want to leave xp...

D

d_mon

...to erase the partition and install some? BSD...

looking4 tips...ain't wanna feel remorse later(of leaving private sof)

got arch on second part

ideas are welcome!
 
The best tip I can think of is: read (relevant parts of) the handbook, particularly the installation and post-installation chapters.

FreeBSD is becoming more and more suitable for desktop systems, but the base system is relatively barebones (for good reasons). If you want a desktop environment and applications, you'll have to install them yourself.

Good luck,

Fonz

P.S. If you still have XP around, I recommend that you first make an inventory of the hardware you have (make and model of video card, sound card, NIC, etc.). If I'm not mistaken the handbook show how to do that in Windows.
 
thx homie...i had installed pcbsd,freebsd and freeBSD 9(current)b4!

definitly BSD rocks dude -at least 'free'-!

now..wich one is nicer GRUB o bsd boot?
 
d_mon said:
wich one is nicer GRUB o bsd boot?
Click to expand...
Depends on your definition of nice :h

The FreeBSD boot manager is very simple, I like that. Grub on the other hand probably has a lot more features that allow one to make it look more fancy, if that's what you're after.

Fonz
 
SirDice said:
If you're going for a FreeBSD only system you don't need a boot manager
Click to expand...

got arch on second part
Click to expand...

i'm going to install on first hole(where is xp) (archlinux is on 2nd)...no inconvenient with freeBSD boot-manager?

what to choose[the best] on installation: UFS or ZFS and which de/wm with 256 mb ram,2.26 ghz processor intel P4?

what to choose: 8 stable, 8.2 release?
 
speechless...nobody cares if someone want to stick or not to BSD!

*ain't got time(like most people) 4 read long 'manuals''handbooks''whatever'...
 
If you believe that "ain't got time to read all that stuff" will go down well with FreeBSD users, you're probably wrong.
 
d_mon said:
i'm going to install on first hole(where is xp) (archlinux is on 2nd)...no inconvenient with freeBSD boot-manager?
Click to expand...
Should be no problem.

d_mon said:
what to choose[the best] on installation: UFS or ZFS and which de/wm with 256 mb ram,2.26 ghz processor intel P4?
Click to expand...
ZFS is said to be heavy on resources, so with your configuration I'd say UFS.

Which DE/WM to run is largely a matter of personal choice. You have pretty much the same options as on Linux and the arguments are the same, too. I use x11-wm/fvwm2, configured to look like Silicon Graphics' 4Dwm. I also have a netbook on which I currently use x11-wm/blackbox. Both of these are stacking window managers that are relatively lean on resources, but you may want more eyecandy. To quote Status Quo: Whatever You Want.

d_mon said:
what to choose: 8 stable, 8.2 release?
Click to expand...
Again depends on exactly what you want. But if you need to ask, just go with -RELEASE I'd say.

Fonz
 
First, you should learn difference between chainloader and bootloader, and how all those OSes you have installed boot. Second, if you "ain't got time" stick to Windows. UNIX requires time, will and patience.

i'm going to install on first hole(where is xp) (archlinux is on 2nd)...no inconvenient with freeBSD boot-manager?
Click to expand...

Don't install FreeBSD boot manager. Your GRUB can boot FreeBSD from UFS partition.

what to choose[the best] on installation: UFS or ZFS and which de/wm with 256 mb ram,2.26 ghz processor intel P4?
Click to expand...

You can't choose anything of that kind @ installation. You will get UFS partitions inside a FreeBSD slice with only base system, that lacks any form of GUI. ZFS requires manual installation (and that requires skills you'll never get if you don't change attitude), and 256MB ram on i386 is a no-go for that filesystem.

what to choose: 8 stable, 8.2 release?
Click to expand...

I generally prefer -STABLE branch on desktop because of faster code updates and up-to-date packages which -RELEASE repository lacks. For -RELEASE, packages are compiled only when that particular version rolls out, receiving only security patches. For -STABLE, clusters are compiling new versions of packages. You can use -STABLE repository on -RELEASE system by setting a few environment variables. That's not problematic but it isn't recommended, either. -RELEASE systems can be upgraded to new minor or major versions via binary upgrade tool. -STABLE can be only re-built. Meaning that you need to fetch the complete system sources and compile "world". That can take a while on 2.26 P4.

This is all written in the handbook. You're asking us to type again what's already been written in official documentation. Because of your laziness to "read long manuals". I'm not responding to your general questions any more - go RTFM.
 
I bet arch isn't as stable (and mature) as BSD

Booting up speed is really not that important in long run (Unless you're booting old OpenSolaris, which takes ages)
 
killasmurf86 said:
(Unless you're booting old OpenSolaris, which takes ages)
Click to expand...

:e

possibly pcBSD could be 4me...:OOO

another thing: i need some to replace XP -i mean FULL desktop- that's the idea!

in the past had inconvenients with USB and cd rom(no read/something about permissions)
 
btw...why BSD has software out of phase? an example: if someone wanna try ff 8 (nightly build) we have it on aur repos...on freeBSD how could get it?
 
fonz said:
I use x11-wm/fvwm2, configured to look like Silicon Graphics' 4Dwm. I also have a netbook on which I currently use x11-wm/blackbox. Both of these are stacking window managers that are relatively lean on resources
Click to expand...

some pic(s)?
-------------------
btw i'm going to try to install with a usb(today)
 
hi there...folks i don't like to bother but need some tuto how to install on usb then to hd
and
where to find the correct iso/image to do that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top