FreeBSD 15 probably will include KDE as DE installtion option

hardworkingnewbie

hardworkingnewbie

The devs are busy working right now in offering KDE as DE during the FreeBSD installation process.

KDE Desktop Installer Option​

For FreeBSD 15.0, our goal is to extend the FreeBSD installer to offer a minimal KDE-based desktop as an install option. The initial concept is a low-interaction installation process that, upon completion, brings the user directly to a KDE graphical login screen.​
​
​
We are currently evaluating the required pkg dependencies to automatically select appropriate graphics drivers.​

github.com

proj-laptop/monthly-updates/2025-06.md at main · FreeBSDFoundation/proj-laptop

The FreeBSD Foundation's Laptop Support and Usability Improvements project aims to deliver a package of improved or new FreeBSD functionality that, together, will ensure that it runs well “out ...
github.com github.com
 
It's just a logical choice.

Gnome devs have already confirmed that they will ditch Xorg support in just a couple of releases whilst AFAIK KDE will continue supporting Xorg for the foreseeable future (even if the development process will stop eventually).
 
SirDice said:
As long as it's not enabled by default and an optional choice I have no problems with it. I won't install it in any case, don't like KDE, never did.
Click to expand...
Maybe because KDE came, in some design patterns, not from UNIX but AFAIK from BeOS. That might explain some things.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
Waiting on the flood of complaints about the choice of KDE.
Click to expand...
Also for the whining "Why [only] KDE, and not [DE]?!"

As long as it's just an additional choice in the installer, which simply executes the two pkg install lines needed for that, I'm 100% with SirDice.
Since no-autoinstalling-DE-by-default is newbies #1 complaining point about FreeBSD I can comprehend this decision in the hope to gain more users.
But I hope the devs approximated well the needed work in the future to keep this (all) running (as a decades long KDE hater I cannot tell, but I heard KDE can be problematic sometimes), and not open pandora's box.
 
Well, I prefer X as a native set with a simple WM.
I always liked how OpenBSD does it.
Things just work there OOTB, your keyboard layout is the same across TTYs and X, graphics tablets work, WiFi works ... .
Yes all of these do "work" on FreeBSD but they need you to go config things around for some time after installing it on a new system.
I wonder about the challenges of providing a similar experience with the current modular X system.
The reason why I personally prefer a simple WM instead of a full featured DE like KDE is that it has less "surface area" for problems to arise.
But as long as all this stays optional and opt-in, it is OK.
 
baaz said:
I always liked how OpenBSD does it.
Click to expand...
You're not the only one. A long time ago, the *BSD installers were very similar. I don't have my old handbooks anymore, but the concept of "sets" or "what are you using this for" (FreeBSD at one point had a high level option of User Graphical Workstation that would install at least X and twm) was common.
Everyone has a different tolerance for how things are presented in an installer (me, I'm a command line, simple ncurses interface, default to server install), but a key point would be clear definitive documentation as to what is going on/what the user should select.

So I fully expect some people to argue why KDE instead of XFCE|LDXE|whatever, which will be popcorn worthy.

A concern to me is "where this would come in"? As part of the USB/DVD image or need network to install? In the past when install images were limited to CDROM size this was important. It may not be an issue anymore because 32GB USB are not very much cost, but it's an aspect to consider.
 
I'm not going to argue for or against the decision to use KDE. I'm more curious as to the process for choosing KDE as the default option for a pre-configured DE. I personally like XFCE, and it seems to be rather popular among FreeBSD users, so I am interested to know what pros and cons were of the different considered systems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mer
jardows said:
so I am interested to know what pros and cons were of the different considered systems.
Click to expand...

- stable toolkit
- stable ABI/API
- great community
- consistent UX/UI
- kde frameworks (arguably the closest thing to Cocoa/Win32/BeOS API)
- decent first party utilities for mere mortals
- x11 love

That said, I’m not a fan of the UI bloat in Plasma, but it’s a sane choice. It’s about time.

Hopefully this will encourage more third party ports to FreeBSD.
 
Seems to me--after a quick "clickity-click of links"--that this we are still in the proof-of-concept stage so, not sure why people would complain about KDE. -i.e. why would anyone care what DE was chosen as long as the infrastructure is established.

github.com

Fully functional installer for a usable Desktop config · Issue #25 · FreeBSDFoundation/proj-laptop

User Story As a user with a "new" laptop, I want to be able to install FreeBSD quickly and successfully and have it in a usable configuration so that I can start using it as soon as possible. Imple...
github.com github.com
 
That sounds great to me, even though I don't like KDE very much. A lot of people like KDE. Maybe they will support other DEs as well down the road. But even if they won't, I think this is a great step forward for FreeBSD on desktops/laptops.
 
