FuryBSD is dead..

Sevendogsbsd

Daemon

Reaction score: 682
Messages: 1,131

RIP. Good news is GhostBSD is now in TOP50 according to distrowatch.com

But I wonder why we need GUI in FreeBSD. CLI is enough for it. Maybe it makes newbies easier to adopt to the system, but there are not much gui software for FreeBSD.
There are thousands of "GUI" applications for FreeBSD. You can run it as a desktop if you'd like. Perhaps that is not your use case?
 

A. D. Sharpe Sr.

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 109

I thinks FreeBSD can be next big Desktop OS, but it needs cash! At the moment Project and Foundation doesn't have such capital. But it is not impossible.
This is highly unlikely for the same reason that Linux isn't a big desktop OS -it doesn't have the architecture for it. There're a lot of things about FreeBSD that would have to be completely changed in order to make it a big desktop OS -the first of which is that it doesn't even come with it's own desktop by default. Additionally, it allows far too much customization, far too many config files that need to be manually edited, & no standard way to easily change configurations with a GUI. To date, there's only been one major organization that's been able to successfully make a good desktop os with it & that's NeXT. To do it, they had to remove a few things & add a few other things. And when Apple bought them out, they added a few more. Unless the FreeBSD community is willing to put forth the same effort, FreeBSD won't ever become a great desktop OS.
 

A. D. Sharpe Sr.

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 109

But I wonder why we need GUI in FreeBSD. CLI is enough for it. Maybe it makes newbies easier to adopt to the system, but there are not much gui software for FreeBSD.
The fact that people want a GUI on FreeBSD shows that CLI isn't enough for it. Though most of us are comfortable with the CLI, it's really an outdated interface. Not everyone wants to be stuck in the 1970s -after all, it's almost 2021. So, a GUI is needed because this is what modern users want.
 

Argentum

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 289
Messages: 608

Unless the FreeBSD community is willing to put forth the same effort, FreeBSD won't ever become a great desktop OS.
Assume that does not mean that one can not build her/his own great desktop with FreeBSD. But they are a minority. For example, I have my own great FreeBSD desktop and I am satisfied, but it would be hard to distribute it for general public use.

BTW, I have MATE with Cairo-Dock, also some KDE Plasma5 and Gnome3 things in it.

But yes, an easily configurable general purpose desktop would help to promote the FreeBSD public acceptance.
 

Sevendogsbsd

Daemon

Reaction score: 682
Messages: 1,131

The fact that people want a GUI on FreeBSD shows that CLI isn't enough for it. Though most of us are comfortable with the CLI, it's really an outdated interface. Not everyone wants to be stuck in the 1970s -after all, it's almost 2021. So, a GUI is needed because this is what modern users want.
Thing is most "modern users" have no clue what FreeBSD even is. Linux has a minuscule userbase compared to Windows and Mac, FreeBSD user base (desktop) is certainly even smaller than Linux. Nothing wrong with CLI - it is vastly more powerful than any GUI app out there, although not as user friendly. What is the saying: "Unix is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are?"

I do not believe one of the goals of the FreeBSD foundation is to make FreeBSD more user friendly so it gets adopted as a desktop. They do work towards making modernizations so users can implement KDE, Gnome, etc, but most FreeBSD use is on servers. At least that is my guess.
 

Samuel Venable

Active Member

Reaction score: 132
Messages: 163

Well my distro has just begun. One of the biggest set backs causing people to not want to use it atm is you need to backup and replace your default make executable with a symlink to gmake. I am in the process of fixing this and I'm constantly publishing updates to improve user experience and useability.
 

Jose

Daemon

Reaction score: 1,001
Messages: 1,206

It gives people with mild curiosity more incentive to see what FreeBSD is. People who don't (yet) want to put much effort into it but might find that they like it...
Let them cut their teeth on Linux.
 

wolffnx

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 231
Messages: 677

I really still dont get it…the search of users for the "big perfect desktop" and how hard is for them

-pkg install xorg
-pkg install (one of many DE o WM)

and ok,you have intel or nvidia
video
search how to install the driver
in FBSD

and done!

there are many file managers,editors,audio players… etc..etc… and that is…a desktop!! :)

no need for tuning nothing for "desktop use",maybe the only thing is limit the ZFS ARC size
but nothing more
 

fel1x

Member

Reaction score: 25
Messages: 72

The fact that people want a GUI on FreeBSD shows that CLI isn't enough for it. Though most of us are comfortable with the CLI, it's really an outdated interface. Not everyone wants to be stuck in the 1970s -after all, it's almost 2021. So, a GUI is needed because this is what modern users want.
For normal users: YES. But FreeBSD is mainly for routers, embedded machines, servers, etc. For them, GUI takes a lot of resource, which means most of them use CLI until now.
 

fel1x

Member

Reaction score: 25
Messages: 72

There are thousands of "GUI" applications for FreeBSD. You can run it as a desktop if you'd like. Perhaps that is not your use case?
I mean Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft Office things. Things we can use in real life without changing to other programs such as libre office.
 

