FreeBSD Foundation Flounders on 15 with Rust, pkgbase, and KDE

[Alain De Vos]

I think the installer should give other options then only KDE. As KDE has lots of dependencies ...

 

[rbranco]

A waste of human resources and time. FreeBSD won't reach a large number of desktop users anyway.
The focus should be on improving what it does well, rather than creating an installer with the option
to install a graphical environment.

This not an either-or situation. All of it can be done and should be done.

 

[Alain De Vos]

Why not the option to install firefox. For most "simple" users if you have a desktop and a browser you are good to go.

 

[astyle]

It's literally spyware crap with Copilot and Recall making screenshots of everything.

I wouldn't touch Windows with a 10-foot pole and I don't like Apple's walled garden. I try to use FOSS for everything.

Well, Copilot is actually supposed to be decent at finding answers. The infuriating part about it is that it's trying to do more than what it's asked to do. And it's not just Copilot, the rest of Windows is like that, sneakily logging me into places and hoping I don't notice and don't log out from them! I'd rather let Google do the Copilot's job of gathering and analyzing info.

As for Apple's walled garden - yeah, that's a good blanket description, I think it fits, and yeah, in my case, I also don't want to touch that overpriced stuff with a 10-foot barge pole.

 

[sidetone]

The problem is that people need to stop pretending that FreeBSD is a desktop system. Stop wasting time and resources on trying to compete with Linux for gamers. It’s a great server; a great platform for appliances. Stop trying to be everything to everyone

Who's the to say, FreeBSD can't be a desktop? It being a great server, doesn't mean it can't do something else. There's nothing else like FreeBSD for a desktop. If it won't be FreeBSD, then another BSD hasn't taken up that mantle in the style, features and contributions as FreeBSD. Even, for a server, FreeBSD lacks fast wifi, which it's barely catching up on.

As for full KDE desktops, KDE needs to fork FreeBSD as their play environment, and for a product for users. I'd like to see an OS or ports tree which doesn't have KDE, Gnome or XFCE, for the sake of lightness. As for KDE apps, qt and gtk, that's different, many are nice alternatives that should be in every ports tree, which don't necessarily have to have a respective window manager present.

The cool thing is that in movies, you'll see Unix like systems, some on CLI, and same with basic desktops. Matrix, Art of War, Jurassic Park. They might have been Linux, but are OS agnostic and a few use a Unix style window manager.

I was joking about gamers, but ok

I'm not in favor of the entire x11-wm category in the ports. It's an attraction for people who have no business being here. Wish they would get rid of it and leave this to be a terminal only OS.

This is an extreme position. Not even OpenBSD goes that far. However, I believe that we need multiple ports systems, some as more basic, and other ones which rely on those. It would be cool for there to be a terminal programs only ports tree, which can be made the best it can be. It would include GPL programs, but non-GPL would be prioritized.

Then, there can be a ports tree which relies on that, one which has Wayland, and one which has X11.

My flavor would have only non-GPL lightweight Window Managers, with gtk, qt, KDE applications and other graphics toolkits regardless if they're part of a large desktop. It would have the applications but without the desktop associated with them.

With a light WM, I use the terminal emulators for configuration, installing programs, and as a replacement for a file manager.


Back to about KDE, as many including I have said, it's a waste of resources. I've given reasons of benefits of KDE, like Internationalization for including different language texts for the installer and for accessibility for the physically impaired. Another potential reason may be, if FreeBSD gets something in return for that, like KDE maintain it, KDE promote FreeBSD or other benefits.

 

[cracauer@]

You can always sponsor yourself for a position in Core so your voice can be heard and drive Freebsd towards the direction you like.

That's not what Core does.

 

[fmc000]

That's not what Core does.

OK, thanks for the correction.
s/Core/Whomever is in charge of making this kind of decisions/

 

[cracauer@]

OK, thanks for the correction.
s/Core/Whomever is in charge of making this kind of decisions/

There's not generally a body for such decisions, other than that people put working code forward.

Only when other people object to a given change and a commit war would result in an uncontrolled project does Core become involved. The first wireguard implementation (the one that got kicked out) is an example.

