On the desktop: FreeBSD vs PC-BSD vs Debian

[Beastie7]

just in:

http://gitweb.dragonflybsd.org/dragonfly.git/commit/27a0f88200cb2ea36420394e1ca44078604fd352

 

[Patrick Bär]

In the end, I recommend trying out each one in a virtual machine and seeing what suits you best. Personally, I like running Debian on my laptop and PC-BSD's server edition on my servers.

I dislike virtual machines for the hardware support reason. A VM is ok if you want to try, whether you prefer KDE, Gnome or Windows 7. But to spot weaknesses on a system it's best to install it on a hd and run it. At this very moment, I am installing Debian on a desktop and FreeBSD on a spare notebook and see what I will end up with!

 

[hashime]

Disagree. Linux is definitely not as stable as FreeBSD. I think, but am not too much into details, that Xorg is the weak spot. Applications run in a window manager can and do easily freeze or crash a Linux system. This might depend on the application, of course

That's just wrong. No idea where you heard that, has not happened to me once in the last 10 years. FreeBSD runs the same Xorg and Gnome/KDE as all the Linux distributions btw.

 

[Deleted member 9563]

There is something wrong in this discussion. I don't understand what's wrong with running a desktop on FreeBSD. The reason I say that is that currently I've got the best desktop I've ever had with any OS (since desktops were invented) and I'm running FreeBSD.

 

[roddierod]

There is something wrong in this discussion. I don't understand what's wrong with running a desktop on FreeBSD. The reason I say that is that currently I've got the best desktop I've ever had with any OS (since desktops were invented) and I'm running FreeBSD.

I think whenever the "desktop" discussion comes up, "desktop" needs to be defined. I agree with you. I've been using FreeBSD as a desktop going on 15 years now and whenever I try and use anything else I feel hampered or constrained and less productive...and I use Windows everyday at work because I am forced too.

 

[Patrick Bär]

There is something wrong in this discussion. I don't understand what's wrong with running a desktop on FreeBSD. The reason I say that is that currently I've got the best desktop I've ever had with any OS (since desktops were invented) and I'm running FreeBSD.

There are two reasons, why FreeBSD is not suitable:

1. Important software cannot be run.

On a server, you hardly run across software not available. Apache, qmail, bind, NFS, samba, everything there. But on a desktop, I might have to run some Windows only software or a program that has been ported to Linux, but cannot be run under the FreeBSD compatibility layer. What will you tell your boss? "Sorry but I can't make that xyz-thing for you, my OS is not able to execute the program for it"
​

2. Your hardware is not supported

But this is not what I was talking about, as these questions can be easily answered. Actually, question wasn't "Can I run FreeBSD on a desktop at all?" but rather "If I set up a desktop with PC-BSD and run it, what will happen over the next x years?" One excellent answer was "Updates are horrible with PC-BSD and package-manager do not work together properly" That's a very good reason to stay away from PC-BSD. If I have the choice among spending three days to install a FreeBSD with a lot of compiling and searching and stuff, and spending two hours installing PC-BSD every two months, because an update breaks my whole configuration, I know what to pick

That's just wrong. No idea where you heard that, has not happened to me once in the last 10 years. FreeBSD runs the same Xorg and Gnome/KDE as all the Linux distributions btw.

On my own desktop I know the software is identical, but the Linux kernel definitely handles them differently.

 

[roddierod]

There are two reasons, why FreeBSD is not suitable:

1. Important software cannot be run.

On a server, you hardly run across software not available. Apache, qmail, bind, NFS, samba, everything there. But on a desktop, I might have to run some Windows only software or a program that has been ported to Linux, but cannot be run under the FreeBSD compatibility layer. What will you tell your boss? "Sorry but I can't make that xyz-thing for you, my OS is not able to execute the program for it"
​

2. Your hardware is not supported

So then, OS X is not suitable for the desktop as it will not run Windows only software that has been ported to Linux and has no native OS X version and OS X wont run on my HP or Dell laptop?

And how are you running a different OS at your place of employment than everyone else?

 

[ANOKNUSA]

There is something wrong in this discussion. I don't understand what's wrong with running a desktop on FreeBSD.

