GhostBSD jumps ship; Drops FreeBSD to use TrueOS (PC-BSD)

My experience of use in the time that I've used GhostBSD makes me to back to FreeBSD. That's all.
FBSD, with all the things that don't have, I don't know if call it better, but at least is not a waste of code, time and effort.
 
ralphbsz

First, the initiative apparently came from the devs - the ones directly affected by it ( probably not the majority, ok ), but what made them annoyed was not fact of the new 'feature' not being accepted, but everything was discussed under the eyes of bug-meisters, they knew the guy will/was writing the code, the exactly purpose of it, and waited until the guy finish all the work and have it done to say NO.

Btw, this subject come out in a more extended discussion about several similar situations.
 
Speaking of pkg-mgmt/synth marino was an excellent developer. In fact, he was my mentor, when I first started maintaining ports, years ago. But IMHO his being admonished was largely, if not completely unfounded. Either way, he's with a different BSD now. Which is a great loss. No matter which side of the coin you're on. :(

--Chris
 
So there is no point getting upset about lack of maintenance. Do it yourself,

Indeed, but even when you do it yourself and submit patches, they can take an eternity to be included. Or get derailed. Then good luck getting any response :(

I still bother to submit them, but for the first time in more than a decade, I've not donated to the Foundation this year ... so being ignored may have unintended consequences.
 
You are getting the point. For instance, based on what I see in here, IRC and mail lists, the majority of FreeBSD users that use full featured DE use XFCE and it is very well maintained, and also KDE (now being maintained with help of Qt Company, it seems).

Then there are Mate, LXDE, LXQt, Cinnammon ( was broken from long time and at least until some time ago, if it still isn't working ), and probably something I don't remember now ( and I am not ever talking about Gnome with its hard SystemD dependencies ).

IDK the state of all of it but I guess most are poorly maintained because of very few users of it, and so why keep these things? What are the real advantages or unique features of these bunch of DEs ( those are many ports that often should be updated at once ) in relation to XFCE? I don't see any but some minor different details.

I guess we are looking at a hen and egg problem here. Many people may be using XFCE simply because the other DEs do not work right. I have certainly tried using Cinnamon (which I also use on Mint and Artix) on FreeBSD, but it just did not work as expected (Permission Issues with just about everything). XFCE simply looks primitive to me and I hate both the looks and the ergonomics of it. YMMV.
 
The direction of FreeBSD is determined by those whom contribute; either by developed/maintained code, or by $$ (paying to have something done).
You want to turn FreeBSD into a Bentley lebarondemerde ? (good choice BTW). Then whip up some Bentley code, and submit it. :)
Alas. That's about as good as it's going to get, I'm afraid. But all-in-all, I wouldn't choose any other OS as my "daily driver" (pardon the pun).

SystemD (and Linux)?
Well, I know that one of the original distros, disavows SystemD. What's more; it's the closest FreeBSD (feeling) Linux I know of. Namely Slack Linux.
OK it's not the newest kernel. But if it ain't broke. Why fix it? At least one Linux distro stood up for what's right! :)

--Chris

Add Artix Linux to the upright. Artix is Arch minus systemd (supports OpenRC, runit and S6). Very much Bleeding Edge, if that is what you want. Works great for my desktop and laptop, but I would not dream using it on a server.
 
Many people may be using XFCE simply because the other DEs do not work right
Many people are using xfce and the various wms because they work in a deterministic way and most importantly, are platform agnostic. TrueOS devs gave birth to Lumina out of uncertainty for the latter.

I have certainly tried using Cinnamon (which I also use on Mint and Artix) on FreeBSD, but it just did not work as expected
If you have to buy into an OS in order to use a certain DE (Cinnamon, Aqua, Gnome, whatever) then the people behind that DE don't care about compatibility (at all). They don't just build a DE, they build it for a particular platform. That's why you have to install Linux in order to use Cinnamon. Similarly, if you wanted to use Aqua, you'd have to buy a mac, and so on... It eventually depends on your tolerance and comfort levels.

XFCE simply looks primitive to me and I hate both the looks and the ergonomics of it
Arguably, there is a priority that favors function and utility over form and aesthetics, especially since the project is a small group of software developers (not artists / designers).
 
