Does Desktop have a future on BSD?

I believe, though cannot vouch for, OpenBSD has good desktop environments out-of-the-box.

Does FreeBSD have a future as a desktop? Well, at present, only coincidentally. It's main focus (and source of income for the foundation) is via corporate, predominantly headless, server systems.

GhostBSD and FuryBSD seem to do a good job packing up a desktop for FreeBSD. I use the former, haven't tried the latter.

There are a lot of constraints on the desktop, the major one being most are designed for gnu/systemd/linux. The other is graphics cards are poorly supported. It wasn't a problem when all you had were VGA cards, but nowadays it is a major stumbling block.
 
FreeBSD is focused on servers, that is true. But that is no reason not to use it otherwise. I have two HTPCs running FreeBSD, one with XFCE, the other with Mate.

Graphics Card: nonsense. For NVidia, there is the official NVidia driver which works just as well as on Linux. For AMD and Intel, there is a port that will enable pretty much the same capabilities as on Linux (it is based on the Open Source Linux drivers / kernel modules, but a few months behind). I use the Nvidia driver on one box, graphics/drm-kmod on the other. Both work just fine. If you need the most recent graphics card, NVidia is the best option for FreeBSD

Even on a brand new AMD Ryzen 3900X system with NVidia RTX 2070 Super, the FreeBSD desktop runs just fine (multi-boot with Windows and Linux).

If you need a shortcut, you could try either the sysutils/desktop-installer in Ports or use a FreeBSD-based desktop distribution, like GhostBSD.
 
Could BSDs have any future on the desktop
Yes, FreeBSD already have good desktop. For bright future only need more users and developers to improve it. I am using 50GB storage for openbox WM and other required programs as a good desktop. You may first install FreeBSD on your laptop & then try whatever you like and what you are unable to do as desktop.
 
I have a mini pc (media pc) on my tv ... a remnant of the pro smart-tv era which i kept cause i'm a geek and because i can do more stuff with it.
On linux i can't view a 1080p 60fps video on youtube , on freebsd i have no problem it has an extremely low profile nvidia gpu.
I suspect something like that may apply to my cheap ultrabook too cause on linux it can't play 1080p 60fps i'm testing freebsd (can't make touchpad work) and without compositor or anti-tearing settings they play it without any freezes but i should test it of course with a compositor or a more heavy desktop environment.
 
You have to break your paragraphs into sentence. What you wrote below is nearly unintelligible.

Could BSDs have any future on the desktop?
If enough paid programmers get paid by their employers to do so, it might be able to compete with Linux. I don't think it can be done with volunteers. Volunteers, at a few hours per week, even at a dozen hours per week, will have a very hard time doing the same thing that lots of people who get paid to work 40+ hours can accomplish. And there are lots of people who get paid to improve Linux; they are paid by RedHat / SUSE / ..., but also by companies such as Intel, IBM, and other large Linux users and distributors.

However, we have to keep in mind that the marketshare of Windows and Mac together on the desktop adds up to roughly 100%. The most recent statistics I saw showed that about 80% of all desktop (non-mobile non-tablet) usage was Windows, about 20% was Macintosh, ChromeOS was in the low single-digit percent, and Linux was below 1% (I think it was 0.7% last I looked, a few weeks ago). Of those, ChromeOS is growing, all the others are shrinking. Now you have to take into account that all the BSDs together are probably 1/10th or 1/100th of the share of Linux. Which brings up the question: Why would anyone who is thinking rationally want to invest in that? Want a free OS for commodity hardware? Use Linux, it does the job well enough. Or use Windows; the license cost of Windows is much lower than the support cost for strange OSes. Want something that is easy to manage and use? Use ChromeOS.

In particular, at the GUI / user interface layer, there is very little distinction between *BSD and Linux. Any desktop environment or browser that's available for BSD is also available for Linux, and usually much better supported and tested there. The advantages of BSD come in the server setting (much more manageable, clean, and organized); in the desktop space, the differences are minor.

Other than hobbyists who like to play with their computers, and religious nuts who happen to hate Linux and Mac and Windows, there is no niche for using *BSD as a desktop. I happen to be in one of those categories (I play with computers as a hobby, which is why I have FreeBSD machines and Raspberry Pis at home).

they will maintain their nature without becoming Windows,
What is wrong with Windows? Very little. It works excellently. It can be easily installed and managed (which is why it is one of the favorites of corporate environments, where support costs are very important). Whether you like to use it or not, it is quite easy to use, as legions of users demonstrate. On the contrary: I personally would like it if Linux and BSD became more like Windows, even though I find it unlikely that it will happen.

giving everything that is served to the user with everything preconfigured and with default bloatware,
One man's bloatware is the next man's convenience. There are wonderful advantages to pre-installing lots of useful stuff, in particular if you want to attract more user who want to actually use the computer, not spent hours fiddling with it.

The remainder of your post I couldn't figure out what you meant.
 
so BSD is still a family of systems operations…

BSD is a license, not a family of anything.

Again, before you tell me something, I repeat, I am not an expert or a professional, but I am not a novice either, so I do not pretend to presume anything or pretend that someone interprets me with an aggressive or presumptuous tone.