Whoever is writing (working) code is largely in charge. Of course most committers are very cooperative with the other committers and don't start writing large amounts of code without having or getting a feel for whether there would be violent opposition. You can also see many changes on reviews.freebsd.org that remain uncommitted/unmerged after reviewers pointed out too many drawbacks.

 

[Alain De Vos]

I find this thread not interesting. I find it more important what is in base.txz

 

[drhowarddrfine]

A reminder, too, that all this talk about KDE and browsers is work on things that aren't under FreeBSD control.

 

[Alain De Vos]

Note, KDE is bloated . Example baloo file indexer.

 

[fmc000]

Note, KDE is bloated . Example baloo file indexer.

Solution is just a couple of clicks away... BTW, the number of processes instanced by KDE is way lower than the number of processes instanced by Cinnamon, which is considered to be a lighter DE. Process load and memory footprint is almost the same.

 

[Jose]

I would have to recommend FreeBSD with kde over Mac/win. If those are the available options. I would actually recommend pen and paper over windows for computing.

I would never recommend Freebsd to my wife and kids. They would find it just as frustrating as I find the Windows and Macos they use.

I am seriously eyeballing a tiny Linux PC for when my wife's Mac Mini finally dies. However, I will never buy Windows again. My kids will have to figure it out for themselves. They're reasonably technically adept, and have been using desktop computers most of their lives.

 

[LibreQuest]

I would never recommend Freebsd to my wife and kids. They would find it just as frustrating as I find the Windows and Macos they use.

I am seriously eyeballing a tiny Linux PC for when my wife's Mac Mini finally dies. However, I will never buy Windows again. My kids will have to figure it out for themselves. They're reasonably technically adept, and have been using desktop computers most of their lives.

I have three kids. They all have FreeBSD machines. Our TV is a projector system running FreeBSD 14.3 in an alienware steam machine. We also have a gaming lan with 4 systems all running FreeBSD.

 

[Alain De Vos]

When i was a young kid i was programming on a commodore 64. Freebsd is not more complicated.

 

[Barney]

I'm 110% sure that the people against improving FreeBSD on desktop use either Windows or MacOS X.

And those of us who want it to succeed don't use either.

That’s because MAC OSX is a desktop operating system, and FreeBSD is a server OS. It’s not a matter of “succeeding”. It’s a matter of understanding what it is. You can use more than 1 thing.

 

[Alain De Vos]

I only use Windows to play games. I.e. steam.

 

[Barney]

When i was a young kid i was programming on a commodore 64. Freebsd is not more complicated.

6510 coding was a hoot. I had the Pascal Module

Who's the say, FreeBSD can't be a desktop?

It can be, but what’s the opportunity cost of puffing out your chest to say you”re “as good” as things that are already better?

I love freebsd, have made a lot of money selling products that run on FreeBSD, but I see no point in using it as a desktop. It’s not just the OS. I had a hackintosh for years It was such a pain to keep going “Look at me, I’m running OSX for free” It wasn’t worth the time. I can now buy a 27”. used mac for less than the cost of a 5K monitor.

 

[rbranco]

That’s because MAC OSX is a desktop operating system, and FreeBSD is a server OS. It’s not a matter of “succeeding”. It’s a matter of understanding what it is. You can use more than 1 thing.

Sorry but no. FreeBSD is a general purpose operating system. The choice of using it for server or desktop should be up to the user.

 

[LibreQuest]

Why not the option to install firefox. For most "simple" users if you have a desktop and a browser you are good to go.

I think that's a good idea. Along with the offer of a GUI offering internet tools like a browser or networkmgr in addition to the GUI offering would be a very reasonable suggestion. As long as it's not by default. I appreciate that I don't have to spend any time removing things that I will never use from FreeBSD.

EDIT: Actually, just included Konqueror would be useful for internet browsing. ?

EDIT #2: Konqueror works well still. I've not used this browser in years.

EDIT #3: I didn't realize that when using Konqueror to browse local files that fsview is used. That's kind of crazy....I assume this can be changed in settings.

