Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2006 22:25 UTC
PC-BSD "After using PC-BSD several days, I was impressed with how easy it is to use. It's a good desktop OS, and a great way to introduce BSD to new users. The 1.0 release has a few rough edges, but nothing that should scare off prospective users. For the future, I'd like to see something like Synaptic to manage PBI packages and allow users to browse for software without having to visit the PC-BSD Web site, and it would be nice if the site had a little more documentation, but I expect such things will come along in due time as the project matures."
Thread beginning with comment 95847
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Pc-BSD or FreeBSD?
by dimosd on Wed 15th Feb 2006 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Pc-BSD or FreeBSD?"
dimosd
Member since:
2006-02-10

I spent two months with gentoo and came back screaming to ports, which gives me the same lean system with 1/10 of the configuration headache. And you can't have "more" recompiling - when you upgrade, you upgrade the packages you have installed.

FreeBSD ports miss information about versions (package abc requires def >=2.5). So, either you recompile all dependencies, even if you didn't intend to, and be on the safe side or try your luck and skip it. Also, I think there isn't a "stable" branch for ports, only "current" exists - that would be equivalent to running ~arch in Gentoo.

As for .pbi, it's intention is probably to install a few desktop apps e.g. firefox, but the rest of the system e.g. Gnome is still using tradional packages? (or I am wrong). That doesn't look good to me.

Re: CaptainFlint. portupgrade helps, but can't solve the above problems. As I said I haven't used binaries much though.

Edited 2006-02-15 13:52

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Pc-BSD or FreeBSD?
by CaptainFlint on Wed 15th Feb 2006 14:09 in reply to "RE[5]: Pc-BSD or FreeBSD?"
CaptainFlint Member since:
2006-01-24

For me it comes down to liking source compiled packages better. With faster machines now a days it is not that cumbersome. I did compile gnome 2.8 on a 450 mhz p3 with 128 megs of ram last year... took 2 days in total for everything. Did it again this year on a dual amd64s with 5 gigs of ram and it was < 2 hours.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Pc-BSD or FreeBSD?
by molnarcs on Thu 16th Feb 2006 00:34 in reply to "RE[5]: Pc-BSD or FreeBSD?"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

FreeBSD ports miss information about versions (package abc requires def >=2.5). So, either you recompile all dependencies,..

No, not really - there are some occasions when you have to update related ports, but these are the exceptions, always notified in /usr/ports/UPDATING. So, for instance, there is an update to mysql. You compiled amarok with mysql support - which means, amarok now depends on mysql. When you portupgrade -a - which updates mysql to the newest version - you don't have to recompile amarok. Also, if you take a look at the Makefiles, most ports depend on the presence of specific libraries, not package version. Everything is handled automatically by portugprade/install tools - you don't have to skip anything, or have additional recompiles: most of the times (there are exceptions as I noted) when you update, you only update those packs that have newer version available in the ports tree. I might have misunderstood your post however, so please clarify if I missed your point.

Ports is a single version - supporting at least 4 branches of FreeBSD (4.x, 5.x, 6.x, 7-CURRENT) - I think that this is not a problem, in fact, it is a small miracle I believe ;) Ports are also very stable compared to ebuilds (except stable branch, which is slightly more outdated than ports). Yes, there are always broken ports (but currently, www.freshports.org doesn't differenciate between broken on $arch or $version - but they are working on it, so half of the ports marked as broken will probably work for you, because they might be broken on Fbsd 4.x, or on the Alpha, or any combinations).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Pc-BSD or FreeBSD?
by dimosd on Thu 16th Feb 2006 12:26 in reply to "RE[6]: Pc-BSD or FreeBSD?"
dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

FreeBSD ports miss information about versions (package abc requires def >=2.5). So, either you recompile all dependencies,.FreeBSD ports miss information about versions (package abc requires def >=2.5). So, either you recompile all dependencies,,,

No, not really - there are some occasions when you have to update related ports, but these are the exceptions, always notified in /usr/ports/UPDATING.


It's true I hadn't picked up the habit of reading this file. Thanks for the tip. If I remember correctly though "portinstall" (not portupgrade) always insisted on upgrading dependencies - so you install "xtinyapp" and suddenly you have to upgrade x.org to its latest version.

I'll try *BSD again though, this time using binaries and all the shiny tools (portsnap, portaudit). Maybe this time ports will work for me, because I was otherwise very pleased with it.

Reply Parent Score: 1