Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Mon 15th Sep 2008 20:43 UTC, submitted by Alexander Yerenkow
PC-BSD This release marks a milestone for PC-BSD, by moving to the latest FreeBSD 7-Stable and also incorporating the KDE 4.1.1 desktop. Users will immediately notice the improved visual interface that KDE 4.1.1 offers, as well as a large improvement in hardware support and speed from the update to FreeBSD 7-Stable. PC-BSD 7 also offers a large and growing library of self-contained PBI files available for installation, and improvments for other locales on our PBI Directory website. This release also offers new methods of installation, including a DVD, USB and Internet/network install. Note: Here is an interview with the lead developer of PC-BSD.
Thread beginning with comment 330357
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
32 Bits only?
by truckweb on Mon 15th Sep 2008 21:50 UTC
truckweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm looking at the download option and it's only a 32bits OS? No x64 option or will it be available later?

What are the advantage of BSD over normal Linux distro like Kubuntu?

Reply Score: -2

RE: 32 Bits only?
by vijayd81 on Mon 15th Sep 2008 21:56 in reply to "32 Bits only?"
vijayd81 Member since:
2008-07-18

Here's a link to its user guide:
http://docs.pcbsd.org/guide/

This will give you more idea about it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: 32 Bits only?
by BluenoseJake on Mon 15th Sep 2008 22:05 in reply to "32 Bits only?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Mostly just BSD kicks ass.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: 32 Bits only?
by Lengsel on Mon 15th Sep 2008 22:21 in reply to "32 Bits only?"
Lengsel Member since:
2006-04-19

I use OpenBSD exclusively on a couple systems and dual boot OpenBSD on a couple others, but I gave up on Linux and have quit using it, already erased it from my main desktop system, but will try to answer.

BSD & Linux differences:

Each BSD is developed and maintained by its own group - kernal, filesystem, centralized ports, system libraries, instead of getting different parts from different people.

The BSDs are much more command line focused and is not interested in developing anything to be user friendly. People will help, but they do expect you try to be independent, they will not hold your hand every step of the way through.

In BSD you can upgrade to the new release from source, there is no need to erase it and install the new release

For a more thorough list, have a look here http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/explaining-bsd/comparing-bsd... Plus can just to a quick Linux BSD search for more list of differences

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: 32 Bits only?
by truckweb on Mon 15th Sep 2008 22:26 in reply to "RE: 32 Bits only?"
truckweb Member since:
2005-07-06

You make it sound as if BSD was only for expert and people who knows allot of stuff to begin with.

Funny, because on PC-BSD, the first thing you read is :
"PC-BSD is a free operating system with ease of use in mind. Like any modern system, you can listen to your favorite music, watch your movies, work with office documents and install your favorite applications with a setup wizard at a click."

If this is true, it should be easier to use than a simple command line.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: 32 Bits only?
by gilboa on Mon 15th Sep 2008 22:47 in reply to "RE: 32 Bits only?"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

I use OpenBSD exclusively on a couple systems and dual boot OpenBSD on a couple others, but I gave up on Linux and have quit using it, already erased it from my main desktop system, but will try to answer.


Don't really see what OpenBSD has to do with the subject at hand - but it's 01:30, I don't feel like going to sleep, so I'll bite...

Each BSD is developed and maintained by its own group - kernal, filesystem, centralized ports, system libraries, instead of getting different parts from different people.


Oh really?
Should I really count the number of non-OpenBSD packages in the OpenBSD ports tree?
Heck, do you have any idea how many GNU GPL packages are on your system right now?
... Oh, and since when did NIH syndrome became a virtue?

The BSDs are much more command line focused and is not interested in developing anything to be user friendly.


Which given the BSD distribution at hand (PC-BSD.. AKA BSD for the masses)... Oh, never mind.

People will help, but they do expect you try to be independent, they will not hold your hand every step of the way through.


Just like Slackware, Gentoo and at least 200 different Linux distributions... what else is new?
... Then again, no idea what this could be considered a winning feature. Necessity? Sure... but advantage?

In BSD you can upgrade to the new release from source, there is no need to erase it and install the new release


Lets see.
Fedora, Ubuntu, SUSE, Mandriva, ... [insert favorite distribution name here] ... Slackware, Gentoo.

