FreeBSD derivatives

Alain De Vos

Alain De Vos

Instead of creating FreeBSD derivatives would it not be better to make a ports which changes your FreeBSD into that specific "flavor".
There are many advantages in doing so.
You could go back to FreeBSD by just de-installing that port.
You could go to another FreeBSD-flavor by installing that other port.
Note : Derivatives use the same kernel and mostly only change the "desktop or user interface experience" and a few configuration files.
 
I think the ideal solution would be to not 'instead', but 'together' ;) For example, I created a port for ClonOS ( not commited yet into official: beta ). BUT having a distribution is user-oriented step: as it simplifies installation, configuration, and therefore the first acquaintance of the user. Especially when user is not familiar with FreeBSD. But besides ClonOS, I would also like to see these meta ports: ghostbsd, opnsense, pfsense, truenas, nas4free, helloSystem, airyxOS, ..
 
In my opinion the situation is fine as it is now. Let the creators and maintainers of the derivates use FreeBSD as the basis and add what their community likes. One should not underestimate the effort of doing this kind of work. If the a user of the derivates want to try FreeBSD it is perfectly fine. If not let them have the derivate based on the rock solid FreeBSD. There are many user how are not interested in the details of an OS but use computers just as a tool. Why not? This is the purpose of those boxes. It is good that there are so many options for different levels of interest and topics.
 
I just use plain/vanilla FreeBSD. But sometimes i go looking into hardenedbsd and then i try to configure some options alike.
Sometimes i go looking into other derivatives to see which are the insteresting applications even fonts they use as default and this gives me ideas for my setup.
 
I'm sure this can either be scripted or built via a metaport. Network appliances (TrueNAS, OPNSense, etc) are specialized with webGUI's and whatnot. Trying to automate that versus just shipping a binary would be a royal pain. Unless you like pain, then go for it.
 
Many years ago I had wondered about turning even most of the base FreeBSD into packages. Then you can have super-packages for various "flavors" that bundle a bunch of packages, depending on their primary function.

Later I had the idea of treating the local filesystem as a versioned cache with only enough initial bits to set things up for this to work. So the first time you run a program, it is fetched from the backend and cached locally. Security patches would be fetched automatically as the cache of an insecure program would be invalidated by the security update! Even a release update (or rollback) would be almost instantaneous. You can define a "personality" or flavor to prefetch things of interest for that particular personality (e.g. kernel developer, game player, port developer, curmudgeon, newbie, student, mentor etc.). I never did this of course (our company focus was elsewhere). But I think the idea is worth exploring.

Clearly you need a way to trust the backend you choose + verify its identity. And clearly you need to keep your own files separate from such a backend. And you would need some way to prove the "provenance" of standard programs -- this need exists even today, we just ignore it.
 
Alain De Vos said:
Instead of creating FreeBSD derivatives would it not be better to make a ports which changes your FreeBSD into that specific "flavor".
There are many advantages in doing so.
You could go back to FreeBSD by just de-installing that port.
You could go to another FreeBSD-flavor by installing that other port.
Note : Derivatives use the same kernel and mostly only change the "desktop or user interface experience" and a few configuration files.
Click to expand...
Much better idea than these derivatives like GhostBSD. They pretend FreeBSD is like Linux distros, when in reality it is a single operating system that requires much more to be a derivative (take DragonflyBSD for example) than just adding some interface of your choice on top of it. There is no reason to not just use FreeBSD with sysutils/desktop-installer.
 
hunter0one said:
There is no reason to not just use FreeBSD with sysutils/desktop-installer.
Click to expand...
Or, use the Skunk Installer for FreeBSD.
This is a completely different installer, intended to bootstrap SkunkOS onto computers.

It starts where the "bsdinstall" FreeBSD installer, sadly, leaves off.
It keeps the look and feel of bsdinstall, updates the system, then autodetects and autoconfigures your hardware for Xorg and working suspend/resume, installs and configures desktops and applications of your choice, and finally starts up X, ready-to-use.

Alain De Vos said:
I would like to know beforehand which files sysutils/desktop-installer will modify ? Is this possible ?
Click to expand...
Like with Jasons' desktop-installer, just look at the source.
The Skunk Installer is written in Perl, not in sh. Thus it is much easier to modify configuration files.

