Frustrating 9.1-REL installation

[TimeTraveler]

It is very interesting how the subject is shifting to the user in stead of the product. If you arm get broken you place a band-aid to make it heal. You go to the doctor and get the right treatment. Similarly here, if there are several people complaining about the slowness and issues with multiple lib missing from the OS then it must be a bug somewhere, after all there are humans who are developing those applications.

Here is one issue I found with the 9.1 version while trying to compile vim, the installation from the ISO image that I downloaded was looking at ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/ports-current which it was causing the installation to fail because the directory is empty... To correct that issues I had to remove all the posts and updating by running portsnap fetch and then update. Do it look like user error or a bug? Here is another glitch I found after installing FBSD 9.1. The /usr/ports/x11/kde4 was empty, while all other folder contained files to be able to run make install clean, meaning no files in that folder, which drive to the question user or bug?

When using any application, the application needs to be design with the user in mind. If you are asking "does it work for me?" then you are asking the wrong question. The right question is does it work? Does any one goes an by a Cadillac with not pistons in the engine? It is imperative the product works from the start. While they will be minor glitches here and there it is ok, as long as the product or the dealer presents the right solution.

In my case for instance, have the task at hand to find a new desktop for laptops. This was a great opportunity to present the solid FBSD OS as we have been using it for Web Dev, DNS, and WWW as servers. There are plenty of flavor to choose if one one to move to Linux. Lint is one of the top of the line right now. But again the idea is not to tell people, look!, my product is kind of so, move away from it and find another one. The idea is to bring more and more people to use the product by improving it and no to leave it at a below average.

Sorry for the rundown but credit has to be render where it belongs.

 

[kpa]

I think people are still missing what FreeBSD really is. It's never going to be a polished end product because the goals of the project (how I see it) are not in that area. It's more like a workshop for building stuff rather than the built stuff itself. Pick the tools that you want to use and DIY (do it yourself). Those who don't want to tinker with the internals of an operating system to get a system they like there are other options that have already been mentioned.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

@kpa is saying it right and that is what some are failing to realize.

Does any one goes an by a Cadillac with not pistons in the engine? It is imperative the product works from the start.

We're not selling Cadillacs. We've got the engine. We also have the wheels and bumpers and everything you need to put the car together, but you have to put it together. If something doesn't fit, it's because the specification might have changed. Wait for us to drill new holes or you can drill your own.

 

[sgunn]

The smaller the user base for an operating system, the less people are going to contribute time, money and expertise to it. Eventually, if the base gets small enough, the OS dies.

A crappy installer drives away people who might otherwise use FreeBSD. I far prefer the design philosophy behind FreeBSD. I like that the packages are controlled. I like that the OS is controlled. I like that security is designed in. There's a lot to like.

But make no mistake about it, the FreeBSD installer is crappy, especially compared to, well, just about anything else. Take your pick: Windows, SuSe, Redhat. They all provide graphical installers that bring up everything, including your choice of Gnome or KDE. And that's just a beautiful thing. And just because an installer can install KDE doesn't mean it has to, so I don't want to hear from the cranks who say how angry they would be if they had to remove KDE, or how anybody who's serious about FreeBSD would never want an X environment up on their box.

There's this guy you may have heard of called Linus who kind of agrees:

http://http://news.oreilly.com/2008/07/linux-torvalds-on-linux-distri.html

And the KDE support is abysmal. Fortunately, at least one component of this, the video driver support, appears to have been identified as a major issue, and is being worked on. So I'm not giving up on FreeBSD yet. But jeez, I'm tired of hearing about how it not having a decent installer and support for KDE isn't a minus. It is. Know anybody who is still using CP/M?

Stephen

 

[jb_fvwm2]

Newer, older, and third-party FreeBSD installers perhaps were thrown a curve by bios changes and disk architecture changes. As that may continue to be a problem even if a new installer were crafted or one of the present ones fully updated, maybe it would be better to have a printable guide-flowchart showing command lines to use to install in each particular instance? And the reasoning behind each one? Even if such a project were booklet-sized, it could serve as a better standard of operating system install than exist in other operating systems and distributions... [Just a thought.] [Online errata to double-check that could be updated ...] One
would know more about the end result and options before beginning, leading
to more informed choices, quicker resolution of glitches, etc...

