• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

It is very tortuous install FreeBSD desktop

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phishfry

Son of Beastie

Thanks: 868
Messages: 2,648

I will drag the dead horse out here and point out what I would consider needed software for desktop usage:
NetworkManager
This Linux software is what is missing in FreeBSD desktop arena.

I recently setup an Sierra MC7700 LTE card on my FreeBSD laptop and manually creating an PPP.conf was a drag as was figuring out ddial.
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Thanks: 821
Messages: 2,618

Phishfry You are presuming NetworkManager is needed and there are no other equivalent or better resources. There are lots of network tools on FreeBSD, and all of the well known ones, and I'd bet most network admins couldn't care less about needing Network Manager. If it was that great, someone would have ported it, and no one has, so, no, I don't think anyone misses it.
 

hedwards

Active Member

Thanks: 21
Messages: 207

I look at it as a set of design and engineering principles that have been proven over time; not a hard set of defined standards.

What's happening with Linux (systemd's growth in particular) is a tightly-coupled scheme is exposing the Linux ecosystem to a big fat bundle of risk over the coming years. Falling for the siren song of convenience and the lure of standardisation isn't worth much when it is costly in the long run.
SystemD is a large part of why I'm back to FreeBSD. The other being that I didn't have to give up crashplan to return.

I've found the attitude of some of the Linux devs to be increasingly disturbing. The more I read about systemd the more concerned I became and then the dev announced that su needed to be glommed in there. IMHO, su is a good example of something that specifically needs to be separate from systemd and similar programs. The last thing you want is something that starts running on the system almost immediately and is responsible for things like starting any security programs you having control over privileges.

As far as the argument about desktop goes, I started using FreeBSD with version 4.2 and by that point the only real impediment to using it as an everyday OS was a lack of Flash and the limited number of available drivers. I seem to recall some other program being a bit of a problem as well, but that was it. These days things are even better.

For people who think that installing FreeBSD is "torturous" there's always PC-BSD, it's probably 99% FreeBSD with a nifty install program.
As for ZFS, I personally think that's a grossly exaggerated hype, particularly for desktop systems. And I avoid it like the pest and I don't trust it because it may run, yes, but a file system should be very mature before being used in production.
ZFS has been around for a decade and it's reliability is quite well known at this stage. What other OS are you wanting to use that's been actively developed for more than a decade?

Granted, I don't have my job on the line with ZFS, but at some point you do kind of have to draw the line. If the newer features aren't ones you're comfortable, you can tell ZFS to just run as an older version. Or has that changed, I haven't been using it in a while.
 

troublemaker

Member

Thanks: 3
Messages: 37

Speaking of desktops it's clear that Windows has several things that FreeBSD doesn't have. Linux does too. FreeBSD is clearly at disadvantage from this point of view, which honestly shouldn't be very surprising. To me the main point is the fact that people have interest, that people are willing to look more at FreeBSD on the desktop. In that sense I find comments like "FreeBSD is for the server" or "I only use the command line, no GUI" a bit concerning; the popularity on the desktop is essential for the popularity overall, and I personally think a popular system is a good thing. However, from threads like this I know that there are people with interest in a desktop FreeBSD, and that's positive.
It reminds me of Linux many years ago, when it was domain of hard core sysadmins and command liners. And then things started to change, simply because more casual users and users with different needs had interest.

A real desktop FreeBSD is probably the domain of PC-BSD, DesktopBSD and similar, and in that sense FreeBSD will probably always be a bit tortuous to install. But nothing prevents FreeBSD from getting some nice desktop applications and some configuration tools with a nice GUI. It's just a matter of time.
 

Beastie7

Well-Known Member

Thanks: 103
Messages: 311

It reminds me of Linux many years ago, when it was domain of hard core sysadmins and command liners.
And it still is, nothing really changed. Except for the Windowization (yeah, I made it up) of Linux.

Speaking of desktops it's clear that Windows has several things that FreeBSD doesn't have.
Which is why people will continue to use Windows (or OS X) for their respective purposes.

