Search results

If you want Linux with a beautiful and automatically adjusted graphical environment, go for Linux, and don't try to make FreeBSD into Linux.

I like to install a clean system, as the current bsdinstall does. Then I like to install my favorite graphical environment, and then fine-tune the system to my liking in text configuration files. The GUI option in the installer is unnecessary.

FreeBSD Debian Linux windsows 11

ee/mcedit mousepad/pluma

14.3-release

https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/nanobsd/

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.

What file system do you have? ZFS or UFS/FFS on FreeBSD?

Do you want to install on one drive or multiple drives? Do you have BIOS/MBR or UEFI/GPT? I have three systems on three drives (Windows 11/Linux Debian/FreeBSD) in UEFI/GPT mode. Do you want to install FreeBSD on ZFS or UFS/FFS?

Mate

No one has been working on PulseAudio for a long time, so PipeWire has replaced it in Linux. I'm just waiting for SysytemD to be removed from Linux and replaced with another tool. I hate SysytemD and wouldn't want it ever ported and implemented on BSD systems. That would mean the end of the Unix...

PS. I know a lot of Gentoo Linux server administrators who used to have Gentoo on their desktop and now have MacOS. I know a lot of Debian Linux server administrators who now use Windows or MacOS on their desktop. No one use FreeBSD. Only I. I use 3 systems on my desktops: windows11, FreeBBSD...

and now look where is the person who built subsystems for linux, system-d, pulseaudio, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Poettering "Poettering worked for Red Hat from 2008 to 2022.He then joined Microsoft"

That's why I use FreeBSD because it's not Linux. It doesn't have "system-d"(created by Pottering, formerly working for Red Hat/IBM and now working for Microsoft) , but is divided into the main system and external software/packages, and has its own wonderful features, mechanisms, and way of...

Don't expect that introducing the ability to install a graphical environment will attract new users. Or that it will streamline workflows... Linux has had graphical environments in its installer for 20 years, and some distributions have installers focused on installing a given graphical...

Maybe the BIOS has a quick selection option for selecting the system/drive during startup. Another method is to install a boot manager on one of the drives, which you set as the first boot drive.

So why the idea of including a graphical environment in the installer? After all, everyone who uses FreeBSD on the desktop uses completely different environments than KDE. FreeBSD as it is is used mainly by advanced and experienced users, and that's the beauty of this system. A user with little...

Advanced users can, of course, handle the configuration after installation. But if we're moving towards a graphical environment in the installer, it's probably implemented to bring inexperienced or new users to FreeBSD with a graphical environment. People who previously worked with...

It's not about the installer itself. Installing the system is a snap. Customizing and configuring after installation takes a lot of time. If you have a lot of knowledge, you'll figure it out quickly. If you have little knowledge, you look for a solution, try to implement it, and see if it works...

I think that at some point, the installer should display a window to choose the installation type: - Installing the base system without a desktop environment - Installing the KDE desktop environment on Wayland - Installing the GnomeFlashback desktop environment on Wayland...