What's "wrong" here is that when people refer to a particular platform as a "good desktop operating system," what they mean is that it's an operating system that a lobotomized baboon on PCP could operate with its tongue while bound and blindfolded. These constant niggling debates over whether this OS or that is a "good desktop OS" drive me insane. What people mean by "good desktop OS," in the end, is "Can any moron used to Windows learn how to use it in two minutes?" The answer will always be "No," and so the answer to whether Linux and *BSD are good desktop OSes will always be "No."

The barrier is not and has never been the operating system, but the people using it. People are creatures of habit who will fight to maintain their bad habits, deny their own ignorance and blame others for their failures until fate or death compel them to change or stop. In the minds of the vast majority of people--the people who don't understand the distinction between a computer and an operating system, and are used to doing things one way and will never, never, never change their habits--*nix will always and forever be a "bad desktop OS." For everyone else--the people willing to learn and try new things, who are aware of their own ignorance and willing to do something about it--*nix is whatever the hell you want to make it. The debate over what is or is not a "good desktop OS" is insoluble and idiotic. Let it die, already.

[Typed from my FreeBSD laptop running GNOME 3.]

 

[drhowarddrfine]

ANOKNUSA Couldn't have said it better myself.

Also a FreeBSD desktop user for 11 years, currently using a workstation built on (then) bleeding edge hardware just one year ago for creating bleeding edge web sites using all the modern tools of today.

 

[freethread]

What ANOKNUSA said is suitable for the most of the users of any kind of desktop running on any kind of OS. That's what I more or less think about smartphones, no matter what the OS it runs. The matter is the kind of users, the most of them use a computer to play games or shopping, in the same way they use smartphones, the difference is that a smartphone is a bit smaller and in most of cases you can keep it in a poket, then you can also call someone.

I have another concept of 'computer', most for computing, programming, serving, so I have no trouble installing a desktop environment (or a window manager) on FreeBSD and be happy with it, sometimes I need an application (port) to do unusual job like an image editor or a GUI file archiver to manage zip files and alike, I take a while to choose the one that satisfy me (my background is Windows and my brain has it's habits).

I usually use Windows, but have some FreeBSD machines with Xfce and KDE and use them to compile, I will never watch a film on them, nor listen music, nor navigate youtube or alike, so, to me, using FreeBSD as a desktop is as good as using Windows, many times it's better (no annoying messages or warnings or unwanted backround jobs and services). But I use computer for compiling or at least scripting, most of the time using an IDE that I'm used, and FreeBSD have them on ports.

From the marketing point of view... marketing need monkeys (or dogs on acid, or PCP), so what you expect from a generic desktop machine? The quality is inversely proportional to quantity (most of times), FreeBSD fall under this rule.

 

[Deleted member 9563]

There are two reasons, why FreeBSD is not suitable:

1. Important software cannot be run.

All my important software runs just fine. I'm sorry to hear that yours doesn't.

2. Your hardware is not supported

My hardware is well supported. Perhaps because I bought it myself (and I know what I'm doing there), or perhaps because FreeBSD runs on most hardware just fine.

"Updates are horrible with PC-BSD and package-manager do not work together properly"

My experience is not like that with FreeBSD.

If I have the choice among spending three days to install a FreeBSD with a lot of compiling and searching and stuff, and spending two hours installing PC-BSD every two months, because an update breaks my whole configuration, I know what to pick

I admit that I have encountered some problems from time to time, but I've gotten good help on this forum. In the last few years the problems have not been with the OS, but rather my lack of skill with it.

The bottom line is that I apparently live in a different universe from some people - but I like it here.

 

[Deleted member 9563]

I guess I'm into this thread now, so I'll just comment on my experience with all three operating system desktops (as per the thread topic).

I did try PC-BSD for about a year. Perhaps it wasn't as mature then, but I found that all it did was add someone else's personal choices for me to try to get around. I had hoped that it was, as promised then, FreeBSD with KDE. That was not the case and I ended up using Xfce with it. In the end I decided that FreeBSD was much easier to deal with.

Debian is fine. I've moved away from Linux because of its fundamental instability. I use that word in the English sense. That is, it is unstable. Things change all the time. That means that when it comes to reinstalling or other configurations, a few years later I can't use my notes. I understand that this "problem" comes from the way that it is developed - lots of younger folk who like new things. That's fine, and I value highly the egalitarian process of open source. I'm not that fond of the result though.

