About the freebsd product, please take seriously.

about this product, i'm very like freebsd os, Even loves.

I have discovered several points very important questions.

  1. start system speed.
    Now needs the time is too long.
  2. The system initiation demonstration effect is very bad.
    Needs the color and the screen display 1280x800 support(Example..), is similar in gentoo such.
  3. console color support!
    The user needs a kind control bench color support, add some code to /etc/csh.cshrc:
    setenv LSCOLORS ExGxFxdxCxegedabagExEx
    setenv CLICOLOR yes
    (Example..)
  4. Quicker software update
    Gnome 2.26 is release, but only found gnome 2.24 in ports.(Example..)

Certainly these were the better pursue perfect idea, freebsd were very already safe, was very much user-friendly, but insufficient, we must diligently.

I come from ITBBS.cn, Waiting reply.

thanks!

Brian Zou, 2009 year.
 
1. Don't know
2. Depends on Xorg which is separate from Freebsd.
3. Don't know.
4. You can always install from outside of the ports tree provided that you have the dependencies and know what to do.
 
I'm rambling, sorry

sossego said:
2. Depends on Xorg which is separate from Freebsd.
I think he's talking about the console. Linux framebuffer is, from a "hey, it just works" p.o.v., quite nice, really. FreeBSD has VESA stuff (vidcontrol && allscreens_flags in /etc/rc.conf) but only(?) in i386.

Wow, I just remembered trying to install freebsd 4.1.1 alpha on a multia/udb back in . . . err, whenever 4.1.1 was new. It was in the early stages of the famous multia heat death and my attempts did not fare well.

That was apropos of trying to remember if alphas had something other than a plain ol' 80x25 console.

Anyway, I used to used MODE_268 or something when I used i386.
 
1) that depends on your system, mine boots up quicker then XP
2) properly configure Xorg
3) It's your choice to use colors, why push it onto everyone?
4) It's being worked on. We don't want to rush it and break things that aren't part of GNOME
 
SirDice said:
1) that depends on your system, mine boots up quicker then XP
2) properly configure Xorg
3) It's your choice to use colors, why push it onto everyone?
4) It's being worked on. We don't want to rush it and break things that aren't part of GNOME

1 my system start is very high speed, but this system is debian(ubuntu)+ext4 filesystem.
2 is not in Xorg, this is console, Better prominent demonstration start clause is important.(I thought.)
3 Use color is to differentiate type the document(is file? is dir? is execution?).
4 an Example, Whether to have the necessity to strengthen pkg_add, looks like apt-get such.
 
start system speed.
Now needs the time is too long.

How long does your system take to boot then? Is it hanging for a long time on any kernel or rc message?

The system initiation demonstration effect is very bad.
Needs the color and the screen display 1280x800 support(Example..), is similar in gentoo such.

FreeBSD has some basic 800x600 VESA mode support for i386 only, this is not a priority and it will be very unlikly FreeBSD will have a framebuffer like Linux in the forseeable future.

Not do I expect that FreeBSD will have a colorful `christmas tree' boot procedure that Linux has, most FreeBSD users and devs prefer the simple and functional display (foolproof!) that FreeBSD currently uses.

If you really want to, there is a patch to make the rc process more colorful/Linux-like, I saw it fly by on the current@ list about a year ago ... Don't know how stable it is or if it works with FreeBSD 7.

Basically, If you want fancy graphics, use Xorg.

console color support!
The user needs a kind control bench color support, add some code to /etc/csh.cshrc:
setenv LSCOLORS ExGxFxdxCxegedabagExEx
setenv CLICOLOR yes
(Example..)

The scons console support 16 colors (ANSI), xterm can be compiled with 256 color support.

I'm not sure what the problem is here, that it's not enabled by default? This is a matter which has been trolled to death, but it comes down to that the FreeBSD default configuration is aimed more at being simple&foolproof, rather than fancy&not-so-foolproof (As Linux is).
Both approaches have their merits, FreeBSD uses this one, this is not going to change.

Quicker software update
Gnome 2.26 is release, but only found gnome 2.24 in ports.(Example..)

Porting software is not easy, and it is very time-consuming to make updates smooth&painless, this is why software updates always lag behind, especially for big project like gnome, many ports depend on gnome and the gnome porting people want to make sure nothing breaks.

And hey, it's still more up to date than Debian!
 
For the gnome part, it's more of a gnome issue then FreeBSD ports. Gnome is horror for package managers, no matter the OS.
 
smartly said:
The system initiation demonstration effect is very bad.
Needs the color and the screen display 1280x800 support(Example..), is similar in gentoo such.

Fast booting is maybe better than a Framebuffer device with VESA support that needs to be initialized. Maybe consider using a splash until X came up.
For a text console different resolutions are maybe useless, X is already doing this. :)

smartly said:
console color support!
The user needs a kind control bench color support, add some code to /etc/csh.cshrc

Why not install "gnuls" from the ports and set an alias ? A colored prompt is possible as well with escape sequences :)
 
start system speed.
Custom kernel, anyone?
The system initiation demonstration effect is very bad.
I strongly disagree. The information displayed upon boot is valuable. I despise how some linux distros hide this. Besides, if your system is hanging somewhere on boot, like Carpetsmoker rightly suggests, you might be able to see it.
console color support!
Why? The information is still the same.
Quicker software update
Feel free to help out the maintainers of the ports and packages. Besides, I would rather a older, stable version than a newer, potentially unstable, version of software XYZ.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
Even my old PIII starts up faster than XP and Vista on my wife's notebook.
10-4. Probing the built-in card reader takes more time than the rest of boot, which is freaky fast and at least 40 seconds faster than vista was.
 
