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 177368
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Nice review
by molnarcs on Tue 31st Oct 2006 23:05 UTC 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[7]: Nice review
by sbergman27 on Tue 31st Oct 2006 23:44 in reply to "RE[6]: Nice review"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""Well, I thought it might catch your attention that way ;) """

It did. ;-)

"""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."""

That's reasonable. I was wrong to try to speak for the Linux community. It makes me sound like Eric Raymond and I am suitably embarrassed. ;-)


"""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."""

Hmmm. Those are harsh words. "Trolling", "FUD". "harp", "lies".

I know more about PBI now than I did at the beginning of this thread. It's not as bad as I thought it was at first. But I think that the BSD folks will be able to come up with something better. Something less source-centric than ports, but less binary-centric than PBI. That's a compliment.

For a few posts now, I have been saying that I am content to wait and watch how well PBI does relative to other package management systems.

Does that clarify matters? Do I still sound like a FUDing, lying, harping troll? ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Nice review
by Joe User on Tue 31st Oct 2006 23:58 in reply to "RE[7]: Nice review"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

But I think that the BSD folks will be able to come up with something better. Something [...] less binary-centric than PBI.

Could you re-read your statement? It doesn't make sense at all.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Nice review
by molnarcs on Wed 1st Nov 2006 00:59 in reply to "RE[7]: Nice review"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Does that clarify matters? Do I still sound like a FUDing, lying, harping troll? ;-)

Yes, it clarifies matters. A bit. ;) Now if you are interested... FreeBSD has a hybrid system: ports and packages. You can easily build a binary package from ports (as easily as passing "-p" to portinstall/portupgrdade - and a binary package will land in /usr/ports/packages). These packages will be - for all intents and purposes - very similar to your .deb or .rpm. They know about dependencies, and the pkg_* system will try to resolve them automatically. How PBIs relate to this? If you check out a PBI creation howto, you'll find out that they use binary (.tbz) FreeBSD packages (that are regularly built from ports by the FreeBSD package building clusters).

So they took those packages (or use one build by himself - I did it with all the packs I maintained) - and check what runtime dependencies they have. These fall into two categories: they are either 100% present on all PC-BSD installs or not. The former is a much much larger group then the latter, and only in the latter case will you need to include some extra libs. You can do a real life comparison of PBIs and RPMs - and you will see very small size differences (see openoffice.org) - because most shared libraries PBIs need are counted on to be present on your system.

So that's it. Basically PBIs have one (BIG) dependency and one extra feature (compared to .rpm or .deb): the dependency is PC-BSD, and the extra feature is the possibility to include extra libs in the binary. That's all what PBIs are, and it would be relatively easy to implement such a system for any linux - it's just that noone tried it yet. Whether PC-BSD and the PBI system lives or dies is yet to be seen. But it won't fail because of the reasons you cited. That was a bit dramatic, I mean your rant about missing shared library support and the inevitable doom of the PBI concept as a consequence, but so were my replies ;) Especially when I saw you repeating things that I know were not true, and I thought you deliberately ignore my clarifications (which in my book, would classify you as a troll). Maybe I was wrong. If so, than I apologize.


But I think that the BSD folks will be able to come up with something better.


They already did ;) Yes, yes, I'm obviously biased, but the ports/packages infrastructure is way better then any package management I have found in the *nix world. It's not just source build ala gentoo - it's a whole infrastructure. Check out freshports.org to see what I mean. And its a maintenance paradise: I maintain a small comp lab with a few freebsd desktops (old machines with limited functionality, newer machines are WindowsXP). I build binary packages on my own machine by simply passing -p to portinstall. The binary packages are automatically arranged exactly the same way as on the official binary repositories (under /usr/ports/packages) so all I have to do is point those old machines to my FTP server, and everything will be installed/updated from my puter, with a single command. Wonderful ;) And it takes almost nothing. Normally I use portinstall whatnot or portupgrade -a to maintain my home computer, and the only effort I have to make to keep several machines up to date is to use portinstall -p whatnot and portupgrade -ap instead.

Reply Parent Score: 3