I have two secondary machines which run Debian with a desktop. I find that what they give you out of the box requires a lot more clicking and keystrokes to operate. IOW, it's troublesome for me. I don't even know what those desktops are called, and I don't care. For my main machine I will always prefer to install the basic OS and then add the desktop environment of my choice. (KDE or Fluxbox.) Bundling them together doesn't make any sense to me. I don't want to inherit someone else's configuration.

The idea of inheriting someone else's personal setup turns me right off. If for some reason I could find a way to stomach proprietary software, I still could never use MS-Windows or Apple simply because I cant set those up the way I want. They are fundamentally useless to me. I may be kinky in demanding personal ownership of my computer, but because I am that way, I chose FreeBSD.

 

[Patrick Bär]

I have found something very "funny" today: With my Debian, the CPU can be set to two different frequencies. TWO! With FreeBSD I can set the CPU to whatever value I like, even down to 200. Out of the box of course

 

[teo]

Why they insist with Debian? When Debian is systemd, and it betrayed its own principles and philosophy of Linux, this is a FreeBSD forum. PC-BSD does not have 32-bit architecture, consumes much resources from on 64-bit machine.

 

[Oko]

There are two reasons, why FreeBSD is not suitable:

1. Important software cannot be run.

On a server, you hardly run across software not available. Apache, qmail, bind, NFS, samba, everything there. But on a desktop, I might have to run some Windows only software or a program that has been ported to Linux, but cannot be run under the FreeBSD compatibility layer. What will you tell your boss? "Sorry but I can't make that xyz-thing for you, my OS is not able to execute the program for it"


​

It is kind a funny you mentioned that as that is exactly the reason Windows is not usable to me. Imagine you need to edit 350 pages book, create some index, do words replacement or similar. On my OpenBSD machine I fire up nvi, sed, and needs be Perl and 15 minutes later TeX source is ready and book is ready for printing. On Windows unless you know how to use Cygwin you will be clicking that 350 pages word document 3 months and it is still going go look like a crap. I guess moral of the story is that very few Windows users write books. I hope that at least they read them

 

[Beastie7]

What's "wrong" here is that when people refer to a particular platform as a "good desktop operating system," what they mean is that it's an operating system that a lobotomized baboon on PCP could operate with its tongue while bound and blindfolded. These constant niggling debates over whether this OS or that is a "good desktop OS" drive me insane. What people mean by "good desktop OS," in the end, is "Can any moron used to Windows learn how to use it in two minutes?" The answer will always be "No," and so the answer to whether Linux and *BSD are good desktop OSes will always be "No."

The barrier is not and has never been the operating system, but the people using it. People are creatures of habit who will fight to maintain their bad habits, deny their own ignorance and blame others for their failures until fate or death compel them to change or stop. In the minds of the vast majority of people--the people who don't understand the distinction between a computer and an operating system, and are used to doing things one way and will never, never, never change their habits--*nix will always and forever be a "bad desktop OS." For everyone else--the people willing to learn and try new things, who are aware of their own ignorance and willing to do something about it--*nix is whatever the hell you want to make it. The debate over what is or is not a "good desktop OS" is insoluble and idiotic. Let it die, already.

[Typed from my FreeBSD laptop running GNOME 3.]

I think this is oversimplifying things a bit. This is the exact same reasoning Windows 8 apologists used, yet the majority of the market (users) rejected it. Barrier to entry and subsequent usability to hugely relative to UI design principles and user experience an OS presents with a desktop environment; not just the end user being able to simply adapt to it. Now, I'm not going to go over the details because it's a long drag of a topic but there's psychology behind it. If the barrier has and always been been the user, the whole Windows 8 debacle would've never happened. Also, that's only one facet of what a good end user centric desktop entails; there is a distinction, and it goes beyond the desktop environment.

Now I agree it's pointless to argue in this demographic (we're geeks after-all in a server forum ), but when you're catering to a huge market of average Joes who just wants to get shit done, it matters. To "Let it die" is simply ignoring the user.