 

[drhowarddrfine]

A crappy installer drives away people who might otherwise use FreeBSD.

What people are you talking about?

But make no mistake about it, the FreeBSD installer is crappy, especially compared to, well, just about anything else. Take your pick: Windows, SuSe, Redhat. They all provide graphical installers that bring up everything, including your choice of Gnome or KDE.

Oh. You mean end users that need hand holding and not professionals. Well, then you've got the wrong operating system.

This isn't a competition. FreeBSD is not here to compete with Windows on the desktop. Nor is it here to compete with Ubuntu and other desktops. Like I said before, if you're looking for something out of the box and you need a graphical interface to make your computer work, then you need to look elsewhere and that's what systems like Windows are for.

A lot of us don't use FreeBSD for a desktop at all. And a lot of us don't use or want Gnome or KDE either. So what purpose is having a default of either have?

Personally, I've not used the installer in several years. Graphical installers are limited in their functionality but you need to do that for amateurs who can't or won't take the time to find out how their systems work. That's why I always tell people that FreeBSD is a professional operating system and if they can't handle what it takes to bring things up then they should stay with Windows or, perhaps, Linux Mint but, even then, most amateurs can't handle Linux either. They just want to push a button and have things work without thinking about it.

FreeBSD is a professional operating system. Just like a construction worker wouldn't bring the family van to his work site, he's going to want to drive a Mack truck to do the heavy lifting and leave the simpler family van at home for the family to get around in.

So there is no problem with installing FreeBSD if you quit thinking it needs to work and act like Windows. If you need that, then one should just stay with Windows.

I can't wait for the next thread to say FreeBSD is a bad operating system cause it doesn't run Windows games.

 

[Deleted member 13721]

We've been over this a thousand times, literally. If you want turnkey FreeBSD, use PC-BSD. It almost seems like there's an element who think that because they don't understand the system, or are unwilling to spend the time learning, that no one else should be able to either. It defies logic.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

We've been over this a thousand times

Yep. And it's wearing thin.

 

[roddierod]

What people are you talking about?
Oh. You mean end users that need hand holding and not professionals. Well, then you've got the wrong operating system. [SNIP]

That was a great post...it should be a sticky IMO.

 

[mix_room]

But make no mistake about it, the FreeBSD installer is crappy, especially compared to, well, just about anything else. Take your pick: Windows, SuSe, Redhat. They all provide graphical installers that bring up everything, including your choice of Gnome or KDE. And that's just a beautiful thing. And just because an installer can install KDE doesn't mean it has to, so I don't want to hear from the cranks who say how angry they would be if they had to remove KDE, or how anybody who's serious about FreeBSD would never want an X environment up on their box.

The Windows installer is, in my opinion, much worse. You have to click through plenty of useless boxes that add no information, don't really get any choice of things to do, the whole things takes ages and is generally a bore. The OpenBSD installer lets you chose plenty of things, isn't graphical, and I have always found it to be very nice to work with. I can install a base OpenBSD system in about 10 minutes, while it takes 3 minutes just to start the Windows installer. Which one of them is bad?

 

[TimeTraveler]

We're not selling Cadillacs. We've got the engine. We also have the wheels and bumpers and everything you need to put the car together, but you have to put it together.

First sorry for the spelling, now I saw some horrible mistakes.

If FreeBSD is just the frame then it should be just the frame and nothing else. Unfortunately it seems that FreeBSD offers bolts and nuts to put things together and not just build upon their platform. Would you call it a framework? Then don't offer anything else than the foundation. Since it is call and operating systems it will offer more than just the basics. It is just car in pieces that needs to be assembled.

If something doesn't fit, it's because the specification might have changed. Wait for us to drill new holes or you can drill your own.

