FuryBSD - New FreeBSD Desktop OS

20-100-2fe said:
FreeBSD's installer is light years ahead of OpenBSD's and FreeBSD comes with a comprehensive and well-written documentation - not always quite up-to-date yet always helpful, at least as a good starting point. Plus the whole load of information in the forums.
Click to expand...

And yet compared to most Linux distributions, FreeBSD's installer is positively 1990s. Good or bad, a lot look at this and think, "What, am I installing a slackware distribution"...



20-100-2fe said:
This raises a series of "philosophical" questions:

- What brings together the people developing FreeBSD?
- What brings together the people using FreeBSD?
- What is the deepest, most fundamental reason for FreeBSD to exist, that makes it unique and irreplaceable?
- What does it mean for someone to give FreeBSD a try?
- What does that person get in return for her efforts, big or small, successful or not?
- Would that person get as much if her efforts were alleviated?
Click to expand...

1. I can't speak for developers, but I would think there are 3 major things:
a) Well documented.
b) Small kernel.
c) A truly free license.

2. I've been a FreeBSD user since it was 386BSD and the spin off thereafter. I want a system I can install what I want, how I want. Compared to Linux, you take what you're given by a distribution.
I place the scale of knowledge and perseverance required of a system this way (from highest to lowest):
- FreeBSD (and perhaps NetBSD)
- Linux
- Windows XX
- macOS

(Of course, I am only discussing desktop systems widely used; omitting Android, Solaris etc.)

So, the people who install FreeBSD don't mind a challenge and are quite happy to read a manual/handbook and ask questions. Hurdles are things to jump over, not throw a tantrum at.

People who install Linux are less inclined to want to read a manual. They want X installed with Y options. They don't want to choose too much. They are more "tech-savvy" than your average Windows users.

Windows users want even less to read a manual. They expect everything works. They expect malware and viruses, as well.

MacOS users just want to open the laptop lid and be instant desktop publishers and graphic designers. Manuals are things for bookshelves and dust gathering.

3. FreeBSD or any OS is not irreplaceable. Uniqueness is probably a harbinger of extinction.

4. See 2.

5. See 2.

6. See 2.


Finally, back on topic. Any expansion of FreeBSD's reach with a desktop version out of the box, is a good thing. The developers and backers should receive our support/kudos/bug reports and (when warranted) our displeasure.
 
mark_j said:
And yet compared to most Linux distributions, FreeBSD's installer is positively 1990s.
Click to expand...

The installer is what made me think FreeBSD was beyond my skill level in '98, which it was to ever get to a desktop. I found a fledgling FreeBSD flop that came with a desktop installed by default. Once I got to the desktop that's all I needed and could figure it out from there.

My sister works at a computer all day and freely admits she couldn't follow my tutorial to set one up.
 
mark_j said:
FreeBSD or any OS is not irreplaceable. Uniqueness is probably a harbinger of extinction.
Click to expand...

I should have added "at the time you make your choice".

At the time you chose your partner, he/she was unique and irreplaceable. If years later you came to a different conclusion and regretted your choice, it was then in very different conditions, both on your side and his/hers.

One thing I've noticed is the commitment of people involved in open source projects exceeds by far the material rewards they get. At work, they seldom use the software they contribute to, which is confined to a limited portion of their life. This also means that the real impact of the technical benefits they put forward when they talk about it is very limited too.

In such a context, it is clear that the reward for their commitment is mainly emotional. And because we are social animals, the highest emotional rewards we can get are those coming from our relationships.

This implies that an open source software is never chosen for strictly technical reasons, but chiefly for emotional and relational reasons.

More precisely, we choose a given open source OS because it connects us to people sharing values of the utmost importance to us.

Furthermore, values are the foundations on which our identity builds up, and our identity can only make sense in relationships, themselves supported in the long term by a shared vision - sometimes also called "mission", "spirituality" or "philosophy".

This is why the open source OS we choose is always unique and irreplaceable at the time of our choice. And if, later in time, we perceive a change in the values of its community, we'll feel orphaned and/or betrayed and we'll actively look for another alternative.

If we _really_ just needed a good technological commodity, we would certainly make an easier choice. Why would we care so much for a soulless digital tool?
 
Funny but I actually find the FreeBSD installer to be dead simple. I do UFS installs though so those are easy. Only thing I have to do that is extra is drop to a shell during install and cp /boot/loader.efi /mnt/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.efi. The lengthy part is configuring for a desktop. The OS install typically takes me less than 10 minutes.
 