Indeed, but even when you do it yourself and submit patches, they can take an eternity to be included. Or get derailed. Then good luck getting any response :(

I still bother to submit them, but for the first time in more than a decade, I've not donated to the Foundation this year ... so being ignored may have unintended consequences.

Its frustrating. I've been following BSD conferences and developer summits for a while now, and desktop related issue barely get addressed.
 
I guess we are looking at a hen and egg problem here. Many people may be using XFCE simply because the other DEs do not work right. [...] XFCE simply looks primitive to me and I hate both the looks and the ergonomics of it. YMMV.
I don't feel passionately about it, but I have to agree with you at least partially. I've never been "blown away" by Xfce, but have used it in the past and installed it for others on a few occasions, because the two main alternatives are massively overweight or have other issues. When you consider that those alternatives consist of some kind of horrible mutant of a tablet/touchscreen UI with virtually no user customisation possible or gigabytes of shiny gloss , transparent stuff and "widgets" - both of which are mostly all about "pretty" and/or imposing someone's idea of how your desktop should work, it's not hard to see why some take the Xfce option.

The two alternatives are also increasingly Linux proprietary, tied to Red Hat's systemd and other freedesktop.org "plumbing" (itself systemd dependent). However the next release of Xfce4 is supposed to be gtk3 based and will move to gdbus (and who knows what else). So it's likely that over time, yet more gnome stuff (and other Linuxisms) will creep in.

Facing facts, almost all of this stuff is primarily developed for Linux desktops. All of the DRM/KMS X.org video driver stack stuff was developed for the Linux kernel and then ported to other OS such as the *BSDs - Linux kernel is the "upstream" for this and AMD and Intel engineers contributing to the kernel are of course being paid to work on Linux, not other OS.

Linux desktops are becoming increasingly systemd based. Porting them to non systemd OS, even non systemd Linux OS will become more and more labour intensive.

So I have to say that, if they continue to make progress in the direction towards a "*BSD desktop", TrueOS, GhostBSD, etc do seem worthwhile. The alternatives are to continue with the reliance on increasingly Linux proprietary software or just accept that *BSDs will always be primarily for servers or as bases for other "products" - and being able to run a desktop just a nice little bonus.
 
Err, didn't, uh, TrueOS recently "jump ship" on itself? Now there is Project Trident?! No idea what's going on here, but ultimately I think it makes regular FreeBSD look better. Trying to use TrueOS on a Desktop system is what brought me to just using vanilla FreeBSD: installing and updating the things I want is easier than dealing with all these wacky BSD "distros" and sudden, big changes.
 
Err, didn't, uh, TrueOS recently "jump ship" on itself? Now there is Project Trident?! No idea what's going on here, but ultimately I think it makes regular FreeBSD look better. Trying to use TrueOS on a Desktop system is what brought me to just using vanilla FreeBSD: installing and updating the things I want is easier than dealing with all these wacky BSD "distros" and sudden, big changes.
Trident is the combination (collaboration) of GhostBSD, and TrueOS, As I understood it. GhostBSD was to head up the UI, while TrueOS managed the underlying OS.

--Chris
 
An extreme example is sytemd, which was written from the vantage point of a laptop with a GUI (and has certain advantages in that setting), but is foot-shaped gun when deployed on headless servers.

I'm kinda curious how you came to this conclusion... Wasn't systemd primarily developed by Red Hat, who are more focussed on the enterprise server market than consumer laptops with fancy GUIs? What exactly about systemd is more suited to consumer hardware and GUIs than headless servers?
 
What disappoints me about these "other" FreeBSD's. Is that FreeBSD became so fragmented. Which means you have several small groups struggling to keep their version(s) useful, and interesting. When what is truly needed. Is to rejoin the group. Pooling their resources, and skills. Making one truly great product.

--Chris
I completely agree. One big reason why I use FreeBSD over Linux is because FreeBSD is more focused on the one complete FreeBSD operating-system with: Ports, packages, bhyve, etc.. preventing fragmentation, whereas Linux seems to be very scattered with so many different minor distributions these days.
 
so many different minor distributions these days
The past few weeks I've heard stories of many distros calling it quits, e.g. Scientific Linux was a major distribution that stops its activities.

