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 177085
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Nice review
by Yoke on Tue 31st Oct 2006 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice review"
Yoke
Member since:
2005-08-28

The packaging system is going to be the bane of PC-BSD.

They took the expedient way out of that problem


Well, the expedient way might be the only way if your resources are limited. Look at the Debian Policy manual (http://www.us.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/), and you'll realize that proper packaging requires a lot of effort.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Nice review
by sbergman27 on Tue 31st Oct 2006 14:03 in reply to "RE[2]: Nice review"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""Well, the expedient way might be the only way if your resources are limited."""

Precisely. One day, the PC-BSD devs will come up with their own packaging system that takes advantage of shared objects, or adapt an existing one, and it will be heralded as a huge step forward.

I think that the best way to resolve this disagreement is to simply wait until the problems become so apparent that they cannot be denied anymore. The "No Shared Libraries" crowd will be much more willing to admit there was a problem after they have a solution in hand.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Nice review
by molnarcs on Tue 31st Oct 2006 19:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Nice review"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Please stop it! You repeat the same reasoning over and over, completely disregarding the facts (that I have pointed out at least twice now). Stop trolling - because that's what you are doing when you spread misinformation...

For the last time:

PC-BSD's PBIs do use shared libraries. I know, because I have built some in the past (I maintained Scribus and Tellico for a while). When someone builds a PBI, there is a set of libraries that you can expect to be present on ALL PC-BSD installs: xorg and supporting libraries, qt and kdelibs comes to mind. All software that depends on those libs (from amarok through scribus to koffice) will use those libs. There are no kdelibs packaged separately in all PBIs that are built on QT/KDE technology.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

There are only a few cases when extra libraries needs to be included in the PBIs - and the only drawback they have is increased memory usage (due to loading libraries twice), but only if you happen to be running some of these progs in parallel. How much RAM we are talking here? 500K? 2Mb? LOL.


So please stop repeating the same FUD over and over, and folks, please stop modding him up.

Reply Parent Score: 4