Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Oct 2006 19:43 UTC, submitted by Charles A Landemaine
PC-BSD After the flood of Fedora Core 6 and Ubuntu 6.10 reviews, here is a review of PC-BSD 1.3 Beta. "PC-BSD has improved quite a bit and the use of its open-source PBI packaging system is a great idea. Although it obviously means there might be a minor delay in newly released products being ported over to the PBI package system, novice users will rejoice because the wait is well worth it. PC-BSD is a well oiled machine with its quick response times, even if you don't have that much memory in your system. Its implementation of a clean interface is welcomed by me and not having a 3D enabled desktop is not something I really would worry about unless you are an eye-candy lover."
Thread beginning with comment 177070
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Nice review
by Joe User on Tue 31st Oct 2006 02:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice review"
Joe User
Member since:

This PC-BSD packaging thing is just a mistake.

Is it a mistake for you because of philosophical reasons or because of technical reasons? If it's for technical reasons, this has been discussed a number of times, and there is nothing wrong having several times the same libraries on your system. It just uses a little bit more RAM/HDD, which is a tradeoff they decided to choose, update allows you to have a secure system, and they did the right choice because their PBI system works remarkably good.

What better solution do you suggest instead of their technique, keeping installation like the PBI concept using a self-extracting package for the end user and to solve the dependency nightware of other systems? (DesktopBSD's package system is no-go for Windows and Mac users).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Nice review
by sbergman27 on Tue 31st Oct 2006 14:09 in reply to "RE[4]: Nice review"
sbergman27 Member since:

"""Is it a mistake for you because of philosophical reasons or because of technical reasons?"""

Technical, of course. Is there some deep philosophical dimension to all of this that I am missing?

A large, complex OS without shared objects is like a large complex program without functions (or methods or the equilvalent). Sure, you can do it. But it'll be a mess to maintain, and it won't be very efficient.

At any rate, it's no skin off my nose. I've decided to just sit back and wait, and watch as the "no dependencies" crowd figures it out for themselves.

Edited 2006-10-31 14:16

Reply Parent Score: 1