FuryBSD is dead..

Snurg

Daemon

Reaction score: 589
Messages: 1,349

Even Microsoft needed more than half a decade and bury many millions until users finally began to slowly accept their "cheap MacOS copy".
May I ask, has any FOSS OS or distro which is aligned to a particular DE ever survived for long?
 

kpedersen

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,991
Messages: 2,862

Which is exactly why FBSD is falling behind.
FreeBSD has apparently been "falling behind" for decades and yet... well, it is still pretty darn competitive isn't it? Otherwise you wouldn't even be on these forums.

All of that effort that Linux has made to be user friendly has made such a little dent in the consumer desktop market. If those efforts were spent elsewhere, Linux would be vastly superior to FreeBSD.

Twiddling with desktop themes and making fun little installers is not a good investment in time. Especially when they don't improve the OS in any meaningful way. The fact that these forks like TrueOS, FuryBSD, DesktopBSD and others consistently seem to fail as projects should start to become good evidence for this.

This attitude is why Linux is younger than FreeBSD but has more mindshare than FreeBSD.

iPhones are younger than Linux and have more mindshare. That doesn't make them something that Linux should aspire to be. And when Linux does inevitably go that route (mobile and cloud), FreeBSD will always be available to you as a stable sane platform to fall back on to get some work done.

Don't get me wrong though, FreeBSD isn't perfect. The project needs more skilled developers to work on drivers for new hardware. Unfortunately the OS is tied to physical metal which needs to be kept up to date. Those kinds of developer are also *much* harder to find than those who can customise UIs. I also believe this skillset is shrinking in the industry as people are losing touch with the lower levels of operating systems. This is the #1 threat to all free operating systems (and interestingly, looking at OpenBSD it seems it isn't even tied to popularity or userbase. They do very well even with a much smaller userbase than FreeBSD.)
 

Jose

Daemon

Reaction score: 903
Messages: 1,107

Fighting for the desktop in 2021 is a fool's errand. The desktop is disappearing. The predominant mode of computer use for the vast majority of humanity is the mobile phone.
 

Sevendogsbsd

Daemon

Reaction score: 658
Messages: 1,103

No way. I will never abandon a desktop if they are available. Phones are handy but useless for anything remotely resembling work.
 

Jose

Daemon

Reaction score: 903
Messages: 1,107

Oh me neither, but we're going to be living next to each other a good ways down the "long tail".
 

ralphbsz

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,299
Messages: 3,207

It's providing what users are asking for.
There are many different users of computers. FreeBSD serves a certain set of users really well ... for example the NetApp, Juniper and NetFlix set. It serves another set of users pretty well (server users), although there the numbers are tiny compared to Linux. You correctly point out that judging by the user response, FreeBSD doesn't serve desktop users very much. OK, that's a fact.

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.
You say this as if it were a bad thing. Maybe it is a good thing? Maybe FreeBSD is not interesting in serving the desktop?

This attitude is why Linux is younger than FreeBSD but has more mindshare than FreeBSD.
Much more important than mindshare is market share. Let's see: Among supercomputers (for example the Top500 list), Linux' market share is 100%. Not a joke: there is no single supercomputer running an OS other than Linux on the list of the largest 500 publicly known ones. Among servers, there are de-facto only two OSes: Linux and Windows. We can argue whether the split between them is 70:30, 60:40, or 80:20, and which direction it is (I think it is 80% Linux, 20% Windows), but all other server OSes (like FreeBSD, AIX, zOS, HP-UX, NonStop, Solaris...) are at the percent level or below.

Among desktop users, the Linux marketshare is probably about 2% (the remainder is Windows and MacOS). And desktop OSes are rapidly vanishing compared to mobile OSes (iOS, Android, ...). You are upset that the FreeBSD market share on the desktop is tiny compared to Linux. You are overlooking that it is a tiny market share of a vanishingly small addressable market. Even if FreeBSD managed to split the FOSS desktop market 50:50 with Linux, it would still be irrelevant at the big scale.

