Complete Noob

[jnalli]

In the Handbook's installation chapter, there should be something about picking a keyboard. If you selected a US-en or GB-en layout at system installation (the blue screens that system installer presents), that default should stick, even when you install KDE. Did you pick a Spanish layout by mistake? a DE normally uses system's keyboard layout as a guide. KDE does let you change the language, but that's AFTER you successfully install it and can move around in it.

And BTW: Most graphical DEs (Desktop Environments) do offer, as a minimum, access to XTerm. This is where you can access the command-line. And that's true even in the Linux camp.

"The keyboard language can be set in SDDM by running the following command (for Spanish, for example):
<span># sysrc sddm_lang="es_ES"</span>"

This was from the handbook. That is why it is Spanish. I was taking it literally when I was installing KDE. Mystery solved. Haha. But why wouldn't it take my password?

 

[SirDice]

But why wouldn't it take my password?

Not entirely sure, but the keyboard layout might be different too. Some characters might be swapped or have entirely different characters. For example, on a US keyboard the @ is above the 2, SHIFT-2. But on a Dutch layout SHIFT-2 gets you a " (dubbel quote). If you have characters like those in your password you will be typing the 'right' keys but get different characters, thus the password will never match.

 

[jnalli]

Not entirely sure, but the keyboard layout might be different too. Some characters might be swapped or have entirely different characters. For example, on a US keyboard the @ is above the 2, SHIFT-2. But on a Dutch layout SHIFT-2 gets you a " (dubbel quote). If you have characters like those in your password you will be typing the 'right' keys but get different characters, thus the password will never match.

Okay, maybe. But my password was all lowercase and no special characters. I thought maybe it was spelled differently in Spanish but it wasn't.

 

[mer]

Maturin about the using ZFS on single device systems.
I do this all the time.

Why? Boot Environments.
If you've ever upgraded a system and had it go wrong, ZFS BEs are the best way to roll back to a working system.

 

[Maturin]

I am fully aware of the benefits of ZFS.

I just think it isn't a good idea to courage total newbies to also deal with ZFS at the same time while all the troubles beginners face at the very start with FreeBSD.
I saw many newbies here having problems with most basic fundamentals again and again: why there is no GUI by default; how make the GPU provide a GUI; which DE/WM to chose; how to install packages; ports o pkg; permission rights; shell usage; not looking into the handbook; ... all accompanied with a lot of "the shit ain't working" - the usual.
IMO somebody new better first learn the core basic fundamentals, get a feeling for the system overall, become a bit confident about its handling, before level up.
Since to me ZFS needs more learning, and understanding than setting up, and using UFS, I find it needlessly adds additional complexity to somebody still dealing with that system's set up, config, and maintenence is done in the shell, never dealt with gpart, or even still don't get there is a root, other users, and permissions.
But I learned four things in this thread:

1. It seems I am the only one seeing it this way.

2. Everybody else sees me as I was trying to dump ZFS, which I don't, and highlight all the benefits of ZFS, which I am fully aware of. And I already said that all at least twice here.

3. It doesn't matter how many "newbie threads" there are, there always will be again and again the same game. Starting with: "Huh? No GUI by default?" Having a lot of: "The shit ain't working." Ending with:"I came to FreeBSD because of ZFS. But now I see how [ ] FreeBSD is. Bye!"

4. It doesn't matter how many times I'm trying to explain this, it will not end.

So I put an end for me to this.
I am somebody not only defending my own point of view, but also being capable to see and respect other points of view, even capable to admit I was wrong, and to change my point of view.
So:
ZFS for the total noob by the very start on FreBSD and ZFS at the same time?
Sure. Why not? Good idea.

 

[astyle]

3. It doesn't matter how many "newbie threads" there are, there always will be again and again the same game. Starting with: "Huh? No GUI by default?" Having a lot of: "The shit ain't working." Ending with:"I came to FreeBSD because of ZFS. But now I see how [ ] FreeBSD is. Bye!"

