Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2006 22:25 UTC
PC-BSD "After using PC-BSD several days, I was impressed with how easy it is to use. It's a good desktop OS, and a great way to introduce BSD to new users. The 1.0 release has a few rough edges, but nothing that should scare off prospective users. For the future, I'd like to see something like Synaptic to manage PBI packages and allow users to browse for software without having to visit the PC-BSD Web site, and it would be nice if the site had a little more documentation, but I expect such things will come along in due time as the project matures."
Permalink for comment 95820
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Pc-BSD or FreeBSD?
by molnarcs on Wed 15th Feb 2006 11:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Pc-BSD or FreeBSD?"
Member since:

I am a Linux person as well, and have used FreeBSD as my everyday desktop for 2 months in the past. It was great from a Slackware/Gentoo perspective, but ports were weak for upgrading the system. Too much recompiling (even more than Gentoo).

I wander why you say that - I spent two months with gentoo and came back screaming to ports, which gives me the same lean system with 1/10 of the configuration headache. And you can't have "more" recompiling - when you upgrade, you upgrade the packages you have installed. If you have more packages installed, there'll be more recompiling during an upgrade.

Now: my dream FreeBSD desktop would use apt-get-ish binary package management (handling versions and such) and still keep ports v2 around, somehow.

Well, pkg_add -r pkgname is roughtly equivalent to apt-get install pkgname. In fact, the FreeBSD ports system (and this feature alone makes it better than any pkg management I tried) makes it ridiculously easy to create binary packages, even from software you installed from ports! a pkg_create -R -b ooo-build* will build an ooo-build binary with all its dependencies in your current directory. This binary will be similar to a .deb - it knows exactly what packages are needed to be installed as dependencies, the pkg_* tools are able to fetch them automatically, etc. This makes deployment of customized, precompiled, optimized (for instance, for i686) binary packages very easy. You can build on one machine, and put the binaries on an ftp, and install them via pkg_add on the rest. Oh, and creating binary packages during installation is as easy as adding a single letter to portupgrade/portinstall: portupgrade -ap. -p will put a binary package in /usr/ports/packages (in fact, it will automatically create the same directory layout you would find on the official ftp repositories for binary packages) if it exists, or in the port directory if it doesn't.

.pbi probably can't scale much
What do you mean? What is "scaling" in the context of package management?

Reply Parent Score: 2