Face it: Only a few crazy hobbyists want to run FreeBSD on the desktop. And it makes a fun hobby, because it is so charmingly difficult. I see it as something like sport sailing (small sailboats): Not a practical means of transportation, but a great way to to spend every evening tinkering with a project, and then going really fast in circles on the weekend, while getting soaking wet and bitterly cold.

NO, FreeBSD is NOT mainly for that. That's where it's mainly being used, but that's not really what it's for.
Sorry to be blunt: You have no idea what FreeBSD is for. And your opinion of what it should be is irrelevant.
To be honest: I also have no idea what FreeBSD is for. I find that it is very useful for what I like to use it for (a small server). I don't try to use it for something that it would predictably be bad at.

Now, you are perfectly free to ask the people who set the direction of FreeBSD what it is intended for (Kirk, Justin, George, ...). While I've talked to quite a few of them, I've never asked such a dumb question.

Fighting for the desktop in 2021 is a fool's errand. The desktop is disappearing. The predominant mode of computer use for the vast majority of humanity is the mobile phone.
THIS. You get it. Desktops (including laptops) have a shrinking share of machines for using information. And people who install/configure/maintain their own desktops are a tiny fraction. Nearly everyone uses a computer as an appliance: You buy it at a store, it has a working OS on it, it gets upgraded (today that's nearly completely automatic), and there is no need to make decisions. And they work exceedingly well, with very little effort.
 
Last edited:

Argentum

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 236
Messages: 506

There are many different users of computers. FreeBSD serves a certain set of users really well ... for example the NetApp, Juniper and NetFlix set. It serves another set of users pretty well (server users), although there the numbers are tiny compared to Linux. You correctly point out that judging by the user response, FreeBSD doesn't serve desktop users very much. OK, that's a fact.
Agree, but not completely. I think I am one example of a rare case who thinks FreeBSD desktop is a best possible solution. I have a windows machine, but do not want or like to use it. The question here its not only GUI, but also the OS behind it, ZFS, etc. Actually, GUI-s are not FreeBSD. I have several GUI-s installed on the same machine for different moods - MATE, KDE Plasma5 and Xfce. But using GUI does not mean using the OS (at least for me) and this is where Windows and many Linux distros fail. Many people just do not use the OS, but only GUI and some desktop applications. Web browser for example. My Firefox and Chromium are working very well on this FreeBSD machine, also my Thunderbird and other desktop applications I am using. Another story is, what applications are availabe...
 

vigole

Daemon

Reaction score: 1,418
Messages: 1,243

Those terrible "cloud DRM" things should only ever be run in a VM. Even on Windows.
This attitude is why Linux is younger than FreeBSD but has more mindshare than FreeBSD.
DRM itself is the problem. The solution is to get rid of DRM, not to enable it. Therefore I agree with kpedersen, It belongs to VM.

Most modern users don't know [...]
Could you please, define the "Modern User"? Anyway, I'm anti-modernity, thus you can completely ignore my question.
 

Snurg

Daemon

Reaction score: 589
Messages: 1,349

In addition to what Argentum said: I hate DM's, they are just annoying.
I mean, I only slap my personal fvwm config files over xorg install and I am ready to go.
No annoying icons, bars, blinking stuff, animations and all that crap which normies like.

(You know, I am just a incurable nerdy ADHD retard. And I get the more aggro the more useless fancy stuff I am forced to see/bear. Modern Windows, MacOS and DEs are unbearable for me just because of that. Sorry...)
 

matt_k

Member

Reaction score: 72
Messages: 72

I feel like a naysayer, but I still think, that making FreeBSD more "user friendly" is trying just to solve a problem that does not exist. FreeBSD is very user friendly, by being simple and well-documented. It is not a point-and-click type of OS and that's precisely the point. There are enough *buntu clones already, I don't see any point in making another one by introducing Fury/GhostBSD.
 

vigole

Daemon

Reaction score: 1,418
Messages: 1,243

On usage statistics, i.e. (Linux > FreeBSD):
A group of people love to ask this question: why Linux went up, and FreeBSD didn't, 80s I suppose!
Then, there's another group, trying to rationalise the situation. I've heard the stories. court, UNIX, phone number, etc.
I prefer to go with Black Swan theory (Nicholas Taleb). I think Linux happened, because things happen. Random things happen. A mini/semi version of Black Swan.
 