In short:
It just does the necessary modifications in system files. It creates a xorg.conf tailored to your hardware, and dispatches all the postwork fiddling mentioned in the pkg messages.

You know: The user needs a really-ready-to-use system. Requiring her/him to do manual postconfiguration is not acceptable.
So I suspect the Skunk Installer pokes around even more in these files...

You could try out the Skunk Installer in a throw-away virtual machine before deciding whether to use it on bare metal.

grahamperrin said:
Not easily, although from what I recall there's thoughtful, careful logging.
Click to expand...
The Skunk Installer log is found in /var/log/bootie.log. It is not yet perfect. In some places it could be a bit more verbose, in others a little bit less. But this and other details will be better fine-tuned with the next alpha release 0.0.5.

BTW, the Skunk Cloner, which makes cloning FreeBSD systems really easy, is starting its internal test phase. First alpha will be released soon.
 
Please don't ask me why I'm posting to an old thread.

OK, I googled "FreeBSD derivatives" and ended up here, but don't ask me why I googled "FreeBSD derivatives."

I think most of the derivatives seem to have a lot more focus on easy installation AND easy configuration. Installing FreeBSD is easy enough, but configuring it is not. Having a graphical environment should be easier. But then those derivatives may not be really compatible with the original FreeBSD and that makes things difficult again because the derivatives will likely have fewer packages.

I always thought there should be some configuration helper that automates all kinds of configuration. All of them. Not everybody has fun reading Google for hours and learning to tweak this.rc or that.rc. I had that idea in the mid oughts. Most Linux distros have taken good steps in the direction. The BSDs still lag behind.

Or do they? Now I see there are at least two tools for that, a "desktop-installer" and a "Skunk Installer." But those should be officially part of FreeBSD or at the very least be given more visibility. I never knew they existed until I googled "FreeBSD derivatives" and ended up here. Maybe I never would otherwise.
 
Strongly disagree. Linux (distributions) have taken steps into the same old hell we all know from some commercial systems: Automating configuration tasks by default means taking away control, and this is great until it's not because something breaks. Then, before even attempting to fix anything, you first have to understand how all that automated stuff works and what exactly went wrong.

You can't have your cake and eat it. FreeBSD requires you to understand how the system works (to some extent) in order to use it. And by understanding it, you're in a great position to actually fix problems quickly.
 
LucNix said:
Please don't ask me why I'm posting to an old thread.

OK, I googled "FreeBSD derivatives" and ended up here, but don't ask me why I googled "FreeBSD derivatives."

I think most of the derivatives seem to have a lot more focus on easy installation AND easy configuration. Installing FreeBSD is easy enough, but configuring it is not. Having a graphical environment should be easier. But then those derivatives may not be really compatible with the original FreeBSD and that makes things difficult again because the derivatives will likely have fewer packages.

I always thought there should be some configuration helper that automates all kinds of configuration. All of them. Not everybody has fun reading Google for hours and learning to tweak this.rc or that.rc. I had that idea in the mid oughts. Most Linux distros have taken good steps in the direction. The BSDs still lag behind.

Or do they? Now I see there are at least two tools for that, a "desktop-installer" and a "Skunk Installer." But those should be officially part of FreeBSD or at the very least be given more visibility. I never knew they existed until I googled "FreeBSD derivatives" and ended up here. Maybe I never would otherwise.
Click to expand...
There's DragonflyBSD, MidnightBSD, NomadBSD, helloOS, and a few more... even Sony PlayStation 3/4/Vita :p
And, there's even a Wikipedia page about it... it was my top Google hit... wonder why it wasn't for LucNix ... 🤔

List of products based on FreeBSD - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
astyle said:
There's DragonflyBSD, MidnightBSD, NomadBSD, helloOS, and a few more... even Sony PlayStation 3/4/Vita :p
And, there's even a Wikipedia page about it... it was my top Google hit... wonder why it wasn't for LucNix ... 🤔

List of products based on FreeBSD - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
It was. I've visited those already. :)

In fact, I installed and booted Dragonfly more than 10 years ago. It didn't suit me. Still doesn't.

Did you know there are NetBSD and OpenBSD derivatives too? I'm not kidding. :)
 
LucNix said:
I always thought there should be some configuration helper that automates all kinds of configuration. All of them.
Click to expand...

