FreeBSD derivatives

The perception of the user that have tried to use FreeBSD in graphic desktop has been disappointing, lack of software for their hardware, lack and incompatibility of software for the use of their day to day things, software that is becoming obsolete that when trying to use the resources of the machine are shot through the roof to the point of a compilation is automatically shut down, and until my laptop died despite having configured manually, since in some cases the automation for configuration and customization of the system is not there.
 
teo, I guess you didn't get the gentle hint: Please just use a system that's in line with what YOU prefer?

We prefer something else. I'm very happy with the performance (not only meant in terms of speed) of FreeBSD on both servers and desktops. Your idea would completely destroy it for me (and many others). But you can already have your idea somewhere else, so, what's the problem?

edit, to make my point even clearer: Most of us here use FreeBSD because it follows principles like KISS and POLA (which simply forbids intransparent automatisms, at least by default). Some prefer that only on servers, some "anywhere". Just don't request to ruin it please.
 
zirias@ said:
teo, I guess you didn't get the gentle hint: Please just use a system that's in line with what YOU prefer?

We prefer something else. I'm very happy with the performance (not only meant in terms of speed) of FreeBSD on both servers and desktops. Your idea would completely destroy it for me (and many others). But you can already have your idea somewhere else, so, what's the problem?

edit, to make my point even clearer: Most of us here use FreeBSD because it follows principles like KISS and POLA (which simply forbids intransparent automatisms, at least by default). Some prefer that only on servers, some "anywhere". Just don't request to ruin it please.
Click to expand...
For servers FreeBSD has always been paramount and you can see the worldwide marketing position of FreeBSD system usage at less than 0.03 percent. In what sense do you mean the desktop computers?
 
I really can't follow your thoughts, unless this is an attempt at making some "a billion flies can't be wrong" argument. 🤷‍♂️
In that case, I really couldn't care less how many people exactly like it the way it is. Those who do like it because it's the way it is. Everyone else has more than enough alternatives.
 
zirias@ said:
teo

edit, to make my point even clearer: Most of us here use FreeBSD because it follows principles like KISS and POLA (which simply forbids intransparent automatisms, at least by default). Some prefer that only on servers, some "anywhere". Just don't request to ruin it please.
Click to expand...
Not talking about ruining, just that in the graphical installer of the system there are two installation options to choose from, one option to select the system installation script for the system for servers, and the other option to select the script for desktop graphical environment, like they do in debian.
 
But, of course, these suggestions are sterile, since the dynamics of the FreeBSD Foundation are out of sync with the thinking of the FreeBSD forum.
 
zirias@ said:
That's ruining it. That's the kind of automation I really really don't want to see. That's also tight coupling of ports to the base system, which isn't done, for reasons.

There you have your alternative. If you like what they do for desktops, just use Debian for desktops ;)
Click to expand...
But the automation of the FreeBSD base system installs it automatically, I don't know if I'm wrong about automation and the of automatically. What is the problem that in the automatic system installer there are two alternatives? One option for servers, and the other option for the desktop environment.
 
teo said:
But the automation of the FreeBSD base system installs it automatically, I don't know if I'm wrong about automation and the of automatically. What is the problem that in the automatic system installer there are two alternatives? One option for servers, and the other option for the desktop environment.
Click to expand...
The "automation" done by the FreeBSD installer is very little more than extracting the release tarballs. It just helps you create a root filesystem and configure the absolute "basics" (timezone, keyboard mapping, network interface) and that's it. Nothing "magic", just standard entries in e.g. /etc/rc.conf.

FreeBSD supports desktop operation, but doesn't include any software needed for that (in contrast to OpenBSD not even Xorg). An installer automating a "desktop installation" would therefore be tightly coupled to ports/packages. They don't even have a similar release schedule to start with. Don't even think about going down THAT rabbit hole.
 
teo said:
In what sense do you mean the desktop computers?
Click to expand...
I'm not answering for zirias@ but to me "desktop computer" has always been "What do I use in my day to day work and play".
Some people like a laptop, some like a full size tower with loud fans, some like headless systems that sit in a closet.
Day to Day work and play is more about applications, stability and "enough speed".
Can you run the applications you need on your system?
Does it crash alot or stay up for months at a time?
Does it run your applications, in your typical load, fast enough?
Think about a professional writer, sitting in a text editor all day. Not much of a load on the system, but toss in a few firefox tabs open with videos playing, maybe you notice a lag when you hit a key.
Now someone doing professional video or photo editing: lots of ram, fast GPU, responsive applications. That's a lot of load on a system.
Grandma/grandpa browsing the web, sending emails to grandkids, reading emails from them, again, not very much load.

