Many people question, because FreeBSD stayed in the past and not evolved?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

teo

Greetings community


I have no desire to enter into polemics. Many people question, because FreeBSD stayed in the past and not evolved to graphical desktop environment by default? They know the history of FreeBSD and its goal is focused on servers, although you can install in text mode for graphical desktop. For graphical desktop environment is PC-BSD or GhostBSD which is based on FreeBSD? [FONT=verdana]Only are projects, and PC-BSD coming since 2006 has no architecture for machines of 32 bits. I like this cute system, and I would like that the installation spreads over defect to graphical environment of desktop. :)[/FONT]
 
teo said:
Greetings community


I have no desire to enter into polemics.
Click to expand...
Me either, that sounds horrible.
teo said:
Many people question, because FreeBSD stayed in the past and not evolved to graphical desktop environment by default? They know the history of FreeBSD and its goal is focused on servers, although you can install in text mode for graphical desktop. For graphical desktop environment is PC-BSD or GhostBSD which is based on FreeBSD? [FONT=verdana]Only are projects, and PC-BSD coming since 2006 has no architecture for machines of 32 bits. I like this cute system, and I would like that the installation spreads over defect to graphical environment of desktop. :)[/FONT]
Click to expand...
I'm really sorry but I'm having a hard time understanding what your asking/saying. Are you saying you would like the desktop experience on FreeBSD to be better?
 
Graphical environments can only provide two things. One, a prettier interface to a text input, which won't do you any good if you are on a server without a graphics card or connecting over the 'net, and 2) a limited interface using point and click cause it can't provide all the possible options available with plain text.

So a graphical environment, as you point out, is a step backward and a disadvantage in every way. It makes no sense to do so but most of these suggestions are made by Windows users and Linux users who only use the desktop as a Windows replacement and not in a professional environment such as Netflix who uses FreeBSD for video distribution and WhatsApp and a multitude of others.
 
protocelt said:
Are you saying you would like the desktop experience on FreeBSD to be better?
Click to expand...
No, it is in general, read the item above. Many people question including systems engineers, programmers and technicians from other systems, because FreeBSD stayed in the past and not evolved to graphical desktop environment by default?

They know the history of FreeBSD and its goal is focused on servers, although you can install in text mode for graphical desktop.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
teo said:
[FONT=verdana]No, it is in general, read the item above. Many people question including systems engineers, programmers and technicians, because FreeBSD stayed in the past and not evolved to graphical desktop environment by default?

They know the history of FreeBSD and its goal is focused on servers, although you can install in text mode for graphical desktop.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

What is the actual question here? Are you using some sort of automatic translator?
 
What's so hard about # pkg install <your favourite desktop environment>? I hope that FreeBSD continues to improve as a desktop OS, but prefer only the essentials in the base OS.
 
IMO as non computer educated person is that FreeBSD is not behind others. What is wrong if you install your favorite desktop environment as jrm wrote? For me is plus because if system works and I have a problem with installing GNOME for example I can use links and post a question on FreeBSD Forum or use Alpine (I have just one computer)?
 
X11 and the related software has been classified as third party software since day one in FreeBSD and the situation has stayed that way. The biggest reason is probably the promise of "stable ABI" that FreeBSD makes. It would be a huge headache to have X11 in the base system and try keep it up to date with security patches and at the same try to keep the ABI compatibility intact when there are dozens if not hundreds shared libraries with ABIs that may change as a result of updates. The same reasoning is behind the recent "stripping down" of the base system with BIND replaced with something simpler, Unbound namely and other similar replacements are planned to further harden the separation between the base system and third party applications.

Seriously, lack of X11 in the base system is not a sign of lack of progress if you really think about it. Compared to the average Linux distribution FreeBSD isn't doing anything very different because X11 is installed as a set of binary packages on both systems. The only difference is that most Linux distros default to installing it and plain FreeBSD does not. Also the separation of the GUI parts from the console enviroment is there in Linux as well but it's less obvious than on FreeBSD.
 
When I comment to them of FreeBSD, the experts in systems, engineers, developers, programmers and technicians, they say that FreeBSD stayed in the past, limiting itself for defect only for servant and not a graphical desktop environment by default.
 
Some might argue (myself included) that Windows servers have begun 'evolving' towards no graphical desktop environment.
i.e. Windows 2008 and 2012 core installation option (no GUI)
I have been running FreeBSD since release 5 as my home router and have never needed nor desired a GUI for it.

I feel that FreeBSD should remain as it has always been... a lean mean and DIY operating system
 
Dear teo,
sometimes I think it is the other way around. Hiding functions in obsure sub-sub menus or so generates new business for trainings, books and other literature. It generates some need for certified consultants who just know better about the strangeness of the current GUI. And with the next release it is time to get brainwashed and to learn something totally different for almost the same functionality. The GUI-only method is useful to bind customers to some software products as well. Just a clever marketing has achieved that is GUI-only approach is perceived as modern by the majority of people.
 
As I see it FreeBSD has no clear vision with regards to desktop as a way to attract new users.

Some people say use pkg - it is so easy! I agree - the new pkg is great. But for some reason some essential packages are missing useful features. For example, official packages for mplayer and ffmpeg have VDPAU/VAAPI turned off. Why? Kodi/xbmc has them enabled and nobody died from it. Missing features mean I have to build some stuff as ports with tweaked settings.

Now, some people will say - don't mix packages and ports unless you are an expert. I agree - I had more mysterious crashes when mixing and almost no crashes if I stay with prebuilt packages. So, in order to have my settings and be stable I need to build everything as ports. poudriere is a great tool for that, but requires a powerful machine and some efforts and time from the user.