But nothing prevents FreeBSD from getting some nice desktop applications and some configuration tools with a nice GUI. It's just a matter of time.
That's a terrible oversimplification. Even Canonical isn't making any measurable gains in the market with Ubuntu (Touch).

the popularity on the desktop is essential for the popularity overall
You think Linux (as an ecosystem) is popular because of Canonicals' (failed) attempt at the desktop with Ubuntu? lol
 

OJ

Daemon

Thanks: 253
Messages: 1,038

Which is why people will continue to use Windows (or OS X) for their respective purposes.
I honestly don't think that people use MS-Windows for any reason that they are aware of. They buy a computer and to them that's one single thing. On this board people know what an OS is. In the wide world people don't know the difference between a browser and the internet. MS-Windows is commercially successful for one reason only - market monopoly techniques. It has nothing to do with the qualities of the software, although people like what they're used to. The bottom line is that the non-professional market (I include general office workers here) do not know that they even have a choice. Though of course they do know that they can always buy a Mac, and whatever that means to them is the only choice that they feel can be made.

You think Linux (as an ecosystem) is popular because of Canonicals' (failed) attempt at the desktop with Ubuntu? lol
Lol indeed. Again, you're not going to get market share from non-market techniques. I wish it were otherwise. . . . or perhaps I don't. I like the fact that FreeBSD (and others) are developed according to the needs and whims of more OS oriented people. In fact I hope FreeBSD never gets popular. (Yes, I'm selfish.)
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Thanks: 821
Messages: 2,618

troublemaker Your quest to make FreeBSD popular among the masses is yours. Go for it if you wish but please start your own forum or go to the PC-BSD board for that. Your audience here is the wrong one. This is a board for professionals and serious hobbyists who generally share little interest in what you speak of and will provide little to no support. You're speaking into the wind.
 

troublemaker

Member

Thanks: 3
Messages: 37

This is a conjecture, what do you have to back it up?
Well, if you define popularity of a system in terms of machines running it, and user knowing it and using it, I'm afraid it's not just a conjecture

And it still is, nothing really changed. Except for the Windowization (yeah, I made it up) of Linux.
I disagree. Maybe they still are a majority, but much less than many years ago. And the system is quite usable by less skilled users. Look for example at all the public institutions that replaced Windows.
And I agree with OJ: big part of it is just that people use what they find.

That's a terrible oversimplification. Even Canonical isn't making any measurable gains in the market with Ubuntu (Touch).

You think Linux (as an ecosystem) is popular because of Canonicals' (failed) attempt at the desktop with Ubuntu? lol
I'm not sure why you are so focused on Canonical. No, I just think that part of a popularity is psychological (marketing or whatever), but part of it is user friendliness, mainly nice interface and good hardware and software support.

troublemaker Your quest to make FreeBSD popular among the masses is yours. Go for it if you wish but please start your own forum or go to the PC-BSD board for that. Your audience here is the wrong one. This is a board for professionals and serious hobbyists who generally share little interest in what you speak of and will provide little to no support. You're speaking into the wind.
Well, if I'm still here it's actually because I see more than just little interest. And it's not just about popularity per se, it's about being able to do things I want and I like. And that comes with popularity.
Besides, I really don't understand why anyone would be against it. There is only to gain.
By the way: if PC-BSD becomes popular I'm not sure FreeBSD will be unaffected
 

Beastie7

Well-Known Member

Thanks: 103
Messages: 311

You're conflating two different markets that aren't interdependent. I highlighted Canonicals efforts because Ubuntu was their attempt at competing in the consumer market with Apple and Microsoft (kind-of); efforts (that failed) which had no influence as to why Linux is popular in the first place. FreeBSD, GNU/Linux, Windows, OS X are all "popular" in their respective markets; due to their specific focus and targeted audience.

Conspiracy aside, Windows is popular simply because Microsoft was the first to exploit the horizontal model of software distribution on a commodity platform (x86), and their Enterprise focus. <--- This is the exact reason why GNU/Linux is popular. (ie RedHat or argueably, Debian); which contradicts your "popular on the desktop, popularity for all" false dichotomy.

I don't think you've been paying attention.
 

troublemaker

Member

Thanks: 3
Messages: 37

Conspiracy aside, Windows is popular simply because Microsoft was the first to exploit the horizontal model of software distribution on a commodity platform (x86), and their Enterprise focus. <--- This is the exact reason why GNU/Linux is popular. (ie RedHat or argueably, Debian); which contradicts your "popular on the desktop, popularity for all" false dichotomy.