Snurg

Daemon

Reaction score: 589
Messages: 1,349

FreeBSD is very user friendly, by being simple and well-documented. It is not a point-and-click type of OS and that's precisely the point.
I recently again used Linux (Debian) for a longer while for my desktop, because of its hibernate capability.
But it is not at all user friendly... systemd and the general mess... well my masochism has some limits.

What I just don't understand is why the guys don't make good postinstallers for FreeBSD that make it easy for casual users to set up a working office or multimedia box in a snap.
Why do they have to name/market an install batch for some DE as a something (for the ignorant) apparently completely independent "OS"?
So many examples, from PC-BSD to GhostBSD or whatever.
I just don't understand it, this is foreign to me.
 

Argentum

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 236
Messages: 506

What I just don't understand is why the guys don't make good postinstallers for FreeBSD that make it easy for casual users to set up a working office or multimedia box in a snap.
Why do they have to name/market an install batch for some DE as a something (for the ignorant) apparently completely independent "OS"?
This is an interesting question because there are no such 'guys' who can answer this. Many people have done a great job developing different parts of this Operating System, but obviously they have no resources and maybe even skills to work on (yet)another Window Manager. Different WM communities have also done a great job, but they are not directly linked to the FreeBSD project.

Personally I think that it is better to have good building blocks (read OS, WM, browser, etc.), rather than everything glued together and forced on user (like in Windows). I think this is the weakest and most annoying point in Windows that OS is inseparable of User Interface. I like the freedom that I can select the UI I like, but not to be married with it.
 

Argentum

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 236
Messages: 506

On usage statistics, i.e. (Linux > FreeBSD):
A group of people love to ask this question: why Linux went up, and FreeBSD didn't, 80s I suppose!
Then, there's another group, trying to rationalise the situation. I've heard the stories. court, UNIX, phone number, etc.
I prefer to go with Black Swan theory (Nicholas Taleb). I think Linux happened, because things happen. Random things happen. A mini/semi version of Black Swan.
To be correct, Linux did not start on 80's, but (according to Wikipedia) on 1991. Personally I installed my first public Internet server on 1995 and my first attempt was on Linux. It was a complete crap! Fortunately I understood within a week that I should remove the Linux and install everything on FreeBSD.

But why did I install the Linux first? Just because I got the installation media from somewhere. Why did I move to FreeBSD then? Because I had UNIX and BSD experience almost 10 years by then. But I think most people did not have any UNIX experience before and when they landed on Linux, they just stayed there. They had no comparison.
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,280
Messages: 4,262

The predominant mode of computer use for the vast majority of humanity is the mobile phone.
This is truth.
why Linux went up, and FreeBSD didn't
Most Linux' distros target the average user. FreeBSD does not target the average user. There are far more average users today.

why the guys don't make good postinstallers for FreeBSD that make it easy for casual users
1) It takes developers away from work that needs to be done on the core system.
2) Casual users are not FreeBSD's prime target.

Nobody complains about Amazon, IBM, Microsoft servers and Oracle not making their machines and software easier for the casual user.
 

wolffnx

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 230
Messages: 675

What I just don't understand is why the guys don't make good postinstallers for FreeBSD that make it easy for casual users to set up a working office or multimedia box in a snap.
Why do they have to name/market an install batch for some DE as a something (for the ignorant) apparently completely independent "OS"?
So many examples, from PC-BSD to GhostBSD or whatever.
I just don't understand it, this is foreign to me.
because dont need to, besides if the instalacion was for a desktop user o server is just fine

fbsd (in my personal opinion)
follow the KISS ideology
in times where everything its become the oposite of that
and everything works as expected
and that will not change for follow the tendencies,the sheeps..etc

you have a machine and use a local operating system,nothing more
and expect that FreeBSD dont change that actitude
 

A. D. Sharpe Sr.

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 109

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.