You are asking for a configuration manager that solves everyones set up and that's never going to happen. Even Windows doesn't do that.


LucNix said:
Not everybody has fun reading Google for hours and learning to tweak this.rc or that.rc.
Click to expand...

If your first step is Google, instead of the Handbook, you're doing it wrong. Your second step should be the mailing lists or this forum.

LucNix said:
Most Linux distros have taken good steps in the direction. The BSDs still lag behind.
Click to expand...

I can install a complete FreeBSD setup with a desktop in about 10 minutes. I have never been able to do that with Arch or Gentoo.

But all of this is the difference between someone who just wants to plunk an OS on their computer and be done with it and one who wants to understand the OS he is using. People who use FreeBSD are more likely to be the latter.
 
LucNix said:
Please don't ask me why I'm posting to an old thread.

OK, I googled "FreeBSD derivatives" and ended up here, but don't ask me why I googled "FreeBSD derivatives."

I think most of the derivatives seem to have a lot more focus on easy installation AND easy configuration. Installing FreeBSD is easy enough, but configuring it is not. Having a graphical environment should be easier. But then those derivatives may not be really compatible with the original FreeBSD and that makes things difficult again because the derivatives will likely have fewer packages.

I always thought there should be some configuration helper that automates all kinds of configuration. All of them. Not everybody has fun reading Google for hours and learning to tweak this.rc or that.rc. I had that idea in the mid oughts. Most Linux distros have taken good steps in the direction. The BSDs still lag behind.

Or do they? Now I see there are at least two tools for that, a "desktop-installer" and a "Skunk Installer." But those should be officially part of FreeBSD or at the very least be given more visibility. I never knew they existed until I googled "FreeBSD derivatives" and ended up here. Maybe I never would otherwise.
Click to expand...
100% disagree. Even in the linux world this is a bad idea. That why I few more comfortable using Slackware and/or Gentoo (if I need to use Linux).

zirias@ said:
FreeBSD requires you to understand how the system works (to some extent) in order to use it.
Click to expand...
For one to use a tool, one need the proper knowledge.

This explain beautifully why:
zirias@ said:
Strongly disagree. Linux (distributions) have taken steps into the same old hell we all know from some commercial systems: Automating configuration tasks by default means taking away control, and this is great until it's not because something breaks. Then, before even attempting to fix anything, you first have to understand how all that automated stuff works and what exactly went wrong.
Click to expand...

drhowarddrfine said:
I can install a complete FreeBSD setup with a desktop in about 10 minutes.
Click to expand...
I can do that in Arch, although I prefer Slackware where I can also do that.

drhowarddrfine said:
I have never been able to do that with Arch or Gentoo.
Click to expand...
I already spoke about Arch, but to make a fair comparison between FreeBSD and Gentoo/Funtoo/Exherbo you would need to compile all the base system of FreeBSD and every port that you would install. I don't have a opinion on that comparison because I never compiled FreeBSD. But Gentoo installation it is a pretty easy process, it just take a while.

To conclude, LucNix you need to find a OS that the project culture pleases you the most. On FreeBSD you can make a setup similar to Arch, or to Slackware or to Gentoo. All depends how do you approach it. But don't expect that FreeBSD becomes some similar to Linux Mint. Because it won't.
 
zirias@ said:
Strongly disagree. Linux (distributions) have taken steps into the same old hell we all know from some commercial systems: Automating configuration tasks by default means taking away control, and this is great until it's not because something breaks. Then, before even attempting to fix anything, you first have to understand how all that automated stuff works and what exactly went wrong.

You can't have your cake and eat it. FreeBSD requires you to understand how the system works (to some extent) in order to use it. And by understanding it, you're in a great position to actually fix problems quickly.
Click to expand...
The end user is not a professional, most of them don't know anything, the end users simply want to use the system for their things as they do in linux or windows. To correct the problems of the software or code there are the professionals called technicians or specialists.
 
teo, different things serve different target audiences. Use what matches your preferences instead of requesting something to change, making it worse for other people.

The kind of "problems" I'm talking about here are mostly local configuration problems, and automated configuration stuff is getting in the way of solving these, simple as that. So, everyone "simply want to use the system". Some prefer to do it in a way that requires some extra (initial) setup work while avoiding to fight with tools doing non-obvious things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top