Still boils down to your system, your choice, your preference. People need to get out of the mindset "all the things must be the same".
 
A long time ago, back in the FreeBSD 3.x days, when a distribution could fit on a single CD-ROM, the installer would give you the option to install a limited number optional packages, going by aging memory I think there was an option to install the X Window system.
You know what that did? Installed the X Window system and twm as a window manager, nothing more. User still had to configure the video in xf86.conf (I think that's what it was called before xorg.conf), user still had to install their applications, their preferred windowing environment, etc

Try doing that today: people want full blown KDE/Gnome/whatever and firefox, libreoffice and a thousand other applications installed by default.

That is the problem a lot of us have, the "by default" part. Install media gets to be too big, everyone has a different idea about the set of applications (and dependencies) to include.

The better solution is ports. There is a port named desktop-installer that gives you a menu of DEs and Window Managers, attempts to guess the correct video driver, has a few default applications it installs.
Improve that, make it as robust as possible, then keep it up to date and the handbook can add something like "If you've never installed a windowing system before, after install and reboot, pkg add desktop-installer, run it, follow the prompts. If you're familiar with it, just do what you need to do".
 
mer said:
Still boils down to your system, your choice, your preference. People need to get out of the mindset "all the things must be the same".
Click to expand...
Because some people doesn't want to have choices, they want everyone use the same they're using it. I've always say "if you don't want to have choices, then just use windows". But then they'll start with that infinite loop of "muh fragmentation"...
 
  • Like
Reactions: mer
mer said:
There is a port named desktop-installer that gives you a menu of DEs and Window Managers, attempts to guess the correct video driver, has a few default applications it installs.
Click to expand...
And there's nothing wrong with such a tool of course. It's not forced upon you, it's your choice to use it (you should be aware it will create configuration for you that you might have a hard time to understand once something goes wrong, that's always the downside, if you still want to use it, fine!)

So teo would make the argument it isn't forced either if integrated in the FreeBSD-installer and completely optional, and indeed that would be correct. That's why I also mentioned the coupling of base with ports/packages that really must be avoided.

IIRC that was different in the past, but nowadays, base and ports don't even share "compatible" release schedules any more. While base keeps following a "classic" (and somewhat elaborate, with the "stable"-branches) release engineering, ports is entirely rolling-release with just quarterly snapshots. Trying to install and configure ports/packages from an installer that's part of base is just begging for trouble as it introduces entirely new (and blocking) dependencies. It really can't be done in a sane way (and IMHO, that's perfectly fine!)
 
zirias@ said:
And there's nothing wrong with such a tool of course. It's not forced upon you, it's your choice to use it (you should be aware it will create configuration for you that you might have a hard time to understand once something goes wrong, that's always the downside, if you still want to use it, fine!)

So teo would make the argument it isn't forced either if integrated in the FreeBSD-installer and completely optional, and indeed that would be correct. That's why I also mentioned the coupling of base with ports/packages that really must be avoided.

IIRC that was different in the past, but nowadays, base and ports don't even share "compatible" release schedules any more. While base keeps following a "classic" (and somewhat elaborate, with the "stable"-branches) release engineering, ports is entirely rolling-release with just quarterly snapshots. Trying to install and configure ports/packages from an installer that's part of base is just begging for trouble as it introduces entirely new (and blocking) dependencies. It really can't be done in a sane way (and IMHO, that's perfectly fine!)
Click to expand...
I don't know, I've been testing from time to time FreeBSD for desktop environment little by little, and the inpression have is related to some previous messages of mine written previously in this topic, that's all I can say, nothing more.
 
teo said:
But, of course, these suggestions are sterile, since the dynamics of the FreeBSD Foundation are out of sync with the thinking of the FreeBSD forum.
Click to expand...
Its really not. Otherwise there would be a GUI installer by now wouldn't there?

Its not like it is a hard thing to make. Just the FreeBSD developers (on these forums, and the foundation) do not want it.