I've been a BSD user since the late 1990s, so I know the general makeup of the community. The fact remains that the community vehemently rejects the mere mention of changes that improve the usability of the system as a desktop OS, as this very forum thread has already proven.
 

A. D. Sharpe Sr.

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 109

Incredible. It's like you've done absolutely no research on the situation. Do you even bother to challenge your assumptions? Or why things are the way they are?
Actually, I've been a FBSD user since the late 1990s. I've literally watched it happen. These aren't assumptions, & I already know why things are the way they are.
 

A. D. Sharpe Sr.

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 109

FreeBSD has apparently been "falling behind" for decades and yet... well, it is still pretty darn competitive isn't it? Otherwise you wouldn't even be on these forums.
Actually, it's not very competitive. I'm on these forums to address issues. When I first started with FreeBSD, it WAS competitive. That was long before I joined the forum. I'm definitely not here as much as I used to be.
All of that effort that Linux has made to be user friendly has made such a little dent in the consumer desktop market. If those efforts were spent elsewhere, Linux would be vastly superior to FreeBSD.
It still has made a much larger dent on the desktop than FreeBSD has. And honestly, the fact that FreeBSD is now importing Linux code means that Linux has already surpassed FreeBSD. Its a harsh reality, but it's reality all the same.
Twiddling with desktop themes and making fun little installers is not a good investment in time. Especially when they don't improve the OS in any meaningful way. The fact that these forks like TrueOS, FuryBSD, DesktopBSD and others consistently seem to fail as projects should start to become good evidence for this.
The majority of the Linux community doesn't do that. Additionally, each of those projects failed for different reasons -none of which have anything to do with desktops & themes. Nice try, though.
iPhones are younger than Linux and have more mindshare. That doesn't make them something that Linux should aspire to be. And when Linux does inevitably go that route (mobile and cloud), FreeBSD will always be available to you as a stable sane platform to fall back on to get some work done.
The Linux kernel is already competing in that space & is actually doing very well -or have you not ever heard of Android?
Don't get me wrong though, FreeBSD isn't perfect. The project needs more skilled developers to work on drivers for new hardware. Unfortunately the OS is tied to physical metal which needs to be kept up to date. Those kinds of developer are also *much* harder to find than those who can customise UIs. I also believe this skillset is shrinking in the industry as people are losing touch with the lower levels of operating systems. This is the #1 threat to all free operating systems (and interestingly, looking at OpenBSD it seems it isn't even tied to popularity or userbase. They do very well even with a much smaller userbase than FreeBSD.)
Honestly, that's a very lazy argument. There seems to be no shortage of such individuals to work on the Linux kernel. The fact of the matter is that such people are actively choosing to work on various aspects of Linux instead of various aspects of FreeBSD. And though many companies would rather choose BSD-licensed code over GPL-licensed code, the majority of them are STILL choosing to improve the conditions of the Linux community, rather than improve the conditions of any of the BSD communities.
 