What is this supposed to be about?

NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD if they are my favorite operating systems and I do not have them installed

Makes sense.
 
Could BSDs have any future on the desktop?

Arguably the concept of a "desktop" is on life support. Web services and phones is the future of consumer computing.

As for "workstations".. FreeBSD is already there.
So I would suggest that since FreeBSD runs on both workstations and servers, it will outlive the desktop.
 
they [ openbsd, freebsd, ghostbsd... ] already have attained first-choice desktop status, hindered only slightly
by the latest hardware support, and further hindered by guidance [to newcomers] to computing or from other
desktop platforms not being widely known. Additionally, scientific and other worthwhile pursuits are more adept coexisting with ground-up BSD desktop/workstations, in a plurality of disciplines.
 
Any BSD has a future on the desktop for those that want it. I use it daily and have for a long time. It isn't whether a disto like Ubuntu makes it so or not. It is more about what the individual wants to do. Look at FreeBSD, or any other BSD, as a Debian like a distribution (yes, I know FreeBSD is more focused on servers) but it can be molded into whatever floats your boat.
 
[QUOTE = "shkhln, publicación: 462229, miembro: 54069"]
BSD es una licencia, no una familia de nada.



¿De qué se trata esto?



Tiene sentido.
[/CITAR]
BSD es tanto una licencia como una familia de sistemas operativos porque (NetBSD, OpenBSD y FreeBSD, que son los principales y más importantes) tienen en su nombre "BSD" al final, todos están basados en el sistema operativo de la Universidad de Berkley llamado BSD. La razón por la que dejé en claro que no soy un experto es porque no soy un novato, pero tampoco soy un experto y no pretendo tener un tono presuntuoso o agresivo con lo que dije.
 
[QUOTE = "kpedersen, publicación: 462248, miembro: 5532"]
Podría decirse que el concepto de "escritorio" está en soporte vital. Los servicios web y los teléfonos son el futuro de la informática del consumidor.

En cuanto a "estaciones de trabajo" .. FreeBSD ya está allí.
Por lo tanto, sugeriría que dado que FreeBSD se ejecuta tanto en estaciones de trabajo como en servidores, sobrevivirá al escritorio.
[/CITAR]
I do not think that smartphones are the future of the consumer market because in addition to being much inferior devices to PCs in everything with their operating systems, the way to handle them, how small are devices made for touch interfaces. In other words, they are not a bit of a joke compared to a PC and everyone I know has a smartphone but also has a PC, and PCs are renewed less often because they last several more years. Finally of so many things that could be said on this subject for me smartphones are nothing more than a complement to the PC that I almost never use except that I have no other option.
 
... so BSD is still a family of systems operations that necessarily require at least basic computer skills to be able to use them ...
Every computer, regardless of operating system, requires at least a minimal set of skills to put it to some use. People with no computer skills whatsoever SHOULD NOT be using computers in the first place, just like people without driving skills should not steer a vehicle of any kind. The kind of attitude that operating systems should make computers useable for everyone is what brought us Windows in the first place. Just my $0.05.
 
BSD es tanto una licencia como una familia de sistemas operativos porque (NetBSD, OpenBSD y FreeBSD, que son los principales y más importantes) tienen en su nombre "BSD" al final, todos están basados en el sistema operativo de la Universidad de Berkley llamado BSD. La razón por la que dejé en claro que no soy un experto es porque no soy un novato, pero tampoco soy un experto y no pretendo tener un tono presuntuoso o agresivo con lo que dije.

Что сказать-то хотел?
 
Linux is more mainstream than the BSDs and it has yet to make inroads into the desktop market. BSDs have less desktop use I suspect.
I run OpenBSD on this T410 Thinkpad and Slackware on my other units.
 
[QUOTE = "shkhln, publicación: 462297, miembro: 54069"]
Что сказать-то хотел?
[/CITAR]
Si ya sé que es posible que no entiendas todo lo que digo o que no me entiendas casi nada, pero uso el traductor de Google ya que mi nivel de inglés es medio y porque estoy estudiando otros idiomas (no indoeuropeos). no tengo la intención de mejorar mis habilidades en inglés Así que también uso el traductor de Google, incluso si trato de escribir algo bien en el traductor, siempre traduce algo malo.
 
My comment on machine translation doesn't have anything to do with language skills. It means precisely what it states, no subtext, no hidden implications.
 
I dont think there should be a problem with that. It was soon obvious that Rodrigo speaks either french or spanish. OTOH, machine translation, while surprizingly good already, is just not suitable to argue over complex ideas.
(Isn't there a spanish BSD group?)

And yeah, shkhln, that's cute, but it doesn't help. Learning a language is a damned amount of work, specifically if you don't happen to have live people around to practice with. So what remains is machine translation.

Tip @RodrigoBSD
When You must do this, put your ideas in words as simple as possible. Use short sentences. Make visible breaks between the ideas. That should help.
 
Moreover, its title and nature are identical to another thread that has been active during the past weeks.
RTFM's little brother is RTFF (final F for Forum). ;)
 
Back
Top