 

[tuaris]

Oh, I just took a look at https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:amd64/base_latest/ and I am instantly disappointed. I was a fan of the idea, but seeing how they decided to make one package for each item is a massive bummer. Why would you split it up this way? When when you install the Mozilla Firefox via package, you don't install every file individually as a separate package. It's the same concept for FreeBSD. All these files make up a single entity "FreeBSD" the operating system. Why on earth would you install each item that's required to run FreeBSD as a separate package? All this will do is create increased overhead when installing the system (as each package must go through it's verification and transaction process), and all sorts of trouble down the line when dependency hell sets in.

This is not the FreeBSD way.

 

[rbranco]

Oh, I just took a look at https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:amd64/base_latest/ and I am instantly disappointed. I was a fan of the idea, but seeing how they decided to make one package for each item is a massive bummer. Why would you split it up this way? When when you install the Mozilla Firefox via package, you don't install every file individually as a separate package. It's the same concept for FreeBSD. All these files make up a single entity "FreeBSD" the operating system. Why on earth would you install each item that's required to run FreeBSD as a separate package? All this will do is create increased overhead when installing the system (as each package must go through it's verification and transaction process), and all sorts of trouble down the line when dependency hell sets in.

This is not the FreeBSD way.

Because you don't need all of them. It allows building smaller jails, OCI images, VM's, etc.

 

[astyle]

I think that's a good idea. Along with the offer of a GUI offering internet tools like a browser or networkmgr in addition to the GUI offering would be a very reasonable suggestion. As long as it's not by default. I appreciate that I don't have to spend any time removing things that I will never use from FreeBSD.

EDIT: Actually, just included Konqueror would be useful for internet browsing. ?

EDIT #2: Konqueror works well still. I've not used this browser in years.

EDIT #3: I didn't realize that when using Konqueror to browse local files that fsview is used. That's kind of crazy....I assume this can be changed in settings.

From the screenshot, I usually got that when I don't have Dolphin installed... KDE did manage to move most of the file-viewing / managing functionality to Dolphin. Once Dolphin is installed, then Konqueror is more usable as a file manager. Without Dolphin, most of file manager settings actually disappear from Konqueror. At least that is the case in KDE 6.

 

[Barney]

Sorry but no. FreeBSD is a general purpose operating system. The choice of using it for server or desktop should be up to the user.

It’s really not. You can use OSX as a server. and you can use FreeBSD as a desktop. That doesn’t change what they really are.

 

[sidetone]

It’s really not. You can use OSX as a server. and you can use FreeBSD as a desktop. That doesn’t change what they really are.

I disagree. FreeBSD may excel as a server, but it's good as a desktop. In lacks features, but in other ways, it's better than Linux, as it's faster due to less bloat and better design. A desktop on top of the base system, is putting existing software in a better way on a better system. I'm going to make use of this better system.

XigmaNAS is also a networking OS based on FreeBSD, if we're talking about servers. There's also PFSense and OPNsense as routers/firewalls. Those are specialized. Some FreeBSD based NAS's were built on top of FreeBSD router operating systems. It doesn't mean we can't choose between which we want to use for a purpose, if the option is given.

However, this is where pkgbase, if done correctly, can suit everyone. Based on the example shown, it's not:

Oh, I just took a look at https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:amd64/base_latest/ and I am instantly disappointed. I was a fan of the idea, but seeing how they decided to make one package for each item is a massive bummer. Why would you split it up this way? When when you install the Mozilla Firefox via package, you don't install every file individually as a separate package. It's the same concept for FreeBSD. All these files make up a single entity "FreeBSD" the operating system. Why on earth would you install each item that's required to run FreeBSD as a separate package? All this will do is create increased overhead when installing the system (as each package must go through it's verification and transaction process), and all sorts of trouble down the line when dependency hell sets in.

This is not the FreeBSD way.

I also believe if there's separate ports trees, one which is Command-line only, and primarily focuses on non-GPL software, that would prove to become the most efficient use of code. Then, There'd be another ports which relies on that ports tree, which is for GUI applications using gtk, Xaw, qt, xt, etc. I really believe that KDE, XFCE need their own ports tree. Also, X and Wayland need separate ports trees. Either that, or flavors for those pieces of software improved upon where one can easily be turned off.