“The FreeBSD installation process requires what many Windows users would likely call “a lot of command-line interaction.” Coming from a Windows environment to something like FreeBSD takes a bit of getting used to, if you have to install the operating system yourself. If you’re slightly above average in experience, I’d say go for it; you’ll like it, and you should have no trouble to speak of.” Read the installation overview at NewsForge.
Simple FreeBSD Installation Yields Functional Desktop System
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I disagree with the opening paragraph. As an experienced Windows user, I found switching to FreeBsd was much easier than switching to Linux. There is a unified package manager for software installation that is standard across all version of the FreeBsd kernel, there is high quality documentation. And everything is packaged by one team, which makes it much less susceptable to the hodge-podgeiness duct-taped together scenarios all too common in the less sophistacated Linux distributions.
I’m in kind of the reverse situation from the reviewer – used FreeBSD for a couple of years, just installed Slackware this week, and IMO Terrell does a very good job in this review. Some opinions/questions:
1. Slackware’s installer struck me as slightly more user-friendly (more tips for relative newbies). For that and other reasons, Terrell may be a shade too optimistic about the ease of installing and running FreeBSD for an experienced Win user. After many years using Windows, I depended heavily on a friend via e-mail for a month or two while first installing FreeBSD and learning to run it.
2. FreeBSD’s installer will install and configure several common desktops and window managers for you – I guess it doesn’t automatically write the .xinitrc file? The following page shows what a piece of cake writing your own .xinitrc file is: <URL: http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2000/06/21/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page…. (Wouldn’t be a bad idea to show something like this in the console at the right point during installation, or just do a basic .xinitrc automagically and let users edit it.)
Sorry if the URL above didn’t turn out correctly. It should end with “page=3” (no quotes) rather than “page…”.
One thing I didn’t see them mention was the handbook on freebsd.org. It walks through the installation step by step. Other than that think they introduced fbsd nicely.
Some people really are trigger happy on the ‘Report abuse’ links. I’m a big FreeBSD nut and I don’t think that Jud (IP: —.uhc.com) said anything requiring moderation. Grow up children.
“The FreeBSD installation process requires what many Windows users would likely call “a lot of command-line interaction.”
The FreeBSD installation process requires *NO* command line interaction. It’s nice and, erhm, graphical. Is navigating a menu with a keyboard too hard these days? Or do computer users just get more retarded by the minute?
Besides, if you can’t install FreeBSD with the FreeBSD Install Manual printed out you’re hardly worthy of the title of “human being” and should be hospitalised.
The FreeBSD installation process requires *NO* command line interaction.
Personally, I consider “installing” more than just copying the files to a disk and rebooting. sysinstall does a lot for you, but you do have to use the command line at some point (after the reboot), like to edit your hosts file or put modules into loader.conf.
Besides, if you can’t install FreeBSD with the FreeBSD Install Manual printed out you’re hardly worthy of the title of “human being” and should be hospitalised.
Replace “human being” with “moderately computer literate” and you might have something.
You can configure X from within sysinstall. You can even have it auto-startup from within sysinstall. And last time I checked X was graphical as well.
While the FreeBSD installation process may require no command line interaction, it does have a rather arcane interface for it’s setup program that would leave most newer computer users scratching their head and hitting the enter key to move on.
Additionally, once you have FreeBSD installed there is quite a bit of time spent changing the kernel configuration file or possibly even patching your kernel to support your newer hardware since FreeBSD’s hardware support is so out of date in some areas (sound support is lacking notably). Or a lot of time spent updating or installing things from ports, all of these things involve the command line at least a little. I won’t even go into the “fun” I had figuring out and using portinstall, etc and all the little options needed to install binary packages if available (and the modifications to config files needed to point to repositories that have these binary packages) so I didn’t have to spend a long time waiting for ports to compile.
While the FreeBSD handbook was pretty spiffy, and some of the best documentation I’ve seen come with a Free OS, some things that you have to do get a nice useable desktop system on newer hardware isn’t exactly documented enough to me.
Just for kicks (because I sometimes get bored), I decided to give FreeBSD 5.0 a try and see if I could get a desktop up and running. The handbook is pretty well written, though I did visit a couple of external web pages to figure out exactly how the partition/drive lettering worked. Once I figured that out, it was pretty smooth sailing. From my experience, that’s the way things are with Unix/Linux – a lot of the concepts make no sense at all until you understand how it works, then it is very simple .. almost deceptively so.
Of course, once I actually got KDE up and running, since the OS basically runs the same apps as Linux on the desktop (read: most of them sub-par), I didn’t have much for use it.
You can configure X from within sysinstall. You can even have it auto-startup from within sysinstall. And last time I checked X was graphical as well.