Why aren't you interested in GhostBSD and just using that?
 
kpedersen said:
Its really not. Otherwise there would be a GUI installer by now wouldn't there?

Its not like it is a hard thing to make. Just the FreeBSD developers (on these forums, and the foundation) do not want it.

Why aren't you interested in GhostBSD and just using that?
Click to expand...
I am not new, from time to time I have tried FreeBSD derivatives like the old PC-BSD, the same GhostBSD and others like NomadBSD, they are incomplete subsystems, as I said in previous messages, the lack of software for modern and old hardware, the lack of software for day to day use. In conclusion, the world of BSD is not suitable for the use of desktop environment.
 
zirias@ said:
teo, I guess you didn't get the gentle hint: Please just use a system that's in line with what YOU prefer?
Click to expand...

It's hard following why free choice should continue to be a problem, yet it persists.

zirias@ said:
edit, to make my point even clearer: Most of us here use FreeBSD because it follows principles like KISS and POLA (which simply forbids intransparent automatisms, at least by default). Some prefer that only on servers, some "anywhere". Just don't request to ruin it please.
Click to expand...

teo said:
Not talking about ruining, just that in the graphical installer of the system there are two installation options to choose from, one option to select the system installation script for the system for servers, and the other option to select the script for desktop graphical environment, like they do in debian.
Click to expand...

Well, submit patches to bsdinstall(8) that do what you want it to do, so people can run your code and decide if that works for them, or could for enough users to make it an option?

However, FreeBSD systems aren't necessarily neatly split between just servers or just desk/laptops.

For over a dozen years I ran systems that comfortably performed both roles, one my daily-use solar powered laptop that ran web, mail and DNS servers for 6 domains on ADSL km into the bush.

More recently I've managed to install base system plus Xorg, KDE and some utilities from the 12.3 DVD (as USB), albeit after three patches to bsdconfig(8).

But even that couldn't satisfy the sort of choice of desktop environments and other packages that a dedicated port can, uncoupled to the base system installer, IMO.

As they say, 'send code' ...

(edited, from a mess!)
 
teo
I am using FreeBSD from version 6, I am a computer user and FreeBSD is my choice of OS. I know how to read and installation was never problem for me. And programs which I use works for me all the time. I stopped using some but the problem was not FreeBSD but my hardware (blender, FreeCAD).
I wish that FreeBSD stay as is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mer
teo said:
In conclusion, the world of BSD is not suitable for the use of desktop environment.
Click to expand...
So if after trying FreeBSD and derivatives* you came to the conclusion they're not suitable for your usage of desktop computers, that's absolutely fine. Use whatever suits you and don't loose your time trying to persuade happy users that it isn't suitable for them.

* "the world of BSD" would include at least OpenBSD, NetBSD and DragonFly, which are developed independently from FreeBSD and are quite different. By the way, these operating systems currently don't meet my expectations from a desktop system and are therefore not suitable for me, but I won't pretend they are per se unsuitable for desktop usage, because obviously there are people happily using them this way and preferring them over FreeBSD, Linux, etc. To each his own.
 
bsduck -- THIS.

The only "desktop installation" I currently have that's not running FreeBSD is actually a virtual machine, used only via RDP, and only for tools I need for work that aren't available on FreeBSD. For all my private purposes, a FreeBSD desktop offers exactly what I want (well, minus good Wifi unfortunately, but that's less important to me than other things).

Yes, it's perfectly fine if you prefer something else. Then use something else. Don't expect FreeBSD to change to that "something else" you prefer, it just makes no sense, it would only spoil it for those who like it the way it is.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, I resort to Google after giving up on the Forums' internal search feature. And when Google does actually turn up something useful, it's on these Forums anyway :p

I tried both FreeBSD installers, and Linux installers. Every shop does it differently. It's up to you to pick what you like, and run with it, teo . Just don't tell the shop workers how to run the shop. it's like walking into a laundromat and telling the owners to rearrange the equipment for easier flow of customers, oh, and we could put a candy vending machine in that corner, you'll get more customers that way. You'll promptly get sent to another laundromat to look for your candy vending machine. And if that laundromat is far away, and has other dealbreakers, tough. No analogy is perfect, IK. Even on the Linux turf, projects have fans and devs that don't like being told "Your product sucks, here's how to improve it". There's good and bad ways to go about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top