Just Installed, No WiFi

I would guess that KDE plasma is one of those LARGE packages (and several dependencies, that even on a powerful machine,will take a long time to compile. Some of the desktops, browsers, etc., will take several hours to compile, even on a fast machine with nvme drives. As astyle says, it is dependent upon how powerful your machine is. In many cases it's better to choose the package, but of course, there are often reasons for choosing the port.
 
ZFS filesystem version: 5 ..
libbe_init(“”) failed

Failed
I’m missing something?
You should skip the bectl commands. They only work for ZFS boot environments and you have UFS.

Just noticed it’s taking ages, (maybe downloading and compiling on my machine)
Installing packages is much faster than compiling ports. You only really need ports for your wireless driver, and could substitute packages for everything else. Case in point: you have already used packages to install the nano program. It's your choice.

Following up on T-Daemon's post, we still need to find out if your wireless driver ever finished compiling successfully. What output do you get from pkg info -E bwn-firmware-kmod ?
 
I would guess that KDE plasma is one of those LARGE packages (and several dependencies, that even on a powerful machine,will take a long time to compile. Some of the desktops, browsers, etc., will take several hours to compile, even on a fast machine with nvme drives. As astyle says, it is dependent upon how powerful your machine is. In many cases it's better to choose the package, but of course, there are often reasons for choosing the port.
www/kf5-khtml and www/qt5-webkit are the worst offenders in terms of compile time. The source tarballs are not that big (~20-30 MB), but on my rig (with a Ryzen 5 1400 3.4 GHz), each takes an hour and a half to compile (AFTER their dependencies are satisfied). Well, I do compile my ports with as many options enabled (beyond defaults) as possible, that's my use case. Having a decently fast connection helps (I top out at 430 KB/sec for downloading).
 
I’m missing something?

Installation to ZFS, which is the default when installing the operating system.

I'm curious, was installation to UFS a conscious choice?

For what it's worth, I should recommend starting afresh. Install to ZFS; it's almost guaranteed to save you future pain.
 

SirDice

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Installation to ZFS, which is the default when installing the operating system.
It's not. FreeBSD lets you choose, UFS or ZFS, neither are considered the default. It's perfectly fine to pick UFS.

Install to ZFS; it's almost guaranteed to save you future pain.
Not necessarily. It can also make your life more complicated. If you don't know how to deal with a problem ZFS isn't going to help with that. Careful planning and understanding what you're doing is. Yes, snapshots are useful, boot environments too. But neither are going to help you understand the issues any better.
 
It's not. FreeBSD lets you choose, UFS or ZFS, neither are considered the default.

I mean, ZFS is pre-selected. (I have never seen UFS pre-selected with any recent installer.)

In the absence of boot environments, it can be much more difficult to recover from shooting oneself in the foot. Painful recoveries detract from, diminish, opportunities to learn.
 
I'd actually recommend ZFS, the rollback and bectl are well-documented, they do make it easy to recover from mistakes if you bother to learn them. With UFS, the same functionality and pathways to undoing mistakes - good luck finguring THAT out.
 
I'm going to add there's not much to learn with bectl (or beadm). I forget who already gave you the commands, but if it's not on page one, Mike Lucas gives a good summary (using beadm) at https://mwl.io/archives/2363

A few people, including me, (but only once) had trouble deleting a snapshot with bectl and had to use beadm, but I'd say most of the time, for the simple use of backing up before an update, there's no substantial difference, save that bectl is part of the base system and beadm a package.
 
… if it's not on page one, …

<https://forums.FreeBSD.org/threads/82319/post-535005> offered an example.

Two commands, then restart the OS.

I habitually do this before any upgrade.

A terse name that begins with (or includes) the date will help to decide which named boot environment to choose, if it becomes necessary to boot something other than the most recent environment.

Not pictured in the FreeBSD Handbook:

Boot Environments

8. boot environments.png

– option 8 in the loader menu for FreeBSD 13.⋯.

Using a loader menu to activate a boot environment

A screenshot of the loader menu in OmniOS CE (2017):

BootEnv.png


Compared to OmniOS and some other BSD-based operating systems, FreeBSD does not yet have the luxury of a shortlist of boot environments.

Instead, it's necessary to key 2

1633502524633.png


– sometimes repeatedly, until the required environment is listed as active.

There can be a sense of disorder in response to the key presses, so pay close attention to each name that appears on the line.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to add there's not much to learn with bectl (or beadm). I forget who already gave you the commands, but if it's not on page one, Mike Lucas gives a good summary (using beadm) at https://mwl.io/archives/2363

A few people, including me, (but only once) had trouble deleting a snapshot with bectl and had to use beadm, but I'd say most of the time, for the simple use of backing up before an update, there's no substantial difference, save that bectl is part of the base system and beadm a package.
Y'know, even if bectl is simple and does just a few things (but well), it still can take time to just soak in how powerful it is. Most people will say that a cable has two ends, but have a surprisingly hard time putting that into practice.
 
Top