On my machine XP actually boots faster than FreeBSD 7.
But who cares about a few seconds of boot time if the system runs much faster (Which FreeBSD does)?
 
Carpetsmoker said:
But who cares about a few seconds of boot time if the system runs much faster (Which FreeBSD does)?
Exactly. There seems to be so much concern with boot times of OSes and browsers around forums on the 'net lately for who knows what reason.
 
XP boots faster than any of my *nix systems. This is because XP boots to the desktop before all services have finished loading, thus you boot to the desktop in 17 seconds and then get an hour glass and a generally un-responsive system for the next minute or two.

On the nix side, I don't get to the system until all services have finished loading. This makes booting "feel" longer, but I get to a responsive system that I can actually use quicker.

To be perfectly honest, boot time doesn't really bother me unless it is obnoxiously long (greater than 2-3 minutes), which I haven't experienced on any of my own systems in some time.
 
SeanC said:
Why? The information is still the same.
FreeBSD has supported a color console for many years, most people just don't care enough to set it up.

I just added this to my .cshrc file and was good to go.
Code:
alias ls     ls -G

But I do agree, that it's not really that helpful, it's mostly nice because it gives a bit more information about the type of file without being too wordy. Really not necessary.
drhowarddrfine said:
And coloring it adds nothing and takes away from developer time for things that do matter.
Not really, as I pointed out earlier in my post, FreeBSD has supported it for at least 10 years. For whatever reason nobody's bothered to spend the couple seconds that it would take to change the default .cshrc files or the ls command to default to it.

I'd assume that it causes problems on a small number of desktops or that nobody really cares about it. I'd suspect the latter.
 
Blue doesn't focus well

hedwards said:
For whatever reason nobody's bothered to spend the couple seconds that it would take to change the default .cshrc files or the ls command to default to it.

I'd assume that it causes problems on a small number of desktops or that nobody really cares about it. I'd suspect the latter.
Traditionalism?

Coloured ls is annoying to me, I certainly don't want colour as the default for root. I'd just have to go to the extra work of editing ye pertinent filen every time I did a new install to remove it, and for me it's better that such (trivial) effort be put on the shoulders of those who want it, rather than those who don't.

To end on a positive note: submit a patch to have a commented sexion added to /usr/share/skel/dot.cshrc with a line like
Code:
# To enable vile, satanic coloured terminal noises uncomment the following lines:
 
I suppose, but to be honest, I don't really care one way or the other, and I get the sense that most people don't care either.

My only point was that it's been in there for quite a while and could be enabled with basically no effort.
 
smartly said:
about this product, i'm very like freebsd os, Even loves.

I have discovered several points very important questions.

FreeBSD is not a "product" - it is a tool.
If the tool does not work the way you want, you can change the way it works, or find another tool.
 
Example(Booting) picture:
gentoo_booting.png
 
I know how booting Linux looks -- It looks like a christmas tree and I every time I see it I can't stop thinking about Jingle bells.

The FreeBSD rc script display is simple, functional, effective, and foolproof -- Just as we FreeBSD people like it.

As I mentioned before, if you want a Linux-like boot display, there are patches, no support&seatbelts provided though.
 
If there's one place I don't like to see dumbed down, it's the boot sequence.
 
filesystem is zfs(boot), Mainly in Screen resolution.

drivers support, network and others!
 
smartly said:
filesystem is zfs(boot), Mainly in Screen resolution.

drivers support, network and others!

Then I suggest you should compare with FreeBSD's own filesystem.

I have basically three servers setup with FreeBSD and they all boot and shutdown like lightning.
 
Booted INSERT Linux LiveCD today at work, and here's why FreeBSD does *not* have stupid framebuffer support enabled by default:

http://83.161.253.7/images/Photo0109.jpg
http://83.161.253.7/images/Photo0112.jpg

It's a bit hard to see on the picture, but notice how the first few characters on the left side of the screen disappear?

More important however, the font is almost unreadable ugly, there are horizontal striped and it is very difficult to read (Especially the ifconfig output).

Maybe it can be configured to sensible settings, but it is very different from FreeBSD, which **just works** out of the box.
 
1) FreeBSD boots faster then any Win, not to mention linux on my pc.
The only time linux actually beat FreeBSD on my PC was when i was experimenting with initng and einit.

2) use X.
If you care about speed as much as i do, use FVWM.
After i startx i can't surf web in 3-5s (on Pentium 4 3GHz)

Why do you need picture in console? Does it help working?

3) colorful ls sux in console. It makes your eyes bleed when you read names of directories, because they are dark blue (by default).

It's not hard to enable and/or change this behavior.

4) Sooner or later it'll be updated. Imagine yourself compiling Gnome or KDE or OOO3 when it breaks in middle or at end of process. I prefer to get latest software later, then waste energy trying to compile.
 
Back
Top