Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd May 2007 21:05 UTC, submitted by Nix_User
PC-BSD LinuxHelp has reviewed PC-BSD. "PC-BSD is turning out to be an excellent alternative to other desktop operating systems. After testing and using PC-BSD for some time now, I can't but admire the sheer amount of work that is put into creating, developing and molding an OS for the lay person albeit with a strong slant towards FreeBSD. The fact that PC-BSD is able to accomplish all the tasks expected by an end user - be it using the Internet for communication, listening to music, watching movies or using it for recreation purposes holds it in good stead as a viable desktop operating systems."
Permalink for comment 242502
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: I love PC-BSD
by Doc Pain on Wed 23rd May 2007 00:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I love PC-BSD"
Doc Pain
Member since:

"You seem to know a little bit about PC-BSD but not enought though..."

You're seeing the truth. I'm using FreeBSD as one of my main systems, but my neighbor is fine with PC-BSD, so I sometimes look "into" his system. PC-BSD is not for me, but I like the PBI concept very much.

"No. The disk usage that additional libraries occupy is close to none. Try to install a PBI, and a package and compare. There are cases where it is the opposite (ie: the installed Apache PBI uses less space than the package)."

You're right, there are cases where it's the opposite. The PBIs are composed very well. Maybe it is because of KDE that I think of the disk space occupation... :-)

"Not letting the user install his own software because of malware is a myth. He will always be able to find some applications that can be extracted and run from his /home directory."

Of course you're right, you can even install local applications with FreeBSD's pkg_add and make, just set a few $*BASE variables, and it works.

There is a security machanism: The proper system administration. In worst case, a user can damage his account, delete all his files and lose his password. But this won't affect the OS itself, the installed applications, and other users. Only if users are granted root privileges, these means of system security could be overridden.

"If you search enough, you'll find them. Making it official and allowing a user to install a PBI in his own directory is a good idea. If he install malware, at least it will not have root privileges."

I agree.

"You can already install a PBI in text mode."

"If you think using vi or ee is a solution to edit the rules of your firewall, then ask Windows users to use Notepad to edit the Windows firewall exceptions. Nice."

I don't know "Windows", so I cannot tell. :-)

The firewall should be set up by the system administrator one, in the beginning. The administrator is the one who knows which ports to open and which services to enable. The user should not need to know. But because most users today are their own system administrators, the requirement for a secure setting at install time is there. I set up my firewall years ago and I did not need to change settings until today. This could be different in experimental settings, I assume.

"You shouldn't have to know the PF synthax by heart to add firewall exceptions. With such a closed mentality, the linux desktop won't go very far."

Hmmm... take my comment above and let me add a car analogy - it's just because people like car analogies. If you want to participate in the public traffic, you need to know some things, such as how to drive the car and what the traffic rules say. You even have to prove that you know, otherwise you would not get a driving license.

So, if you need to play around with PF, you should know what you're playing with. Trial & error is not always the best solution.

But I agree with your last statement. If Linux wants to get more usage share (and oh joy oh market share), it has to be more like this "Windows"... :-) No, honestly. User friendlyness is a valid point. People get confused by text they need to read. And they do not want to learn how to do it, they just want to do it, or, to be more precise, they want their PC to do it automatically by itself. So a packet filter that does not need any user interaction (self learning system?) would be the best solution, I think.

Reply Parent Score: 5