Sometimes it's good to have lot's of available options but personally I don't like to have more than a handful of options to pick from.
 
The process of distros calling it off could be seen as a forest fire clearing the ground.
 
For most people a 'Desktop OS' must be something like MacOS or Windows ( both have clearly defined audiences ). Same can be said about a 'Server OS', for some MacOS server is perfect and they don't need anything more than that, there are plenty of business running Windows Servers, others need carefully tailored setups or mainframes... Still, we can discuss, what is easy to use? For me i3 is easy to use, to my father it is black magic.

Why not do a research about the current users and of a defined target audience, preferences, suggestions etc. and follow the path brought by the result of it? It is easier to get more users/developers joining a community/project when it is clear for people they are the target ( or not ).
Don't know if it helps when an absolute Newbie adds his 5 pence, but anyway: I try out BSD from time to time. My target is to browse the net, develop some stuff, maybe some TeX... delopment is in .NET core, Python or Qt, a little bit Docker - so no low hanging fruits here. But I'd like to give it a try.
I'm coming from Linux, started With SuSE 5.3, currently on Ubuntu, Fedora, MX Linux. So in principle, I know how to start with X11 from scratch - but I do not have the time for it anymore. I am used to select my DE, reboot, and got it. I have a script, which installs all needed packages, depending on the OS, so after 3h or less, I have my running system.
When I try this with FreeBSD, as I did yesterday, I start with a 'startx: command not found'. I tried to install X11 manually, but then it has no configuration... and so on. My experiences here so far:
  • FuryBSD installs a FreeBSD. Unfortunately discontinued...
  • MidnightBSD installs DE, but has no package manager. Tried to compile chromium, but failed...
  • GhostBSD was once running, would be my next try
  • TrueOS would be another candidate for the next try
I have to agree: it would be really helpful, if there were definitions of target audiences. If FreeBSD is ment as a server/console only system, and another one is the OS for the 'lazy' people - perfect. But starting a fork for DE users without a running pkg (and failing ports) does not make sense IMHO. If GhostBSD does its job, why is it necessary to have TrueOS on top? What is or what do the maintainers say is the difference? Why split the efforts?
 
FreeBSD's slogan is "The power to serve." This gives a pretty clear indication about the main target audience.

Aside that though it also makes a good desktop. It doesn't come with the shiny bells and whistles compared to desktop centric Linux distributions, but getting it into shape is not so difficult either.

Aside that, modern X11 is pretty much self configuring nowadays compared to former times. Once installed, you normally just have to start and it detects the rest out of the box if you've installed the drivers matching your system. So getting up and running X11 is for most nowadays a no-brainer.
 
So in principle, I know how to start with X11 from scratch - but I do not have the time for it anymore. I am used to select my DE, reboot, and got it. I have a script, which installs all needed packages, depending on the OS, so after 3h or less, I have my running system.
When I try this with FreeBSD, as I did yesterday, I start with a 'startx: command not found'. I tried to install X11 manually, but then it has no configuration...
Either you do know or you don't know. You don't.

I can help. Follow the basic outline, substitute pkg for ports and you can be at the desktop within 3 hours:

 
Either you do know or you don't know. You don't.

I can help. Follow the basic outline, substitute pkg for ports and you can be at the desktop within 3 hours:


No mere mortal is going to go through this, then maintain the hassle of all the CLI based post-mortem configuration and tuning. I can attest to that. My Mac works like an appliance by default, while providing a decent terminal emulator for Unix programming/administration (and apps!). This guide kind of sets the bar wayyyy too high for what a "beginner" is.
 
If FreeBSD is meant as a server/console only system,
It's not. It tries to cater to both sides, and just gives you the tools. But you're going to have to get your hands dirty and configure everything yourself. It doesn't matter if you configure FreeBSD as a server or as a desktop, you're going to need to configure it to make it work the way you want it. And we like it that way.