JohnK said:
Seems to me--after a quick "clickity-click of links"--that this we are still in the proof-of-concept stage so, not sure why people would complain about KDE.
Click to expand...

dbdemon said:
That sounds great to me, even though I don't like KDE very much.
Click to expand...

hruodr said:
No. No so called Desktop environment is sane.
Click to expand...
My opinion only, no official project relationship.
A framework that allows ASKING during install, something like:
"Do you want to install a graphical thing" default No
If Yes
"Which one of the following do you want to install"
followed by a limited selection including things like KDE, XFCE, LXDE, twm.

For me that explicitly enables one to choose an optional set to install, with a limited set of options.
Not catering to "everyone" but giving options that covers 80%.
A key piece is documentation about exactly what this new selection means.

In my opinion, there is a huge difference between offering an optional install item and default installing a specific DE. Optional install I can ignore it
 
hruodr : Let's not get political in here... Besides, considering the GPU situation (drivers, config), I expect that the installer will probably need to be able to fallback to the original text-based installation if graphical config fails.

Also, in the Linux camp, there's work being done to offer a Wayland-based installer.

I personally don't care what the graphical installer looks like, but after decades of looking at text-based stuff (and learning about the importance of paying attention and following instructions correctly), I'm ready for eye candy. Nothing really wrong with text-based installer, IMHO. It's really a matter of knowing what you're doing in the first place. Because if you don't know what you're doing, no amount of eye candy will prevent a huge messup.
 
hruodr said:
No. No so cal
Click to expand...

`pkg install xyz` is not the ONLY thing you need to do to install a DE.


mer said:
A framework that allows ASKING during install, something like:
Click to expand...

Looks like what's planned (an X install would always be optional. I seriously doubt there would ever a moment when the installer would automatically install a GUI).

I really don't see why this framework wouldn't be a welcomed addition. lol
 
JohnK said:
I really don't see why this framework wouldn't be a welcomed addition. lol
Click to expand...
agreed. It actually has historical precedent
What I always found amusing was the number of different Linux distros where the only difference was the default installed DE. Take Ubuntu. Base it has that stupid Unity/Gnome DE. But there is a KUbuntu that is "Ubuntu with KDE as the default" plus others. Trying to tell someone who installed Base Ubuntu they can simply install KDE/XFCE/LXDE/whatever and they argue "no I have to reinstall" leads me to realize stupid is as stupid does.
 
It would be preferable if the setup script could include the option to use Wayland or X11. Also, if they are going to include KDE as a desktop option it would be a useful option to also include GhostBSD's package networkmgr.
 
This is probably a step towards winning over new and inexperienced users... Many people are reluctant to try FreeBSD because it doesn't include a graphical environment right out of the box. I think there could be an option in the installer to allow FreeBSD to install a graphical environment, but with multiple graphical environments to choose from during the installation process. Another issue is that FreeBSD is a difficult system to configure post-installation. Many things require figuring out how to configure after installation. In Linux, you install it and it usually works out-of-the-box. Here, you have to find a solution and then configure each element. While a pre-installed graphical environment can attract users, complicated configuration solutions will turn off inexperienced/lackluster users (discourage them from/to FreeBSD). Everyone wants it easy. FreeBSD is currently used by advanced users, and only those can survive on this system. The rest who want it quickly/easily and without any investment in FreeBSD work/configuration/learning will quickly give up on this system.

FreeBSD doesn't have graphical system configuration tools. Configuration involves editing configuration files... which will be an insurmountable step for many experienced or new users.
 
Yampress said:
This is probably a step towards winning over new and inexperienced users... Many people are reluctant to try FreeBSD because it doesn't include a graphical environment right out of the box. I think there could be an option in the installer to allow FreeBSD to install a graphical environment, but with multiple graphical environments to choose from during the installation process. Another issue is that FreeBSD is a difficult system to configure post-installation. Many things require figuring out how to configure after installation. In Linux, you install it and it usually works out-of-the-box. Here, you have to find a solution and then configure each element. While a pre-installed graphical environment can attract users, complicated configuration solutions will turn off inexperienced/lackluster users (discourage them from/to FreeBSD). Everyone wants it easy. FreeBSD is currently used by advanced users, and only those can survive on this system. The rest who want it quickly/easily and without any investment in FreeBSD work/configuration/learning will quickly give up on this system.

FreeBSD doesn't have graphical system configuration tools. Configuration involves editing configuration files... which will be an insurmountable step for many experienced or new users.
Click to expand...
Yes, for the generation of users who grew up not seeing a computer as a terminal interface it is likely very confusing. When I first installed FreeBSD and typed "startx" I was surprised to learn that I needed to install Xorg. After reading the manual, configuring the system was a very simple process. I think the handbook is exceptionally written and maintained. But I do also like the idea of having the option to install a graphical environment during the initial install process and have the system configuration be an automated process. I don't see that having the option can cause any harm to the user experience.

These days I have done many many installations of FreeBSD on many archs and hardware configurations. The process is very fast. I don't believe that I will choose to install the KDE desktop option on install. But I will of course give it a try. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top