Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Oct 2007 20:49 UTC, submitted by Flatland_Spider
PC-BSD Jan Stedehouder has used PC-BSD for thirty days to see what living with it is like. On day thirty, he concludes: "Does PC-BSD have the potential to be a serious contender for the open source desktop? I answered that question with a yes, because the potential is there. The solid FreeBSD roots, the very strong and very accessible information, the friendly and mature community and the PBI system provide the foundations for that potential. I don't think it is ready now and I couldn't recommend it yet to someone in the early stages of moving away from Windows to an open source desktop. But I do think that the PC-BSD team has the right target audience in mind and is building an system and a support system that addresses it's needs."
Thread beginning with comment 276423
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Package Management
by saterdaies on Sat 6th Oct 2007 03:14 UTC
saterdaies
Member since:
2005-07-07

What's really missing from the BSDs is good, binary package management. It's what really separates the BSDs from most Linux flavors. Debian, RedHat, SUSE, Mandriva, Ubuntu, and many more just have great package management systems that wonderfully install software.

With the BSDs, well, pkg_add isn't great at resolving dependencies and ports need to compile. PBIs are definitely not the answer. Really, they're a truly terrible idea. Package all dependencies in one binary so that when there's a security flaw in one common dependency, it needs to be updated in 50 places (by 50 different people creating 50 new PBIs).

This is what is really holding BSDs back from becoming mainstream (well, mainstream like Linux).

Reply Score: 8

RE: Package Management
by Chezz on Sat 6th Oct 2007 03:37 in reply to "Package Management"
Chezz Member since:
2005-07-11

With the BSDs, well, pkg_add isn't great at resolving dependencies and ports need to compile. PBIs are definitely not the answer. Really, they're a truly terrible idea. Package all dependencies in one binary so that when there's a security flaw in one common dependency, it needs to be updated in 50 places (by 50 different people creating 50 new PBIs).


I have been using pkg_add -r add for the past 9 years and I never had any dependency issue. In fact I just throw the package name at it and it installs everything smoothly. And to be honest with you when I used to use Redhat GNU/Linux years ago I couldn't get rpm to automatically install dependencies but "pkg_add -r" did it at that time and it is still doing it smoothly. I am aware of the new fancy gui pkg managements introduced in debian/ubuntoo and others and I love the way they use the point and click install. PBI is not as perfect as that but it is doing well there.

Perhaps can you give me where pkg_add didn't meet your needs and it gave you some dependency "hell"? I will be more than happy to run that exact command on my box and give you my experience.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Package Management
by gireesh on Sat 6th Oct 2007 04:18 in reply to "RE: Package Management"
gireesh Member since:
2005-07-24

the problem I had with pkg_add was that the binary package was too far behind the ports package. I would have liked having the binaries on par with ports all the time. Is that too much to ask for?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Package Management
by Chezz on Sat 6th Oct 2007 06:07 in reply to "RE: Package Management"
Chezz Member since:
2005-07-11

I think you switched gears here. First you were bashing pkg_add because there are *problems* with dependencies. Now are you bashing it because the mirror you are using is not up to date?

Would you specify the exact issue?

Did you try to use another Mirror? like stable branch?

I mentioned this long time ago but you can try it if you are using 6.x:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=12756&comment_id=64030

if you still can't find the latest version you can always compile your own with portupgrade -vaRrPp

If you are still not satisfied you can get the package from the 3rd party website like freshports.

If you are still not satisfied then donate some hardware to FreeBSD so they can build hourly ports for you.

Edited 2007-10-06 06:08

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Package Management
by superman on Sat 6th Oct 2007 06:22 in reply to "RE: Package Management"
superman Member since:
2006-08-01

> I used to use Redhat GNU/Linux years ago I couldn't get rpm to automatically install dependencies

Rpm does not automatically revolve dependencies. Yum or smart or drakerpm or up2date or apt (apt4rpm) ... does.

Reply Parent Score: 2

v RE[2]: Package Management
by Joe User on Sat 6th Oct 2007 23:47 in reply to "RE: Package Management"
RE: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 04:36 in reply to "Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

With the BSDs, well, pkg_add isn't great at resolving dependencies and ports need to compile. PBIs are definitely not the answer. Really, they're a truly terrible idea.

"""

Thank you. I agree completely. I hope this PBI mania ends soon. I suspect it will be pushed to its limits before it dies, though. :-(

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Package Management
by Doc Pain on Sat 6th Oct 2007 05:00 in reply to "RE: Package Management"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I hope this PBI mania ends soon. I suspect it will be pushed to its limits before it dies, though. :-("

PBIs are the way to go for average desktop home users. That's what they are used to. It's working as they expect it to do. Of course, it has it disadvantages that make nearly every professional avoiding to use it. But hey, PC-BSD is targetted at desktop users, to give them what they declare to want / seem to need.