If GhostBSD does its job, why is it necessary to have TrueOS on top?
I think you're misunderstanding the differences between FreeBSD, GhostBSD and TrueOS. Both GhostBSD and TrueOS are derivatives of FreeBSD and have their own ideas on how a desktop system should be set up and try to do this completely automatically. You don't run TrueOS "on top" of anything, TrueOS is based on FreeBSD -CURRENT (development version). GhostBSD was based on a -RELEASE version. TrueOS also tries to do things a little differently when it comes to packaging and maintenance of the OS.
 
It's not. It tries to cater to both sides, and just gives you the tools. But you're going to have to get your hands dirty and configure everything yourself. It doesn't matter if you configure FreeBSD as a server or as a desktop, you're going to need to configure it to make it work the way you want it. And we like it that way.
This is what a lot of people can't seem to understand. The default install does not give you a shiny desktop environment. It gives you a system with enough installed that you can create the shiny desktop environment that "YOU" want, not what someone else thinks "YOU" should have.

All these other distributions (including the billions of Linux ones)? They simply are someone else's idea of the shiny desktop environment you need. Are there some useful ideas in them? Of course. Video device detection, installing the proper bits (drm kmod) is huge, but one could simply make a port pulling pieces in.

sysutils/desktop-installer port/package is a huge step towards doing this; errors, bugs, omissions I think the maintainer would be open to hearing about them.
 
Installing and setting up X and a DE is done in a few minutes - the times where you have to hack together the whole xorg.conf by hand are long gone and usually you don't need any xorg.conf at all. Just install xorg, your DE of choice (I'm using XFCE4) and a login manager (e.g. slim), load that via rc.conf, edit the users .xinitrc and you're done.

TrueOS was a nice try - as long as you stayed in exactly the intended use cases and configuration the devs intended. OpenRC was/is a nightmare - when we tried to use TrueOS on our client PCs we had constant race conditions and/or non-working (and thus boot/shutdown-blocking) init-scripts which had to be fixed and re-fixed after every second update or so (usually because yet another dependency broke...). Especially when using a bunch of networked services (or even nfs-shares) that need to be available at boot, it was often a lottery if everything came up as intended - i.e. when using LDAP or NIS, OpenRC often started services that needed the user/group configuration before NIS/LDAP, thus leaving cups, saned and other services unusable or crashed after startup. Yes, you can make dependencies; No, they didn't work as expected/documented. Also during shutdown it often thought a service failed to shut down and blocked the rest of the shutdown process...
I absolutely don't give a damn about 1-2sec faster boot times (which are neglegible when using SSDs or NVMEs anyways), but startup needs to be 100% reliable, which those "dynamic" inits still can't provide for a lot of use cases...
I still thing TrueOS could have been a success IF they had concentrated on building a working FreeBSD-based desktop and a fully functional Lumina DE, rather than ripping out or anything that just worked in vanilla FreeBSD and replacing it with (linux) stuff that doesn't quite work (e.g. OpenRC and dhcpcd). But to be fair we have to thank them for really pushing the development of what was then called drm-next.

And just FTR: TrueOS is dead and gone and Project Trident is now just another linux distro. The only thing left is the Lumina DE, which looked really promising, but with the driving force behind it (Project Trident) being linux-centric, it is no longer a "BSD-native DE" and I suspect it will sooner or later drag in linuxisms and dependencies on crap like dbus, pulseaudio and other cruft (if this hasn't already happened - I haven't followed the development for quite a while).


My Mac works like an appliance by default, while providing a decent terminal emulator for Unix programming/administration (and apps!).
Then maybe you are the wrong audience for a proper, multi purpose OS, but should rather stay in one of those completely governed and predefined ecosystems with their app-stores...
 
but should rather stay in one of those completely governed and predefined ecosystems with their app-stores...

So I suppose the quoted individual in my signature is also the wrong audience? ;) That's completely irrelevant to what I said. macOS's merits on usability has nothing to do with Apple's way of handling it's ecosystem. I'm comfortable in both environments, actually (ie hence the administration bit), but there's this thing called time people care about. Yes, it's a multi purpose OS... for servers/embedded. Perspective goes along way people!

Now wash your mouth. With soap!

Bad moderator.
 
Back
Top