While I hate upgrading (both my Linux and my BSD boxes) - seldom did I see a distribution that doesn't support previous-version upgrade.
Heck, most of them support automated-off-the-net upgrade.

For a more thorough list, have a look here http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/explaining-bsd/comparing-bsd... Plus can just to a quick Linux BSD search for more list of differences


So, you're switching to FreeBSD, strait from your original OpenBSD comment, that had little to do with the actual subject. I'm impressed.

- Gilboa "Should I really point out that NetBSD != OpenBSD != FreeBSD?" Davara

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: 32 Bits only?
by pixel8r on Tue 16th Sep 2008 02:48 in reply to "RE: 32 Bits only?"
pixel8r Member since:
2007-08-11

I use OpenBSD exclusively on a couple systems and dual boot OpenBSD on a couple others, but I gave up on Linux and have quit using it, already erased it from my main desktop system, but will try to answer.

BSD & Linux differences:

Each BSD is developed and maintained by its own group - kernal, filesystem, centralized ports, system libraries, instead of getting different parts from different people.

The BSDs are much more command line focused and is not interested in developing anything to be user friendly. People will help, but they do expect you try to be independent, they will not hold your hand every step of the way through.

In BSD you can upgrade to the new release from source, there is no need to erase it and install the new release

For a more thorough list, have a look here http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/explaining-bsd/comparing-bsd... Plus can just to a quick Linux BSD search for more list of differences



Ok so thats all the negatives...any positives? ;)

actually the only thing that would interest me from that list is the in-place upgrade -which debian (and derivatives) has been able to do for years now...and upgrading via binary packages is a hell of a lot quicker than upgrading from source...anyone have a spare couple of days while your pc compiles all your software?

i would think that linux sharing resources and libraries etc amongs all the various distros is a big plus since everyone contributes and everyone benefits.

each to their own - my answer to the kubuntu (or other linux distro) user is that if you're happy with your linux distro and the direction linux is taking, then BSD will probably not be for you...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: 32 Bits only?
by BluenoseJake on Tue 16th Sep 2008 09:56 in reply to "RE: 32 Bits only?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"The BSDs are much more command line focused and is not interested in developing anything to be user friendly. People will help, but they do expect you try to be independent, they will not hold your hand every step of the way through."

uh, that's PC-BSDs only purpose, to make FreeBSD user friendly. The BSds have all the same desktop environments as Linux, and most of the same capabilities. I used FreeBSD for a desktop for a few years, and while initial setup was a bit of work, it was the most stable desktop I have ever used. There is also excellent documentation.

As far as being more "command-line focused" once your DE is setup, it is no more "command-line focused" than Linux.

"In BSD you can upgrade to the new release from source, there is no need to erase it and install the new release "

You can do that with Linux too, I recently when from Etch to Lenny.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: 32 Bits only?
by Soulbender on Tue 16th Sep 2008 10:46 in reply to "RE: 32 Bits only?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Each BSD is developed and maintained by its own group - kernal, filesystem, centralized ports, system libraries, instead of getting different parts from different people.


Not so. There's quite a bit of cross-pollination between the different BSD's.

The BSDs are much more command line focused and is not interested in developing anything to be user friendly.


Eh, I dunno about that. In some ways yes, in some ways no. Most developers do use X, ya know.

In BSD you can upgrade to the new release from source, there is no need to erase it and install the new release


I dont see how this is different from Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: 32 Bits only?
by viniosity on Thu 18th Sep 2008 22:43 in reply to "RE: 32 Bits only?"
viniosity Member since:
2005-07-06


In BSD you can upgrade to the new release from source, there is no need to erase it and install the new release



I'm a fan of BSD and Linux but I have to tell you that it is way way easier to upgrade a linux install from one version to the next.. at least on Debian based distros.

You can actually update Dapper Drake directly to Hardy Heron.. a skip of about 3 years. On the other hand I've had to endure hours of 'fun' simply moving from FreeBSD 6.2 to 7.

Not trying to start a flame war, but I would like to defend the misconception that you cannot do in Linux what you can in BSD.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: 32 Bits only?
by Clinton on Mon 15th Sep 2008 23:37 in reply to "32 Bits only?"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

The amd64 release will be out shortly, according to Kris Moore.

Reply Parent Score: 4