 

[sysconfig]

I think which system is best for your desktop largely depends on how you use your desktop. If somebody has to run loads of Windows applications, it may be pointless to install anything but Windows. If it's just a few apps, VirtualBox exists and runs any Windows stuff beautifully.
Same for Linux. Not sure which applications might be running exclusively on Linux, but if you have them, use Linux (or again, VirtualBox if only occasional).
If heavy dependencies on particular OS's don't exist, FreeBSD is a rather very good choice for a desktop. Sure, some hardware limitations may exist, but for the majority of relatively recent hardware, you should be fine.

What you can hold against FreeBSD (in comparison to Debian/Ubuntu) is that making your desktop work initially takes a lot more effort and tuning. But once that's done, you don't need to worry about it any more. It just runs -- rather beautifully and extremely stable. Also, you've learned a lot along the way about what's actually going on, which Linux increasingly successfully hides from you. (It's becoming more and more of a Windows-y experience, IHHO)

There's a lot of features like ZFS, jails, OSS (as opposed to the rubbish broken PulseAudio), ports, relatively sane upgrade paths (and if you break something, use zfs rollback and try again), and many more, which I personally think are stronger than what Linux can offer, and they justify that additional effort.

Also, you can customise FreeBSD a lot easier than any Linux (Gentoo possibly being an exception). Of course you can compile stuff manually with Debian (or any other Linux), but chances are you won't, because it requires a lot more work to keep up to date without breaking things afterwards, as all of them assume that you are using the provided binary packages. FreeBSD ports handle that a lot better.

Typing this on FreeBSD 10-STABLE (XFCE desktop). I have had exactly zero system or window manager crashes on this desktop, no f***-ups with audio or anything awkward going on. It was worth the effort for me personally.

 

[Patrick Bär]

What's "wrong" here is that when people refer to a particular platform as a "good desktop operating system," what they mean is that it's an operating system that a lobotomized baboon on PCP could operate with its tongue while bound and blindfolded. These constant niggling debates over whether this OS or that is a "good desktop OS" drive me insane. What people mean by "good desktop OS," in the end, is "Can any moron used to Windows learn how to use it in two minutes?" The answer will always be "No," and so the answer to whether Linux and *BSD are good desktop OSes will always be "No."

The barrier is not and has never been the operating system, but the people using it. People are creatures of habit who will fight to maintain their bad habits, deny their own ignorance and blame others for their failures until fate or death compel them to change or stop. In the minds of the vast majority of people--the people who don't understand the distinction between a computer and an operating system, and are used to doing things one way and will never, never, never change their habits--*nix will always and forever be a "bad desktop OS." For everyone else--the people willing to learn and try new things, who are aware of their own ignorance and willing to do something about it--*nix is whatever the hell you want to make it. The debate over what is or is not a "good desktop OS" is insoluble and idiotic. Let it die, already.

[Typed from my FreeBSD laptop running GNOME 3.]

Quotes like this are the exact reason why people are p... off by <insert random OS here>. It is pure overestimation to declare people as stupid, who do not share the same philosophy, only because one thinks, that their sole reason is being less smart. Different people have different lifes. I think I have explained my questions and also made clear, that I do have a bit more experience than the mentioned baboon. I have used UNIX since 1991, how much experience have you got? And no, I do not feel offended by you. But I absolutely dislike an attitude like "You are stupid because you don't know so much about computers as the divine yours truly"

So to my topic: sysconfig hit the bull's eye. Nothing else to say. My pattern is also "Use FreeBSD, FreeBSD is cool. If FreeBSD cannot offer what I need, use Debian. If Debian cannot offer what I need, use Windows" PCBSD is out of the race because I hate reconfiguring after every update

 

[fernandel]

It is kind a funny you mentioned that as that is exactly the reason Windows is not usable to me. Imagine you need to edit 350 pages book, create some index, do words replacement or similar. On my OpenBSD machine I fire up nvi, sed, and needs be Perl and 15 minutes later TeX source is ready and book is ready for printing. On Windows unless you know how to use Cygwin you will be clicking that 350 pages word document 3 months and it is still going go look like a crap. I guess moral of the story is that very few Windows users write books. I hope that at least they read them

OKO, please...
Do you think that for example Günter Grass is using OpenBSD for writing his books??