Or perhaps the measurements are wrong and the pieces doesn't fit together. Which it is very common in many car manufacturer. So, again the pieces don't fit and need to be force to be aline properly.

Compare to other OS such Debian, CentOS and even Ubuntu has a core installations, yet their apps are installed by using either apt-get and yum with minor user intervention. FreeBSD is still forcing user to go and find missing pieces of the puzzle as if we are still looking for dependency. I believe it needs to to catch up with new OSs.

 

[TimeTraveler]

We've been over this a thousand times, literally. If you want turnkey FreeBSD, use PC-BSD. It almost seems like there's an element who think that because they don't understand the system, or are unwilling to spend the time learning, that no one else should be able to either. It defies logic.

What is your logic in this case? If you are using logistic analysis then it is falling through the cracks. KDE installation failure is all over and I have tried many recommendations but when the OS code is pointing to the wrong location it seems to be a bug problem. I believe there is a group that is in denial.

 

[TimeTraveler]

The Windows installer is, in my opinion, much worse. You have to click through plenty of useless boxes that add no information, don't really get any choice of things to do, the whole things takes ages and is generally a bore. The OpenBSD installer lets you chose plenty of things, isn't graphical, and I have always found it to be very nice to work with. I can install a base OpenBSD system in about 10 minutes, while it takes 3 minutes just to start the Windows installer. Which one of them is bad?

You need to use Windows more often! Since Windows Vista the installation has been simplified to about four clicks and in some instances with partitioning and installing about 10 clicks. The installation can take just as long as FreeBSD if not shorter.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Talking to some of the members in this group seems a waste a time. They are doing more damage than actually helping. IMHO, this is way the FreeBSD area it is not growing it is stock in an architecture that hasn't change for many version, that I recall since version 4.2 when I started to use it.

LAST POST!!!

 

[Deleted member 13721]

What is your logic in this case? If you are using logistic analysis then it is falling through the cracks. KDE installation failure is all over and I have tried many recommendations but when the OS code is pointing to the wrong location it seems to be a bug problem. I believe there is a group that is in denial.

KDE and Gnome are very complex beasts, even on Linux they can be quite troublesome. FreeBSD does not need a fancy graphical installer, a desktop on demand, or any of that.

We've already prescribed what you demanded (see previous posts), but yet you refuse to listen. Which is why I have come to the conclusion people like you must have some sort of agenda and you've done little to convince me otherwise either.

 

[wblock@]

Server user: this install program is terrible, it does not even install nginx and PHP!

Command-line user: this install program is terrible, it does not even install bash.

Desktop user: this install program is terrible, it does not even install KDE!

Embedded user: this install program is terrible, it installs all kinds of stuff that isn't needed and takes too much space!

The point is that there are conflicting needs for these different types of users. It is nearly impossible to have an installer that will satisfy them all. The bug we see here is the hardest kind to fix, a bug in expectations. FreeBSD is an operating system, not a packaged distribution meant for a specific use. Others have created distributions that are more like what some users expect: PC-BSD, FreeNAS, pfSense, and so on. Avoiding those and saying FreeBSD does not meet your needs is missing the point.

 

[kpa]

This is what I'm always reminded of when I read these threads, die with your boots on.

Yeah, another prophet of disaster
Who says this ship is lost
Another prophet of disaster
Leaving you to count the cost

Taunting us with visions
Afflicting us with fear
Predicting war for millions
In the hope that one appears

 

[drhowarddrfine]

The point is that there are conflicting needs for these different types of users. It is nearly impossible to have an installer that will satisfy them all. The bug we see here is the hardest kind to fix, a bug in expectations. FreeBSD is an operating system, not a packaged distribution meant for a specific use. Others have created distributions that are more like what some users expect: PC-BSD, FreeNAS, pfSense, and so on. Avoiding those and saying FreeBSD does not meet your needs is missing the point.

And we tell people like those in this thread this over and over again but they don't listen or learn and then claim BSD is "stuck in the past". Such threads and posts are false, non-constructive, show a lack of knowledge, are insulting, serve no useful purpose and a waste of time.

Personally, I'd delete or close such threads.