS X is based to some extent on NetBSD too.


http://developer.apple.com/referencelibrary/GettingStarted/GS_Darwi...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: BSDs not good desktop?
by meianoite on Sat 6th Oct 2007 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: BSDs not good desktop?"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

Mac OS X is based on NextStep and NextStep was based on BSD 4.x. Furthermore MacOS X is based to some extent on NetBSD too.


I'm so not arguing over this.

Look, I'm probably as knowledgeable about Mac OS X as you are (and maybe, just maybe, perhaps, a little more, as I'm a complete sucker for OSs, specially those related to BSDs and BeOS), but don't take my word on anything. Take Amit Singh's word, as he has a lot of experience on everything Mac OS X, is currently employed by Google as Manager of Macintosh Engineering, and published a really decent book on it. If you want to know the technical history of how XNU was formed, here's a free companion document for his book (which I truly recommend):

http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter1/

(BTW, I'm not pointing fingers towards you, but how the hell did my previous comment went from 4 modpoints to 3? Did I offend anyone, went way off-topic (we're still talking about FreeBSD when we discuss its relation to XNU), or advertised my services? This modding system is getting way too childish... Perhaps OSNews should implement a Digg-style modding system, where "diggs" and "burials" are displayed separately?)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: BSDs not good desktop?
by Oliver on Sat 6th Oct 2007 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: BSDs not good desktop?"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>I'm not pointing fingers towards you, but how the hell did my previous comment went from 4 modpoints to 3?

There a Mac users too at this website and they will mod down everyone who dares to say anything about Mac OS, apart from it's glorious ;-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: BSDs not good desktop?
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: BSDs not good desktop?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
There a Mac users too at this website and they will mod down everyone who dares to say anything about Mac OS, apart from it's glorious ;-)
"""

True. But believe me. They are *nothing* compared to the FSF nuts here. Make a comment criticizing the FSF or RMS, and watch every comment that you make on *any* topic get modded down for a week.

As a Linux advocate myself, I find that fact particularly depressing.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: BSDs not good desktop?
by Doc Pain on Sun 7th Oct 2007 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: BSDs not good desktop?"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

As a final addition, you may look into FreeBSD's BSD family tree and see where Mac OS X has a relationship to FreeBSD:

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/src/share/misc/bsd...

Reply Score: 4

RE: BSDs not good desktop?
by dindin on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:43 UTC in reply to "BSDs not good desktop?"
dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

[p] Perhaps you missed the memo but Mac OS X is a BSD. [/p]

This is not true. OS X is based on the Mach kernel. Thye use the BSD userland source. The actual OS is not BSD.

Reply Score: 1

RE: BSDs not good desktop?
by BluenoseJake on Sat 6th Oct 2007 18:58 UTC in reply to "BSDs not good desktop?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Actually, OS X is a Mach kernel with the BSD userland bolted on as a subsystem. It's more BSD like then a true BSD.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: BSDs not good desktop?
by BSDfan on Sat 6th Oct 2007 16:07 UTC
BSDfan
Member since:
2007-03-14

But some of you seem to forget that Mach has origins with BSD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29

Large quantities of the Mac OSX kernel are BSD derived, Userland as well.. ;)

Edited 2007-10-06 16:08

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: BSDs not good desktop?
by Oliver on Sat 6th Oct 2007 18:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: BSDs not good desktop?"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

This is true since NextStep.

Reply Score: 2