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 177155
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Nice review
by molnarcs on Tue 31st Oct 2006 12:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice review"
Member since:

Well, they blow out of proportions one non-issue: the use of shared libraries. That's the only technical "deficiency" of the PBI system. You see, every PBI is self contained, and there might be a case when two separate programs have to load the same (otherwise shared) library twice. The only drawback of this might be increased memory use. But - as I said, this is not how the system works in reality. This is a theoretical problem that doesn't exist in practice, and those gripe against the PBI system probably never built a single PBI in their life.

In reality, you can safely depend on the presence of certain libraries on ALL PC-BSD installs. This means, that the theoretical problem described above is moot. When I did a Scribus PBI, there wasn't much to include, because it depends on what? Xorg, qt, and I'm not sure about kdelibs. All of these are present on every PC-BSD install. And 90% of every prog I encountered has dependencies present in the "base system" of PC-BSD. The rest, you include in the PBIs. There is a very small chance that you will use progs from that 10%, (well, it's 10%) - and you will have to run multiple of those to "suffer" the consequences: which is, 500K more RAM usage. LOL. So there ya have the "serious" technical issues with the PBI system.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Nice review
by dindin on Tue 31st Oct 2006 13:10 in reply to "RE[5]: Nice review"
dindin Member since:

"In reality, you can safely depend on the presence of certain libraries on ALL PC-BSD installs."

The last time I checked they had only Glib library installed and the version that was installed on the base system was conflicting with the version the system wanted to install when I did "pkr_add -r gedit". Then, only glib was installed. Are they now distributing the GTK and Gnome libraries as well?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Nice review
by molnarcs on Tue 31st Oct 2006 19:13 in reply to "RE[6]: Nice review"
molnarcs Member since:

Well, why don't you use FreeBSD? I mean, pkg_add is not the proper way of installing software on PC-BSD. You can, of course use it, just like ports, but then you are not exactly the target audience of PC-BSD. That's what you have to keep in mind. PC-BSD is targeted at users coming from Windows. They don't need gedit, they need a notepad like simple texteditor. PC-BSD comes preinstalled with kwrite.

My point was that most progs ex-windows users will ever need will depend on libraries already present in the base system. Mostly. There will always be exceptions, like the GIMP for instance, but there is a growing application stack based on QT/KDE that would satisfy most ordinary needs. Some of the "killer apps" in the free software world (amarok, scribus, tellico, and soon, koffice) are the easiest to package into PBIs, with very few extra-libs needs.

Reply Parent Score: 2