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 177252
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Nice review
by molnarcs on Tue 31st Oct 2006 19:24 UTC 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

RE[5]: Nice review
by sbergman27 on Tue 31st Oct 2006 22:19 in reply to "RE[4]: Nice review"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
...

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

As I said in a couple of previous posts, I'm content to just wait to see how successful PBI is, relative to other packaging strategies. I'm guessing "not very". But hey, I could be wrong.

Judging from the bold and the BOLDED CAPS you seem kind of defensive.

Time will tell. No point in invoking the "FUD" acronym and telling people to stop voting in ways that you don't like.

One thing that we have learned in the Linux community is that you can't be rude and expect to be a hit with new users. Judging from your comments, this seems a lesson that BSD has yet to learn.

Chill and enjoy! ;-)

Edited 2006-10-31 22:28

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Nice review
by molnarcs on Tue 31st Oct 2006 23:05 in reply to "RE[5]: Nice review"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Judging from the bold and the BOLDED CAPS you seem kind of defensive.

Well, I thought it might catch your attention that way ;) Because clearly, you don't understand how PBIs work. Now it is clear that you simply don't want to understand. I gave specific examples in my posts, and yet, you are still at it: trying to convince people that PC-BSD's package management will fail, because they don't use shared libraries - which, as I pointed out numerous times, they actually do.

One thing that we have learned in the Linux community is that you can't be rude and expect to be a hit with new users. Judging from your comments, this seems a lesson that BSD has yet to learn.

This, like so many of your posts, doesn't make any sense. I can't reply with "we, in the BSD community" simply because this is not a sect or something, and I'm not qualified to represent the BSD community as such. It would be a sad day when you could make claims in the name of the linux community without being laughed at ;) Most of the BSD users I personally know are also linux users btw - and so am I (mainly archlinux). Besides, this has nothing to do with linux vs bsd (especially not about the relative wisdom of these communities ;) . Simply I pointed out - using specific examples - that your perception of the PBI system is wrong. You consistently ignored that, and kept repeating the same thing over and over. I consider this trolling. FUD is also an apt term for what you do: you harp about the doom of PC-BSD, while spreading obvious lies about its package management. At first, I gave you the benefit of a doubt that you are simply mistaken, and once you learn how actually PBIs work, you'll stop. Clearly, I was wrong.

Have a nice day.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Nice review
by Joe User on Tue 31st Oct 2006 23:54 in reply to "RE[5]: Nice review"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

Time will tell. No point in invoking the "FUD" acronym

Yes, it makes a lot of sense, what you're doing is FUD because you're speading lies to have people not to try a new technology. This is plain FUD.

Judging from your comments, this seems a lesson that BSD has yet to learn.

First, he is not being rude, he is being upset about you trolling and spreading FUD. Oh, and you can't judge a community from one of its members. Maybe you don't know that most BSD users are actually Linux users as well.

(however, I'm thinking decisions like this are often made by management and not the Engineers).

The management is made of engineers in case you don't know. Ever heard of Sergey and Larry?

At many times it hasn't worked or has not been available

Don't blame Adobe for you not being able to configure Flash on your Linux box. Damn, you only have to copy two files (flashplayer.xpt, libflashplayer.so) into the .mozilla subdirectory and to restart Firefox.

You're trying to justify your statement with unrelated arguments. Of course it doesn't make sense to use Flash for a troubleshooting section of a web site. This is not the point. The point is that Flash is the best technology to use nowadays for online video if you want to reach the greatest number of people, but you have failed to proove the contrary, and you have also failed to give us an alternative. Should YouTube use Theora Vorbis? LOL (unless they only want to target Linux users)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Nice review
by Almindor on Wed 1st Nov 2006 10:45 in reply to "RE[4]: Nice review"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16


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.


NO!

I'm the creator of LAZARUS PBI. See the forums for more info.

Long story short, if you need a PROGRAM which MAKES OTHER PROGRAMS and they ALL NEED THE LIB you're in a big bad problem.

You can either manualy put your required libraries to global lib directory, risking package/port corruption, or not, making your software work, but not it's products.

Eg: a compiler with IDE, see Lazarus PBI discussion in PCBSD forum. I gave up on PCBSD because of this and KDE (I prefer gnome)

So PRETTY PLEASE, stop spreading sweet ignorance

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Nice review
by Doc Pain on Wed 1st Nov 2006 11:31 in reply to "RE[5]: Nice review"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"You can either manualy put your required libraries to global lib directory, risking package/port corruption, or not, making your software work, but not it's products. "

Would /etc/libmap.conf be a possible solution?

Reply Parent Score: 1