For the installer, I will be very happy if there was a way to test hardware and have a report with information about compatibility.
For the desktop «out of the box», I always have an issue with TrueOS, GhostBSD and other because of hardware support lack.
My reaction was not «how can I find a way to install it despite this error»
I have no time, so I installed linux (I am not happy with that situation, but I need to produce on my laptop...)
For my servers, I am very happy with FreeBSD.
For me desktop OS out of the box need a previous step : comprehensive hardware rapport issue and tools to correct errors.

(For the story, I try GhostBSD and TrueOS on 2 laptops. Once need old NVidia support and the second is a MSI with bad EFI config for FreeBSD and a lot of «usupported» hardware).
I started a step by step guide in this forum for compatibility detection and I hope I will have more time in future to improve it...
 
This seems as if it will be a nice thing to test various hardware. Maybe it will become the next FreesBIE the one with the fluxbox desktop that was great for testing new hardware as a live CD.
 
JoshDW19 said:
Hey everybody,

I'm new to the FreeBSD forums and have read through the rules, so hopefully, I won't have any faux pas. If there's a better place to post this, please let me know or feel free to move it. I'd appreciate it greatly.

We hope that this effort will mean that users wanting a desktop experience can enjoy FreeBSD without having the Frankenstein's monster issue of additional layers of failure from custom utilities that are unsustainable to maintain. The test image is available for download from the website here.

If anyone has any questions, I'm happy to answer them, but I just wanted to try to get the word out there that there's a new FreeBSD Desktop in town.
Click to expand...

Wishing you luck in your effort to try FreeBSD by default for desktop, hopefully you'll succeed and not get lost like other desktop projects.


My question is, the FuryBSD test system a complete system? The desktop system is made for the end user and does not have to deal with the vulnerabilities that the system detects either by quarterly repositories or the latest current repositories ?
 
vermaden said:
Why not join GhostBSD or NomadBSD team? How your goals are different then their?
Click to expand...

Your efforts in your many guides should be compensated by default with a complete FreeBSD vanilla system with a graphical environment for the end user, and not die trying as projects (TrueOS-PCBSD) that ended up offering your software as an OpenRC integrated server for your new Trident and GhostBSD project far from the basics that arose for FreeBSD.

Sevendogsbsd said:
The OS install typically takes me less than 10 minutes.
Click to expand...

Currently the installation of FreeBSD with desktop environment is tortuous, and depending on the capacity of the machines are usually old a basic system takes about two days to install as a minimum because part of the software is in the port repositories and the compilation is tedious that harms the eyes.
 
Last edited:
teo said:
Wishing you luck in your effort to try FreeBSD by default for desktop, hopefully you'll succeed and not get lost like other desktop projects.


My question is, the FuryBSD test system a complete system? The desktop system is made for the end user and does not have to deal with the vulnerabilities that the system detects either by quarterly repositories or the latest current repositories ?
Click to expand...

We track FreeBSD quarterly repositories.
 
unitrunker said:
I feel like much of this could be done as a meta-port.

http://scratching.psybermonkey.net/2009/08/freebsd-how-to-use-meta-ports-to.html

This does not prevent someone from downloading an ISO for a complete install, but would complement that by allowing existing users of the base install to drop fury on top of base to give fury a test drive.
Click to expand...

All of the tools being developed are being turned into ports that can be brought into FreeBSD.
unitrunker said:
I feel like much of this could be done as a meta-port.

http://scratching.psybermonkey.net/2009/08/freebsd-how-to-use-meta-ports-to.html

This does not prevent someone from downloading an ISO for a complete install, but would complement that by allowing existing users of the base install to drop fury on top of base to give fury a test drive.
Click to expand...

The safer approach would be to provide the tools as individual ports. Then create a single port that installs a script to that can be run to bootstrap much like desktop installer. Otherwise you can lose the ability to customize which packages are on your system.
 
teo said:
Currently the installation of FreeBSD with desktop environment is tortuous, and depending on the capacity of the machines are usually old a basic system takes about two days to install as a minimum because part of the software is in the port repositories and the compilation is tedious that harms the eyes.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't describe it as "torturous " but I use packages and not ports. It takes about 10 minutes to install the OS and about 2 hours to configure everything. I do not use a desktop environment though so my configuration is very simple.
 
balanga said:
Not sure that this tutorial works any more as Arch Linux is a quickly changing target.
Click to expand...
Advantage FreeBSD.
balanga said:
The problem for most Linux users trying FreeBSD, is that they expect a GUI and are somewhat confused by a command prompt.
Click to expand...
Which is why I always say FreeBSD is a professional operating system for professionals and serious amateurs, not average users.
balanga said:
IMV it's probably better have a GUI bolted on for new users so that they can get used to FreeBSD and what it has to offer.
Click to expand...
No they won't. They'll get used to the point and click methodology and learn nothing. Just look at your average Linux and Window user as proof..