NB: The worst solution always prevails. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE: Package Management
by meianoite on Sat 6th Oct 2007 04:53 in reply to "Package Management"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

What's really missing from the BSDs is good, binary package management. It's what really separates the BSDs from most Linux flavors. Debian, RedHat, SUSE, Mandriva, Ubuntu, and many more just have great package management systems that wonderfully install software.
...
This is what is really holding BSDs back from becoming mainstream (well, mainstream like Linux).


I just love how people freak out about Gentoo and how brilliant it is to compile everything from scratch and how everything is so fast and so tailored to one's needs... And on the other hand the BSDs are chastised for offering the same damn functionality. I mean, the BSDs inspired Gentoo's way and it was kind of revolutionary on the Linux world, and now people want the BSDs to Ubuntuise themselves?

Give me a humongous break.

There's the mainstream (Windows), there's the alternative (Mac OS X), there's the rebels (*nix clones).

My humble opinion is that if you decided to drift from the mainstream, take the friggin' jump for real, instead of hoping for a freebie drop-in replacement for Windows. If you want to empower yourself, empower yourself.

But if you want to be hand-guided into what you believe is the Wonderland of OSs, don't bark at the wrong tree. There are people working on providing the features you wish on several strains of those alternative OSs, but you can't really expect everything to fit your vision of how things should behave. Even on Wonderland you can't expect not to bump into the Cheshire cat or (gulp) the Queen of Hearts.

Some things just aren't designed to become mainstream; get over it. I'm sorry, but reading "The Universe in a Nutshell" doesn't make one an astrophysicist. Either you accept the whole package that comes with pursuing knowledge that's outside of the mainstream, or you accept the fact that otherwise you'll never go deeper than watching documentaries on Discovery Channel. It's really that simple.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE: Package Management
by Oliver on Sat 6th Oct 2007 09:19 in reply to "Package Management"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

pkg_add resolves dependencies, if there are dependencies to install. So it's okay to do so after the release, but later it will fail, if you don't know better sources (and yes they are available).

>It's what really separates the BSDs from most Linux flavors.

Yes *BSD are source based operating systems like Gentoo.

>This is what is really holding BSDs back from becoming mainstream

And this is good most of the time, like in Gentoo too. Almost 30 years of BSD and guess what, it's alive and kickin ;)

>well, mainstream like Linux

Of course there is just no mainstream 'like Linux', there is maybe just mainstream 'like distro xyz'.

Flavours like DesktopBSD or PC-BSD will fill the gap for the desktop. And most users migrating from Linux are just amazed about the quality of the OS.t

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Package Management
by dylansmrjones on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:36 in reply to "RE: Package Management"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I'm looking forward to the series on DesktopBSD. It's much more to my liking than PC-BSD.

DesktopBSD isn't a FreeBSD distribution as such. It's actually "just" a pre-configured FreeBSD installation, rather than a distribution built on FreeBSD as PC-BSD is. Installing applications on DesktopBSD is done through ports, which is much more to my liking.

Personally I use Gentoo Linux (apart from Windows, Syllable, SkyOS and DesktopBSD) but IMHO Portage is a bloated overengineered version of ports. Or put this way: ports are portage done right ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Package Management
by pandronic on Sat 6th Oct 2007 10:53 in reply to "Package Management"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

PBIs are definitely not the answer. Really, they're a truly terrible idea.

Give me a break ... having a standalone installer packaged in one file IS the answer. It's so much more convenient. Take Windows for example ... I can use Google (or whatever search engine I like) to find the application I need, I download it and install it. Take Linux for example ... I search a database using a simplistic search engine for an application that might or might not be there (depending on the developers' mood or agenda); if I don't find it then I have to install some repository and search in there and then another one, and so on.

And what about updating? I don't mind every application doing it on its own when I use it, or doing it myself. I actually find that some old versions fit my needs better (for example Photoshop 7 works better for me than CS3). I don't care about vulnerabilities - not even once did one of my unupdated applications on my Windows box had any problems with this (of course, I don't use IE ;) ). If you ask me its just paranoia.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 12:51 in reply to "RE: Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

Give me a break ...

"""

So many gems in this post:

1. "so much more convenient."

2. Take Windows for example

3. "I don't mind every application doing it on its own when I use it"

4. "I don't care about vulnerabilities..." and "If you ask me its just paranoia."


Why don't you just go ahead and say it. You know you want to: "Mediocrity is the level of standard we should be shooting for".

P.S. Please stop sending me Viagra offers.

Edited 2007-10-06 12:57

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Package Management
by Oliver on Sat 6th Oct 2007 13:36 in reply to "RE: Package Management"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>I don't care about vulnerabilities

Mmh, strange? Why not just use Windows?

>If you ask me its just paranoia.

No it's knowledge. And to some extent this is part of the problem with Windows. People don't know anything, but they want to use everything.

Reply Parent Score: 2