A. D. Sharpe Sr.

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 109

There are many different users of computers. FreeBSD serves a certain set of users really well ... for example the NetApp, Juniper and NetFlix set. It serves another set of users pretty well (server users), although there the numbers are tiny compared to Linux. You correctly point out that judging by the user response, FreeBSD doesn't serve desktop users very much. OK, that's a fact.
That's the point. There're desktop users asking to be better supported by FBSD & before the developers can even say anything, the community itself is rejecting them. None of the BSD communities are in any position to reject users.
You say this as if it were a bad thing. Maybe it is a good thing? Maybe FreeBSD is not interesting in serving the desktop?
If that were true, then there wouldn't be desktop software in ports, nor would there be desktop packages. Additionally, the core team wouldn't be importing Linux code into the repository.
Much more important than mindshare is market share. Let's see: Among supercomputers (for example the Top500 list), Linux' market share is 100%. Not a joke: there is no single supercomputer running an OS other than Unix on the list of the largest 500 publicly known ones. Among servers, there are de-facto only two OSes: Linux and Windows. We can argue whether the split between them is 70:30, 60:40, or 80:20, and which direction it is (I think it is 80% Linux, 20% Windows), but all other server OSes (like FreeBSD, AIX, zOS, HP-UX, NonStop, Solaris...) are at the percent level or below.
You can't get marketshare without mindshare. There's a reason that FBSD isn't present in the HPC market -no one wants to port any of the necessary software to FBSD. In fact, Plan9 has better support on supercomputers than FBSD. Perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.
Among desktop users, the Linux marketshare is probably about 2% (the remainder is Windows and MacOS). And desktop OSes are rapidly vanishing compared to mobile OSes (iOS, Android, ...). You are upset that the FreeBSD market share on the desktop is tiny compared to Linux. You are overlooking that it is a tiny market share of a vanishingly small addressable market. Even if FreeBSD managed to split the FOSS desktop market 50:50 with Linux, it would still be irrelevant at the big scale.
Desktop OSes aren't going anywhere. Markets can only hold 3 leaders. The desktop is no different. Right now, those 3 leaders are Windows, Mac, & Linux. There aren't many mobile OSes, & their growth is purely in the mobile space. Mobile OSes aren't replacing desktop OSes. Additionally, it's entirely possible for FBSD to get about 2% of the market. It's not even the developers rejecting the desktop.
Face it: Only a few crazy hobbyists want to run FreeBSD on the desktop. And it makes a fun hobby, because it is so charmingly difficult. I see it as something like sport sailing (small sailboats): Not a practical means of transportation, but a great way to to spend every evening tinkering with a project, and then going really fast in circles on the weekend, while getting soaking wet and bitterly cold.
That's false. A person isn't crazy for using a system on the desktop when there are desktop packages that are officially distributed. Try again.
Sorry to be blunt: You have no idea what FreeBSD is for. And your opinion of what it should be is irrelevant.
To be honest: I also have no idea what FreeBSD is for. I find that it is very useful for what I like to use it for (a small server). I don't try to use it for something that it would predictably be bad at.
I'm going to be just as blunt as you are. Unless you started using FBSD before 1997, then YOU have no idea of what it's for. Mind you, that's when I started using it, but I became aware of it in 1995. That's 2 years after it was first released. As for my opinion of what it's for, my opinion is that there should be more support for what it claims to offer -which is true of ANY product. Times are changing. Anything that can't adapt to change is destined to die off.
Now, you are perfectly free to ask the people who set the direction of FreeBSD what it is intended for (Kirk, Justin, George, ...). While I've talked to quite a few of them, I've never asked such a dumb question.
Labeling a question as dumb just because you disagree with it is intellectually dishonest, & most certainly ignorant.
THIS. You get it. Desktops (including laptops) have a shrinking share of machines for using information. And people who install/configure/maintain their own desktops are a tiny fraction. Nearly everyone uses a computer as an appliance: You buy it at a store, it has a working OS on it, it gets upgraded (today that's nearly completely automatic), and there is no need to make decisions. And they work exceedingly well, with very little effort.
This argument is broken. Desktop computers can be bought with Linux pre-installed. This should be possible with FBSD, but the community is the problem. Likely, FBSD will be surpassed by GhostBSD.
 

A. D. Sharpe Sr.

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 109

DRM itself is the problem. The solution is to get rid of DRM, not to enable it. Therefore I agree with kpedersen, It belongs to VM.


Could you please, define the "Modern User"? Anyway, I'm anti-modernity, thus you can completely ignore my question.
Absolutely none of this has anything to do with the fact that desktop users would like to use FBSD as a desktop system, without having to fight the OS to do things that it can supposedly do. Also, modern users are users who aren't stuck in the 1970s, in terms of how to interact with computers.
 
Top