I don't think you've been paying attention.
Okay, I am afraid this discussion is not going anywhere nice, so I will answer this and then I will stop.
I am afraid I have to remind what I wrote: the popularity on the desktop is essential for the popularity overall. Which doesn't mean "popular on the desktop, popularity for all", but "popularity for all, popular on the desktop".

Check now who hasn't been paying attention.
 

Beastie7

Well-Known Member

Thanks: 103
Messages: 311

Okay, I am afraid this discussion is not going anywhere nice, so I will answer this and then I will stop.
I am afraid I have to remind what I wrote: the popularity on the desktop is essential for the popularity overall. Which doesn't mean "popular on the desktop, popularity for all", but "popularity for all, popular on the desktop".

Check now who hasn't been paying attention.
To quote drhowarddrfine

Your quest to make FreeBSD popular among the masses is yours. Go for it if you wish but please start your own forum or go to the PC-BSD board for that. Your audience here is the wrong one. This is a board for professionals and serious hobbyists who generally share little interest in what you speak of and will provide little to no support. You're speaking into the wind.
I recommend taking your conjecture over to the PC-BSD forums. Your drivel and bashing of FreeBSD is really unwarranted.
 

Oko

Daemon

Thanks: 754
Messages: 1,620

troublemaker Your quest to make FreeBSD popular among the masses is yours. Go for it if you wish but please start your own forum or go to the PC-BSD board for that. Your audience here is the wrong one. This is a board for professionals and serious hobbyists who generally share little interest in what you speak of and will provide little to no support. You're speaking into the wind.
+1 to end this thread with this wonderful post of Mr. drhowarddrfine
 

teo

Well-Known Member

Thanks: 8
Messages: 388

Is that it is inadmissible, the selfishness of some people who defends the system only for servers, and it shields itself in other systems for using applications of graphical desktop, without caring the future of FreeBSD, which today with the service of servers does not reach for your finance, due to their low market share.

In one of my comments at first I expressed it. PC-BSD is an insufficient project of many years and has no support for architecture of 32 bits. Please, do not follow in the old rhetoric only for servers, and appoint to other systems of closed-source for the use of applications in graphical desktop, even Linux becomes corrupted with its systemd.

Nowadays, operating systems have several functions, not just for servers, are also for tablets, for devices from mobile phones, video games console, this is modern technology that faces all the challenges, the centrist egotism only to servers is causing his big losses to the FreeBSD defunding, with the passing of time is more weak, due to their low market share. It may evolve the graphical desktop in standard way, just as they Debian with its derivatives of the hand.
 

scottro

Daemon

Thanks: 395
Messages: 1,178

Well, there's GhostBSD, which works with 32 bit, I think.
But honestly....if you want an easy to use desktop, you're better off with Linux. (Though if you went to some of their forums and criticized, they'd say, Leave, we don't want you--you're getting treated more nicely here than you would be on some Linux forums.)

For my needs--browsing, terminals, video stuff....once I do the 6 minutes or so to install FreeBSD, I do pkg install xorg-server, a driver for the video, input device drivers, mplayer and some other stuff and I'm done. Actually easier than Fedora, where one needs to add an extra repo to get some codecs.

What losses of funding are you discussing? Please be more specific.

So, who gets funding due to their great desktop support? Fedora? They get it from RedHat--that 2 percent market share--that's for all the Linux versions--isn't getting funding. RH gets it from its servers. Ubuntu gets it from Mr. Shuttleworth.

Linux's desktop support is useful if one wants to avoid Windows or Mac, but even with Lady Gaga saying she uses Ubuntu, has such a small desktop share, that many vendors pay NO attention to whether their machine works with Linux. Complain to Amazon video that your Linux won't properly play a video and you'll be told they don't support Linux.

So, perhaps FreeBSD and other BSDs will fall by the wayside. Perhaps, Linux's gradual swing towards being user friendly will so alienate the ones who use it commercially, system administrators, that within 5 years, it will be almost dead. Perhaps some other system will be developed that puts them all to shame.

TL;DR Linux's easier to use desktop isn't getting it very much commercial support, it has an almost non-existent desktop share, less than 2 or 3 percent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top