Funny, I came to FreeBSD for the Ports Collection, in pre-ZFS days. The moment I saw that ZFS does in fact make a difference (simple to start, very noob-friendly, yet virtually unlimited in features that you can learn later if you choose), that got me to stay. Even if Linux can technically do ZFS, virtually all the distros use it in a manner that is more complicated than it needs to be, and does not unlock the power of ZFS properly.

I mean, just swapping UFS for ZFS as part of the partitioning process? Technically possible, but that doesn't let ZFS shine. ZFS does not need no stinking partitions, but the datasets can have partition-like features (limits on size and encryption). One big difference? in ZFS, you can adjust those limits later. In UFS, you're stuck until you reinstall the entire machine. With UFS, you have to do math on hard partition boundaries. with ZFS - that headache is gone, it's an optional feature for playing with dataset sizes later.

ZFS-on-root can be set up with very simple defaults, and if you don't learn more features of ZFS, that's OK.

I guess the big hangup is the very idea that ZFS does NOT require partitions that limit the size of say, /usr/ports. It's just so antithetical to the very idea of installing Linux or BSD, hmmm... Or one can look at it as a total game changer.

 

[cy@]

I think we're over complicating this. Why not new FreeBSD users use ZFS?

I installed a FreeBSD VM at $JOB. I use it as an end user. Not as a developer but as a regular everyday end-user. I don't buildworld there. I don't install ports there. Everything is managed using binary packages. And the system is updated using freebsd-update. I use it to do $JOB things, like write ansible, python, shell scripts, and commit them to our team's git repo. I do nothing fancy there. Just use the VM as a git workspace.

If a person used Linux for browsing, writing documents (with libreoffice), email with claws-mail or their app of choice, why not use ZFS? If they simply use the computer as an appliance like most people do, why would anyone care if it was built on top ZFS instead of UFS.

If people want to monkey around with it, that's a different matter. But then one can monkey around with UFS or ZFS. It really depends.

I'd suggest new users don't worry about UFS, ZFS, firewalls, or anything else. Just put FreeBSD on a machine and get used to it. Then if they want to play, install it on another system or a VM and play. Because with playing one will invariably do something dumb and lose the system. And that's how we learn.

But to start out, start with baby steps. Install FreeBSD in a default configuration. Get used to it. When you're finally used to it and you want to switch, migrate your data over.

We've made this issue bigger than it is and possibly scared new users away because, "it's too complicated." Which it's not.

Just install the system with all its defaults and enjoy. If I had to do it over again this what I'd do. It wasn't that way in 1995 because in 1995 we had to tinker a lot to get anything (BSD, Linux, whatever) to work. But it's a lot easier today.

 

[ralphbsz]

I just think it isn't a good idea to courage total newbies to also deal with ZFS at the same time while all the troubles beginners face at the very start with FreeBSD.

I partially agree with you.

And also partially disagree with you. A total newbie would know a mount or mkfs or newfs command if it floated in their coffee. Today's newbie doesn't even know file system, disk space, or anything like that. They know that they run the install script, and then the computer works. To them, there is no difference between UFS, ZFS, and anything else. They perhaps have a Gnome or KDE panel that supposedly "administers" the computer, with some buttons.

The issue arises when the total newbie becomes a half newbie, looks on the web for help, and thinks they can use mount or tunefs or edit /etc/fstab by hand. With UFS, they're probably going to destroy their system a few times. With ZFS, they're probably going to first get frustrated, and then destroy their system a few times. If they are smart, they go to a forum (such as ours here) and ask for help. If they are extra non-smart, they go to this forum, and start complaining and whining about everything under the sun (pun!).

The group you are worried about is someone who is not a total newbie, but a somewhat experienced (amateur) sys admin, who know the CLI for file systems. They will be very confused by ZFS. What do you mean, you don't have to mount it? It's not mentioned in /etc/fstab? There is no mkfs command (hint: there is none for UFS either)? For them ZFS is a bit harder. But this group already has two spoonfuls of experience and knowledge, and should be capable of learning some more.