 

[beanpole]

I just came across this thread: so I wanted to chime in about PC-BSD a bit (since I am a dev) and some of the differences from pure FreeBSD.
1) PC-BSD *is* 64-bit only, since it is standardized with ZFS-on-root.
2) PC-BSD uses GRUB as the boot loader so that we get out-of-box boot environment support (allowing a fail-safe rollback of the OS if anything should go wrong), as well as better support for dual/multi-boot situations.
3) PC-BSD performs background updates in a pristine boot environment - allowing you to continue using the system even while updates are being performed. Once it is complete, you simply get a notification about needing to reboot your system to complete the update procedure (whenever you are ready), and on reboot, it will go directly into the new (updated) boot environment. This ensures that if you ever had any issues with the update all you need to do is reboot and select your previous BE and continue on without loss of productivity. Our success rate with this new model of updates is so high (because of the clean BE starting point) that we have made the update procedures automatic by default (you can disable it or change automatic settings as desired). The only real "issues" that we still occasionally experience with updates are the same thing you get with running pkg manually - dropped packets causing a pkg to fail downloading properly. In this type of situation the back-end updater has a couple fallback methods to re-try the download, or just stop it for the time being and try it again at a later time (picking up where it left off with regards to downloads). The other information in this thread about update procedures on PC-BSD was woefully out of date, so I wanted to make sure you had the correct info...
4) PC-BSD uses pkg for package management just like FreeBSD, the "PBI" system transitioned a couple years back to a simple information overlay for pkg (providing info necessary for a graphical AppCafe, such as screenshot links, related pkgs/plugins, pkg categorization by type, etc...).

Remember that PC-BSD *is* just a pre-configured FreeBSD with some other nice utilities to make it easier to use - particularly for desktop systems (it is not a fork of FreeBSD). There is no reason to use our update mechanisms or utilities if you want to stick to the old freebsd-update/pkg update routines - you can manage it the exact same way as traditional FreeBSD.

 

[teo]

Here very much one discusses FreeBSD vs PC-BSD vs Debian on desktop, nobody speaks about GhostBSD that also is a FreeBSD, and it seems to me that excellent system on desktop, friendly to the end user.

 

[scottro]

Yeah, I had forgotten that too. It is quicker and easier to install than PCBSD, and probably a better choice for less powerful systems. I haven't used it in months, but when I did, I was quite impressed with its being easy to use for a beginner.

 

[Beastie7]

I don't understand the point of all these forks. Why not just gather a team of maintainers for each DE, like with GNOME 3/KDE. GhostBSD could easily just be the FreeBSD MATE team with their own FreeBSD oriented tweaks.

Ubuntu is a good example of this.

 

[Oko]

I don't understand the point of all these forks. Why not just gather a team of maintainers for each DE, like with GNOME 3/KDE. GhostBSD could easily just be the FreeBSD MATE team with their own FreeBSD oriented tweaks.

Ubuntu is a good example of this.

You are missing the point. PC-BSD is not just KDE on the top of FreeBSD. PC-BSD is highly ZFS optimized and customized FreeBSD with better installer than vanilla FreeBSD which happens to come with several pre-configured desktop environments (KDE traditionally was receiving most love). I like it because TrueOS comes with bunch of pre-installed/pre-configured stuff ready to be used.

I am not using GhostBSD but to me it looks like highly optimized FreeBSD for older hardware (read UFS) which happens to come with pre-configured Gnome. Now if printer, scanner and bunch of other drivers are not installed and configured you will have little use of Gnome. So the point of these projects is that they are hiding this things from you.

Saying that Ubuntu is just Debian with pre-installed Gnome is just not true. Ubuntu is far more than just a vanilla Debian with Gnome on the top of it.

 

[Beastie7]

I was using Ubuntu as an example of having DE variants that coincide with its' core platform (Ubuntu). Customization is irrelevant, unless PC-BSD or Ubuntu is using its' own infrastructure (meaning different base, ports, src, etc), is it the same thing. PC-BSD should be called FreeBSD/Lumina because practically, there's no difference. Hence why it's pointless, and it creates communal fragmentation.