Now imagine a newbie who wants to try FreeBSD. Presented with the above he/she will run back to the cozy Linux - where there is no need to build anything since prebuilt packages contain all necessary parts.

Now some people will say that tweaking ports is good since it allows to build a nicely tuned slimmed-down system. True. Then they put ZFS - a known resource hog - on such a system. Funny. This is btw why PC-BSD with ZFS-only policy is not that attractive in my eyes. That and the fact they always try to (re)invent their own things and stray too far away from FreeBSD. GhostBSD looks nicer but badly needs more hands.

Why it is so difficult to comprehend that a good and easy desktop experience is a must to attract new people? Why not to enable all useful features in desktop-oriented packages? Maybe have 2 sets of packages - thin ones for those who won't use them anyways and fat ones for normal lazy people like me?
 
Dear teo,

If I were not to understand your posted text, I could ask you to provide a GUI for easy understanding. :)

I'm not going to do that, because I prefer CLI where ever it can be used.

Your way to ask here is not very straight forward. You talk about many people. I do not care how many they might be and who they are and what opinion they have, but stating "FreeBSD stayed in the past" is poorly informed.

But I do ask myself why you reference to that? How can it be, that you cannot make up your own mind and give those an appropriate answer?

There are enough questions in this forum as the like:

"The foundation should make a GUI for that."

Why don't you read all of them thoroughly. I think there is no need to add to this, it's already elaborated at length.
 
tankist02 said:
As I see it FreeBSD has no clear vision with regards to desktop as a way to attract new users.

Some people say use pkg - it is so easy! I agree - the new pkg is great. But for some reason some essential packages are missing useful features. For example, official packages for mplayer and ffmpeg have VDPAU/VAAPI turned off. Why? Kodi/xbmc has them enabled and nobody died from it. Missing features mean I have to build some stuff as ports with tweaked settings.

Now, some people will say - don't mix packages and ports unless you are an expert. I agree - I had more mysterious crashes when mixing and almost no crashes if I stay with prebuilt packages. So, in order to have my settings and be stable I need to build everything as ports. poudriere is a great tool for that, but requires a powerful machine and some efforts and time from the user.

Now imagine a newbie who wants to try FreeBSD. Presented with the above he/she will run back to the cozy Linux - where there is no need to build anything since prebuilt packages contain all necessary parts.

Now some people will say that tweaking ports is good since it allows to build a nicely tuned slimmed-down system. True. Then they put ZFS - a known resource hog - on such a system. Funny. This is btw why PC-BSD with ZFS-only policy is not that attractive in my eyes. That and the fact they always try to (re)invent their own things and stray too far away from FreeBSD. GhostBSD looks nicer but badly needs more hands.

Why it is so difficult to comprehend that a good and easy desktop experience is a must to attract new people? Why not to enable all useful features in desktop-oriented packages? Maybe have 2 sets of packages - thin ones for those who won't use them anyways and fat ones for normal lazy people like me?
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I tend to agree until the PC-BSD bit. PC-BSD isn't really straying away from FreeBSD, it's merely an abstraction around FreeBSD that is tuned towards desktop usage. I think this is a common huge misconception about the goals and purpose of PC-BSD.

Things like the PBI format, AppCafe, Life Preserver, Warden, etc are just extensive wrappers around existing FreeBSD technologies. So they aren't really reinventions.

Oh, and for lazy people? There's always Mac OS X. :)
 
Since similar questions come up so often, perhaps a FAQ post like the one below that we can reference would save everyone some time and effort.

Why doesn't FreeBSD include a desktop environment in the default installation?

Because we prefer a base system with only essential components included by default. In fact, we tend to be removing more components from the base system rather than adding them. This makes updating easier and allows for a more customized approach when building a system. Moreover, we maintain a stable ABI throughout the life of a major release. Too much time and energy would be wasted keeping X11 and the desktop environment up to date with security patches while maintaining ABI compatibility when there are dozens if not hundreds of shared libraries with ABIs that may change as a result of updates. If you want a desktop environment, you can either install third party software using the ports/packaging system or use a FreeBSD derivative like PC-BSD or GhostBSD.

kpa's explanation was good, so I used some of it. If you have any other suggestions, please speak up. I'll eventually post this in the Howtos and FAQs forum.
 
tankist02 said:
Now imagine a newbie who wants to try FreeBSD.
Click to expand...
FreeBSD never claimed to be an OS suitable for every "newbie". If a so called "newbie" is heading for painless Xorg they should not start with FreeBSD. If security is a concern a "newbie" should not even want to run any Xorg on any OS.

There is neither an obligation nor an obsession to use FreeBSD. Just choose what ever fits your needs.

for those who won't use them anyways and fat ones for normal lazy people like me?
Click to expand...

FreeBSD is not suitable for normal lazy people. It's for those who understand RTFM as a valuable hint and for those willing to accept a learning curve, which an advanced OS requires.
 
PC-BSD already fills that particular niche that is an easy (relatively) to use, easy to install system with a preconfigured applications that everyone expects to there. Why should FreeBSD even try to compete?
 
Honestly, the only things I see lacking are driver support (which isn't our fault), and a complete enterprise-grade hypervisor (which is being worked on). I'd say in the various areas of an operating system (storage sub-system, network stack, security, etc), FreeBSD is more modern and ahead of anything out there.

We just need a way to be more vocal ((ie. marketing) *cough* FreeBSD foundation *cough*) about what we have to offer. :)
 
teo said:
When I comment to them of FreeBSD, the experts in systems, engineers, developers, programmers and technicians, they say that FreeBSD stayed in the past, limiting itself for defect
Click to expand...
These people you talk to are no experts and should be avoided. They have no understanding of how FreeBSD works or is put together. kpa's first reply is great.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top