Sevendogsbsd

Daemon

Reaction score: 682
Messages: 1,131

I mean Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft Office things. Things we can use in real life without changing to other programs such as libre office.
That has nothing to do with availability. Those are choices. Real life can be accomplished quite well with alternatives. I personally find Microsoft Office to be a steaming heap of crap. I have never and will never buy it. Adobe is the same: bloated, invasive and expensive.
 

diortemew

Member

Reaction score: 8
Messages: 73

Invasive indeed. You can't do anything with Adobe until you sign up with FB, Google, or personal email. This is when they berate you with notifications and ads. I just tested this. Just to get a banner for this site, I had to register. For a single friggin' banner? It was a really good banner though, but at the cost of my personal information? Bleh!
 

Phishfry

Beastie's Twin

Reaction score: 2,667
Messages: 5,587

Additionally, it allows far too much customization,
Customization is the primary reason I use FreeBSD.
I run FreeBSD on my Firewall. I run FreeBSD on my Wireless Access Point and I run FreeBSD on my Laptop.
I have a home lab with 2 virt servers, 2 storage servers as well a rack full of other servers and cloud instances.
All running the same source code. NanoBSD appliance images are sublime.
FreeBSD is so customizable and that is the main selling point for me.

Anybody that thinks they can do better than core FreeBSD is despondent.
Come aboard the mothership.
 

Argentum

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 289
Messages: 608

For normal users: YES. But FreeBSD is mainly for routers, embedded machines, servers, etc. For them, GUI takes a lot of resource, which means most of them use CLI until now.
Well, personally, that was exactly the story, why I started using FreeBSD as a desktop. Many years ago I installed my first FreeBSD server and after that some other servers, routers and firewalls. Used regular command line for management. But soon I understood, that this is a good idea to keep one FreeBSD machine on my desk just for ssh. Some time later, based on my previous experience wit X11, I thought that running X on that machine might be a good idea. Then, after that I wanted better terminal, web browser, mail client, etc...

Meaning, no ready made huge machinery, but just some useful applications with GUI. As I have written before in this forum - for me, the most important function of GUI has been copy and paste. And a good web browser of course. But not managing this machine with GUI.
 

mickey

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 310
Messages: 754

The fact that people want a GUI on FreeBSD shows that CLI isn't enough for it. Though most of us are comfortable with the CLI, it's really an outdated interface. Not everyone wants to be stuck in the 1970s -after all, it's almost 2021. So, a GUI is needed because this is what modern users want.
That reminds me of what a SUN employee once told me in the 1990s when I asked him why SUN was moving from BSD based SunOS to that SYSV based Solaris crap: "The user does not want to mess with text based configuration files, the user wants an admin-tool". Well, he couldn't have been more wrong. The power and flexibility that text based configuration files give is still unsurpassed in 2020.
 

kpedersen

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,095
Messages: 2,953

I mean Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft Office things. Things we can use in real life without changing to other programs such as libre office.
Those terrible "cloud DRM" things should only ever be run in a VM. Even on Windows. FreeBSD offers a wide range of virtualization technology.
That reminds me of what a SUN employee once told me in the 1990s when I asked him why SUN was moving from BSD based SunOS to that SYSV based Solaris crap: "The user does not want to mess with text based configuration files, the user wants an admin-tool". Well, he couldn't have been more wrong. The power and flexibility that text based configuration files give is still unsurpassed in 2020.

This is so true. When all is said and done, maintenance and real work is always best done falling back to text files. GUIs go out of date every decade whereas text-files remain timeless (albeit timelessly uncool from a consumers perspective).
 

wolffnx

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 231
Messages: 677

I mean Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft Office things. Things we can use in real life without changing to other programs such as libre office.

Then that user should use windows , maybe could work with wine but is from WINDOWS ecosystem
so...go there and dont complaint about it
one thing is talking about a desktop and another is about comercial closed tools related to one operating
system
 

A. D. Sharpe Sr.

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 109

Customization is the primary reason I use FreeBSD.
I run FreeBSD on my Firewall. I run FreeBSD on my Wireless Access Point and I run FreeBSD on my Laptop.
I have a home lab with 2 virt servers, 2 storage servers as well a rack full of other servers and cloud instances.
All running the same source code. NanoBSD appliance images are sublime.
FreeBSD is so customizable and that is the main selling point for me.

Anybody that thinks they can do better than core FreeBSD is despondent.
Come aboard the mothership.
And yet, GhostBSD is positioned to become more widespread than FreeBSD on the desktop. It's providing what users are asking for. The average desktop user isn't using a customized firewall nor access point. They also predominately not running virtual servers, storage servers, any other servers, nor cloud instances. Your use case isn't the use case of the average desktop user. It's not even the average use case for the average computer user, period. You guys are going to have to wake up and realize that the majority of computer users are NOT using computers for what you are using it for. This is why FreeBSD has been losing in the desktop & in getting new tech from hardware vendors -you're actively ignoring users who aren't running servers.
 