I’ve never had much luck with that, but I think the last time I tried Xfree 3.3.x was the default.
Additionally, once you have FreeBSD installed there is quite a bit of time spent changing the kernel configuration file or possibly even patching your kernel to support your newer hardware since FreeBSD’s hardware support is so out of date in some areas (sound support is lacking notably).
Since 5.x, I don’t modify my kernel configuration, since everything I need (and most people, I’d think) is available as a module. I have 2 current machines, one a DSL-connected router/server (using ipfw and dummynet, no less), and a desktop, and both use the GENERIC kernel plus a couple modules loaded from /boot/loader.conf.
The init scripts are pretty smart, as in for the firewalling, when you set “firewall_enable=true” in /etc/rc.conf, it’ll automatically kldload ipfw.ko for you.
Of course, once I actually got KDE up and running, since the OS basically runs the same apps as Linux on the desktop (read: most of them sub-par), I didn’t have much for use it.
But ofcourse they were going slower. 5.0 isn’t really representative as it is the development branch. ALOT of experimenting was put into 5.0 and it was definitely slower than both Linux and 4.9.
Either you should go for 4.9 for stability stuff or simply wait until 5.3 comes along (you might do for 5.2 if you could do some setback in performance in gain of superior user friendlyness gained from FreeBSD compared to Linux).
Why are people using 5.1 as a reviewing platform when a true representation of quality would be the 4.x line. Most people still use 4.x and thus be a fairer representation of what the average FreeBSD user uses.
5.x won’t be stablised until around May-June with the release of 5.3 so hold back on reviews of the 5.x line and stick with 4.x
I have to disagree with the article on a few points:
1) You can build X via a ncruse install or GUI. Its located in /stand/sysinstall “post configuration” then onto XServer Configuration. You really don’t need the command line; however you should not shy away from it. I would suggest rebooting after install then going into the X config scripts.
2) 5.1? Why not use the stable line 4.x series. 4.9 can be downloaded. 5.2 is in RC2 mode. And once 5.3 becomes available in march it will be considered stable rather than bleeding edge.
3)”If you’re computer-phobic and have no help, installing FreeBSD is not a good idea; go instead with LindowsOS, Red Hat, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, or SuSE”.
I have to disagree with point 3. The FreeBSD handbook does an excellent job in helping users getting their system installed and set up. I don’t have a nearby FreeBSD guru and I got my system up in a 30-45 minutes (x/gnome setup too).
It is true that FreeBSD doesn’t have a GUI installer. However a ncruses based installer is fast and efficient. If your considering FreeBSD you may think of the text installer with menu options. Kind of like a catalog system or a library PC in which you select from one menu then go to the next menu. And the FreeBSD installer takes you from menu to menu. Its really not that hard.
“And everything is packaged by one team, which makes it much less susceptable to the hodge-podgeiness duct-taped together scenarios all too common in the less sophistacated Linux distributions.”
Nope, the ports collection is not packaged by one team… if you call that a team, then Debian is a team too i suppose.
Of course, once I actually got KDE up and running, since the OS basically runs the same apps as Linux on the desktop (read: most of them sub-par), I didn’t have much for use it.
But ofcourse they were going slower. 5.0 isn’t really representative as it is the development branch. ALOT of experimenting was put into 5.0 and it was definitely slower than both Linux and 4.9.
I think you missed the point entirely
My problem was not the speed or stability at which the apps ran under FreeBSD, but more the apps themselves, as I don’t (generally speaking) find the desktop apps in *nix to be any better than what I’m currently using.
Actually, there were two apps I really liked – Firebird, the web browser (which runs great under Windows) and Pan, the newsreader (which unfortunately, does not .. or at least as of a few months ago the last time I tried it.)
I’m talking about the operating system. You can call Debian whatever you want to.
I recently I recently Trialled 11 Linux Distro’s & FreeBSD 4.8.
I have to warn potential downloaders : this is 1980’s style installation at it’s worst.
After getting it installed you then have to go configure *everything* from the command line.
This along with LFS & the Source based Linux distro’s is for Techie’s with a lot of time on their hands *only*.
If your time is valuable & you are looking for a 21st century OS try Mepis – 10 mins to a fully functional graphical OS.
Honey, I’ve just fallen off my seat laughing at such diatripe
cd /usr/ports/x11/kde3 && make && make install
Everything else can be configured via the /stand/sysinstall menu, networking, ppp dialup, you name it, it can be configured there. It took me LONGER to diagnose a problem with Red Hat PPP dial up tool that it took for me to setup the PPP connection on FreeBSD. Whilst the Red Hat tool couldn’t even DETECT my external serial port modem, FreeBSD asked me for the port and everything was working nicely.