And not to mention this
balanga said:
but then there is problem of knowing which to chose, and each one has its own configuration and this abundance of choice leaves such a installation error prone.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that GUI environments are, in a way, off topic for FreeBSD because they have nothing to do with installing and running the operating system.
 
When you install freebsd for the first time you should know :
For the bootcode & partitioning :
=>man gpart
For the filesystems :
=>man newfs
=>man zpool
----------------------------------
It took me a while, and you can not expect everybody to know this immediately.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
No they won't. They'll get used to the point and click methodology and learn nothing. Just look at your average Linux and Window user as proof..
Click to expand...
Yes and we have coming on for two decades of this in the "Linux sphere" as rather compelling evidence.

Distributions such as Ubuntu undoubtedly brought people on board using that OS, the majority of which were migrants from Windows, of which the majority wanted a replacement for Windows which could do everything Windows does. Essentially a lot of dev work going into making things 'easy' for consumer type end users.

The Ubuntu developers in particular created their own flakey tools for GUI package installs and upgrades, their own init replacement and their own gnome desktop fork. All of their work was mostly based on hiding the command line, to mimic an OS like Windows (incidentally most of that is now gone).

The result was that you simply had the web awash with forums posts and "bug reports" containing "same problem", "me too!", "help!", looking for a quick fix - i.e. exactly what you see in various Windows user support channels. People deceived by an OS which supposedly didn't require use of the CLI anymore, found themselves up the proverbial creek without a paddle. The rest is history.

Does it need repeating yet again, when a gazillion Linux "products" already exist for this purpose...?
 
Yes, the rest is history. Ubuntu became popular and suddenly hardware and software manufacturers started paying attention to Linux. Mock it all you want, but in my arrogant opinion, both Linux and FreeBSD users owe Ubuntu a lot of thanks since many things developed for Linux can be made useful for FreeBSD users. Sorry, I get the Ubuntu hatred for those who feel it was a bad thing to lower the bar but I think that that lowering is what made hardware and software makers more conscious of Linux and is the reason that it's become so easy to use Linux on almost new hardware. (The BSDs are a bit behind there, but can also usually work on new hardware.)
 
Sevendogsbsd said:
I do not use a desktop environment though so my configuration is very simple.
Click to expand...
But here the topic is the implementation of a default extended FreeBSD vanilla system for desktop environment, which is currently a torture to install manually and takes more than a day to install and leave it on a basic system for daily use.
 
In the wiki page, I didn't find how to build usb bootable from linux.
Bash: 
sudo fdisk -l
#find you usb stick
mkfs.vfat /dev/XXX -I
dd if=[path to iso] of=/dev/XXX
 
drhowarddrfine said:
It should be noted that GUI environments are, in a way, off topic for FreeBSD because they have nothing to do with installing and running the operating system.
Click to expand...

And if they ever did bundle a GUI environment in base I'd be very disappointed in FreeBSD, but I'm sure that would never happen.

I think it's good to offer that kind of thing for those that want it, but one of the things I really like about FreeBSD is the fact base installation ends at a console. Then you set things up yourself from there. Makes the system more flexible and configurable.
 
Unfortunately, the iso image has no intel wifi support. Or I miss something ?
The hardware rapport is very usefull, but can we have the information «a driver exists» (and the level of support) ?
I a general maner, I stop trying to install freebsd (native/ghost/trident/...) because I didn't find a simple repeatable way to know wich driver I have to install.
I will retry FuryBSD with an ethernet connection (but how to pass this point with laptop without ethernet ?)
I realy like the concept (just launch freebsd tool instead of reinvent them).
 
Yeah, I also found it didn't support my Intel wireless card. These days, for better or worse, wireless support is almost essential in a live CD (IMHO). It did work fine with ethernet though.
 
I've just created a FuryBSD USB stick and am wondering where all the space went...

Code: 
root@Vbox:~/Downloads# gpart show da0
=>      3  2955503  da0  GPT  (7.3G) [CORRUPT]
        3       29    2  freebsd-boot  (15K)
       32       48       - free -  (24K)
       80     1600    1  efi  (800K)
     1680  2953826       - free -  (1.4G)

Is it possible boot from the iso image if copied to a partition on a hard disk?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top