A. D. Sharpe Sr.

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 109

Those terrible "cloud DRM" things should only ever be run in a VM. Even on Windows. FreeBSD offers a wide range of virtualization technology.


This is so true. When all is said and done, maintenance and real work is always best done falling back to text files. GUIs go out of date every decade whereas text-files remain timeless (albeit timelessly uncool from a consumers perspective).
This attitude is why Linux is younger than FreeBSD but has more mindshare than FreeBSD. The majority of the FreeBSD community are actively trying to ignore all other use cases than system admin. Regular users literally don't care about that. Most users aren't using their computers to run servers. Additionally, running servers isn't all that FreeBSD is useful for. People like you are going to cause FreeBSD to become irrelevant. I, for one, definitely don't want to see that happen.
 

A. D. Sharpe Sr.

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 109

For normal users: YES. But FreeBSD is mainly for routers, embedded machines, servers, etc. For them, GUI takes a lot of resource, which means most of them use CLI until now.
NO, FreeBSD is NOT mainly for that. That's where it's mainly being used, but that's not really what it's for. And to be honest, that attitude is what's stopping FreeBSD from being used in a wider range of areas. It's also the reason that certain technologies either suck or don't even exist on FreeBSD -such as Vulkan, Cuda, OpenCL. That's part of the reason that FreeBSD doesn't have a presence in data science, nor supercomputing. Sure, GUIs, use a lot of resources; but in case you haven't heard, this isn't 1994 -computers have a ton of resources now. Don't make excuses for holding back the platform because of your own biases.
 

A. D. Sharpe Sr.

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 109

Thing is most "modern users" have no clue what FreeBSD even is. Linux has a minuscule userbase compared to Windows and Mac, FreeBSD user base (desktop) is certainly even smaller than Linux. Nothing wrong with CLI - it is vastly more powerful than any GUI app out there, although not as user friendly. What is the saying: "Unix is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are?"

I do not believe one of the goals of the FreeBSD foundation is to make FreeBSD more user friendly so it gets adopted as a desktop. They do work towards making modernizations so users can implement KDE, Gnome, etc, but most FreeBSD use is on servers. At least that is my guess.
The problem is that the foresight of the FreeBSD foundation is questionable. This is how upstarts such as Linux have been able to eat FreeBSD's lunch & displace it from any form of position of power. At this point, FreeBSD has positioned itself to eat the scraps that Linux produces -including kernel level code for infrastructure & drivers. Most modern users don't know what FreeBSD is simply because the FreeBSD foundation has not really done much to change that. Yet, most modern users do know what Linux is. And many of the ones who don't have at least heard the name before & remember it. My guess is that one of the FreeBSD derivatives is going to completely overshadow it in the coming years. At this point, FreeBSD is not much more than an ingredient for something better.
 

A. D. Sharpe Sr.

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 109

Assume that does not mean that one can not build her/his own great desktop with FreeBSD. But they are a minority. For example, I have my own great FreeBSD desktop and I am satisfied, but it would be hard to distribute it for general public use.

BTW, I have MATE with Cairo-Dock, also some KDE Plasma5 and Gnome3 things in it.

But yes, an easily configurable general purpose desktop would help to promote the FreeBSD public acceptance.
It takes so much more than 1 person building their own great desktop for an OS to be a great desktop OS. You've definitely hit the nail on the head. An easily configurable general purpose desktop would certainly help to promote the FreeBSD public acceptance. With such a thing in tow, they could see the overall user base jump drastically in the coming years.
 

Sevendogsbsd

Daemon

Reaction score: 682
Messages: 1,131

The problem is that the foresight of the FreeBSD foundation is questionable. This is how upstarts such as Linux have been able to eat FreeBSD's lunch & displace it from any form of position of power. At this point, FreeBSD has positioned itself to eat the scraps that Linux produces -including kernel level code for infrastructure & drivers. Most modern users don't know what FreeBSD is simply because the FreeBSD foundation has not really done much to change that. Yet, most modern users do know what Linux is. And many of the ones who don't have at least heard the name before & remember it. My guess is that one of the FreeBSD derivatives is going to completely overshadow it in the coming years. At this point, FreeBSD is not much more than an ingredient for something better.
Maybe it’s me but I don’t see this as a competition.
 

Phishfry

Beastie's Twin

Reaction score: 2,667
Messages: 5,587

I love that I can build a kiosk with Xorg and OpenBox from the same source code as your average desktop setup..

I mean how hard is a FreeBSD desktop? pkg install xfce4 and use a framebuffer driver to start.
I really don't understand why people have problems with video setup.
scfb and vesa are baked in and work well enough to get you started.


But I think that I would best describe FreeBSD as a Power User' OS.
Call me a power user .

you're actively ignoring users who aren't running servers.
That is not how I see it. The project is small and has limited resources. People only work on what they want.
Nearly everybody is a volunteer. True we have a small user base. You can only herd the cats. There is no kernel boss or distro chief. It is a core team. Some of these people come from industry and have projects.

Many of us here are veteran computer users. We have passed through many operating systems before settling on FreeBSD.
We have some pretty rugged Free software too.
 
Top