If it is taking you too long to setup FreeBSD, obviously you’re either REALLY stupid or REALLY lazy.
On a PIII 500 with 768MB, I have can have a fully working FreeBSD desktop, with latest CVS port sources very fast. The only thing that takes long is the compiling, everything else is piss easy.
Live-CD’s with auto-configuration are a handy way to install systems quickly but ‘real’ installers like FreeBSD’s Sysinstall are usually much more flexible. When I want to install FreeBSD, I do minimal install with sources. Then I update sources, optimize the system and build everything else, including XFree, from ports tree. This way I get exactly the kind of FreeBSD system that I want.
Just yesterday I gave Mepis a spin in my test pc. It automatically misconfigured display settings and I had to manually edit XF86Config-4. Mepis installed tons of stuff I’ll never need and I don’t like KDE. Live-CD’s are a great innovation but as system installers they cannot really offer the same functionality as ‘real’ installers.
I always thought that one way of learning how to use an unfamiliar program was to get a book dealing with it (from a library or a bookstore), read it, then practice. Why is it so hard for people to understand this simple fact when it comes to free operating systems ?
My second point is that many device manufacturers don’t provide developers the information necessary to write drivers. They hide behind the trade secret scarecrow. Some of them even build devices that may work only with a specific OS (winmodems, anyone ?). In such cases, the end users have no ground for blaming the linux or BSD teams if they can’t install a particular piece of hardware. Instead, they should contact the manufacturer (good luck !).
I always thought that one way of learning how to use an unfamiliar program was to get a book dealing with it (from a library or a bookstore), read it, then practice. Why is it so hard for people to understand this simple fact when it comes to free operating systems ?
Well, some expect free and easy to use. They think free and expect and and sundry to provide them with the required support to get up and running.
The whole idea of a free OS is that the price you may pay is the LACK of ease of use and the LACK of support. If you want those, you either PAY someone to provide them or look else where.
If one is willing to read a book, follow instructions and learn then yes, a free OS like FreeBSD is VERY good value for money BUT if you’re lazy and don’t want to learn then FreeBSD isn’t for you.
For me, when I ran FreeBSD, it was a rock solid operating system and with KDE, it was an ideal desktop and a lot of fun to use. My main office suite of choice was KOffice.
My second point is that many device manufacturers don’t provide developers the information necessary to write drivers. They hide behind the trade secret scarecrow. Some of them even build devices that may work only with a specific OS (winmodems, anyone ?). In such cases, the end users have no ground for blaming the linux or BSD teams if they can’t install a particular piece of hardware. Instead, they should contact the manufacturer (good luck !).
True, however, many of these complainers, before installing FreeBSD could actually take some time and read the HCL or better yet, actually USE their IRC client and talk to FreeBSD users on irc.freenode.net and ASK users on their experience using FreeBSD on the combination hardware they have. Getting real world feedback is normally alot more useful than trying to read a list, also, you may pick up advice and possible limitations that one may experience.
The fact remains that, as you said, companies hide behind strawman arguments justifying hiding their specifications. If they don’t want people to hack their hardware, why not develop a driver. For example, audio drivers, IIRC, the ALSA API is stable, meaning, one should be able to produce drivers compiled against ALSA and have pretty good compatibility when new version of the linux kernel are released.
Ports.tar.gz is not a part of the OS? My issue is not the name, my point is an element of both OSes which is quite similair whereas Debian is just an example.
Hey, that is great, a newly coined word, and quite a good one too: “diatripe,” part “diatribe,” part “tripe.” I like it.
Regarding “good ol’ RTFM,” this is one place where FreeBSD is excellent. There is an online Handbook linked from the <URL: http://www.freebsd.org/> home page that takes you step-by-step through the installation, including screenshots. I recommended to a friend who was a complete newbie that he print this section of the Handbook before installing so he’d have it for reference, and that worked very well for him.
from the perspective of a non-command-line desktop user, running common applications under kde/gnome etc … what difference does it make that the underlying system is freeBSD or Linux? or does it?
“the perspective of a non-command-line desktop user”
I think that most people who use BSD or GNU/Linux consider the command line interface not as a handicap but rather as an advantage that these two platforms have over some less powerful operating systems.
To answer your question – no, the differences are not as significant as the similarities. The best way to find out which platform or flavour suits your needs and abilities is to try them out yourself. 😉
The ports collection is for building third-party applications. The core operating system is maintained under one cvs repository. GNU/Linux systems are not. In fact, they usually have no distinction at all between the core operating system and third-party applications in the packaging system.
FreeBSD is awsome my only gripe is their choice of default shell csh. They seriously need to consider migrating to bash or better yet a POSIX shell sh. again just a petty gripe/rant.