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 276462
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 12:51 UTC 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[3]: Package Management
by dylansmrjones on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The problem is not individual installers. The problem is that updating them usually requires hunting the net for the updated packages.

Combine decentralized installation with central management (like the way one can update extensions for Firefox) and the problem is solved.

Think "Software Store". Or think "Package Update API". One click and the "Software Store" will search for new versions available of installed packages. It will then ask if it should download the installers. When downloads are finished it can either run them silently or possible run the inter-active installers.

For this to work the installed application must register itself in the Software Store. All this would require is a text file containing the URL to a directory containing future updates. Yeehaa... decentralized installation with optional centralized management and updating ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Would it not be better for the software distributor to create an rpm and a deb and send them to the proper repos?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Package Management
by pandronic on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:03 in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

No need to use that condescending tone ... It wouldn't hurt if you actually wrote some arguments instead of presuming that they are so obvious that you just need to quote me and everybody would understand immediately why you think I'm wrong.

And yes, I'll give Windows as an example since it has 90% market share. I can also give Mac OS as an example if you want.

And yes, I don't update my applications except Firefox which updates itself, and I haven't had any problems because of this. I'm running Acrobat Reader 6.0 (unupdated), Open Office 2.2, ACDSee 2, ZoneAlarm (6.something, probably not the latest), Yahoo Messenger 8.0, Photoshop 7 and I could go on. If I upgrade an app is because I like a feature in that app and rarely because of security. And let me emphasize this: I don't have worms, trojans, viruses or any other kind of malware.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:23 in reply to "RE[3]: Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
No need to use that condescending tone ...
"""

No condescent intended. :-)

"""

I don't have worms, trojans, viruses or any other kind of malware.

"""

How do you know that, for sure?

Most of the people who participate in sending me the Viagra ads don't think they are doing it. Windows botnet software has gotten pretty stealthy, these days.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Package Management
by BluenoseJake on Sat 6th Oct 2007 19:07 in reply to "RE[3]: Package Management"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"I don't have worms, trojans, viruses or any other kind of malware."

Are you sure?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Package Management
by Doc Pain on Sun 7th Oct 2007 16:22 in reply to "RE[3]: Package Management"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I'm running [...] ZoneAlarm (6.something, probably not the latest [...] And let me emphasize this: I don't have worms, trojans, viruses or any other kind of malware."

*ping* You have. Isn't "ZoneAlarm" the famous firewall imitation with built in spyware? :-)

As others have replied, you cannot tell for sure that you don't have a virus. First, you don't run an antivirus application (at least, none on your list), and if you would, you cannot be sure because in "Windows" you lack simple diagnostic tools that enable you to look "under the hood". Can you imagine how many "No visus Pappanheimers" I could convince using a simple packat scanner (i. e. Ethereal used inside a LAN) that their machine was working as a spam sender, spy host, file sharing base etc.?

Reply Parent Score: 2