No GNOME or X running after install

[JohnE1]

I installed from Disk 1 but never got asked for Disk 2, and a lot of packages failed to be found. I rebooted from Disk 1, reran the install and selected ethernet installation from the ftp sites at freebsd.org. I selected GNOME 2.26 and Xserver system (I selected the package set for an Xwindows user). After hours and hours of downloading and installing (on a cable connection), it boots up to a console prompt. I was expecting it to boot-up to a GNOME login prompt.

I tried running startx, and also gdm. Neither work. Also, my user account can't su - to root, but that's another issue. (I guess a config file change to fix that behavior?) If I log out of my user account, I can login as root then.

I'm a newbie to FreeBSD, with experience installing Linux and Solaris. So far, this is not near as friendly as either Linux or Sun Solaris.

The documentation says Sysinstall can be re-run after an initial installation. I ran Sysinstall from the console prompt while booted up from the hard drive, and I've booted up again from Disk 1 and looked at Sysinstall again. I don't see how to upgrade from there, just Post-Install configuration, and initial base install all over again. I don't want to repeat the hours and hours of downloads just to end up right back where I'm at now.

Next, I revisited the documentation and it points me to finding and installing from packages or ports. There are entire sections, and even a chapter on installing X. Seems that should have been done already from my base installation selections. What am I doing wrong or missing?

As I'm writing this, I have pkg_add -r gnome2 running, and I'll follow the instructions to enable GNOME services on startup. Shouldn't the install have taken care of this already, based on my selection of an Xwindows user?

I appreciate any clarification, help, and advice, you guys and gals can offer.

Thanks in advance!!

John

 

[ale]

After hours and hours of downloading and installing (on a cable connection), it boots up to a console prompt. I was expecting it to boot-up to a GNOME login prompt.
I tried running startx, and also gdm. Neither work.

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x-install.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x-config.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x11-wm.html
http://www.freebsd.org/gnome/docs/faq2.html

Also, my user account can't su - to root, but that's another issue. (I guess a config file change to fix that behavior?) If I log out of my user account, I can login as root then.

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.html#SU-WHEEL-GROUP

I'm a newbie to FreeBSD, with experience installing Linux and Solaris. So far, this is not near as friendly as either Linux or Sun Solaris.

Maybe it's not (this is your opinion) but it's well documented.

Do not use sysinstall to install software or to upgrade.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/updating-upgrading.html

 

[DutchDaemon]

What's unfriendly about an OS not deciding to saddle you with Gnome, KDE, or any other window manager, but letting you decide? You can install any desktop environment you like, whenever you like. In my opinion, it doesn't get any friendlier than that.

Oh, and read The Handbook, unless you really don't want to put in any effort.

 

[JohnE1]

Thanks for the reply and the links, ale!

I'll take a look at them all and post back my solution or additional problems.

John

 

[JohnE1]

What's unfriendly about an OS not deciding to saddle you with Gnome, KDE, or any other window manager, but letting you decide? You can install any desktop environment you like, whenever you like. In my opinion, it doesn't get any friendlier than that.

Oh, and read The Handbook, unless you really don't want to put in any effort.

WOW!! What a rude reply. RTFM, is so old school. Why assume people don't read the documentation just because they ask for help?! I'm sure my answer IS documented somewhere, and ale pointed me where to look.

I dare say that most of the answers given in forums are documented, SOMEWHERE. Is that any reason not to stop after a reasonable effort and time investment and ask for help?

If you read my post, you'd see I have read many chapters of the Handbook, certainly the installation and post install chapters, and more. And you'd realize I have put in lots of effort.

FYI, I'm obviously very interested in learning more about FreeBSD, that's why I'm investing this time on it. That should give you an idea of the respect I have for Free BSD's place and the history of BSD and its variants.

It's a computer operating system, not a religion. Pleaae don't take my post so personally. It was not an attack on any person or developer. Quite the contrary. How else do developers know how their software products work in the field without trouble reports and feedback?

As for the software knowing what to do automatically, I stated that I selected the Category of packages for a GNOME desktop and X server (X windows) user. If that wasn't clear, then my bad communication.

To add to my post, I went through the packages and reviewed WHAT packages the category had selected. I made sure the GNOME session manager and GNOME desktop were included.

All I expected was what I selected to be installed and working!!

My opinion is based on the amount of time I've spent reading, downloading, installing, and the results I've gotten, etc.

It's a fact, not an opinion, that I have installed Linux and Solaris in less time than I've spent, so far, on FreeBSD. I had to start from scratch reading their documentation, too, so it's a FAIR comparison, and that's all it is, a comparison.

Don't attack the messenger because you don't like the message. I wasn't attacking you or anyone else here.

I wish I had a Mac here to see how their implementation of BSD compares to FreeBSD.

I enjoy the power and freedom of the *NIX operating systems, as you obviously do, too.

We're on the same side, DutchDaemon!

UNIX Forever -- MS DOS/Windows NEVER !!

 

[DutchDaemon]

FreeBSD has a steep learning curve, with the emphasis on learning. You'll come away with a much better understanding of Unix in general, as anyone who has been through the documentation and the installing will tell you. You'll even understand other Unices much better. What you call less user-friendly, most FreeBSD users would call required learning and valuable insight. RTFM is not quite old school around here; there is even a thread about the subject, and people get referred to documentation and manuals in almost every thread. That's because they're both excellent. FreeBSD will not take you by the hand and magically work without your input. You decide, every step of the way (tip: installing, configuring, and starting are three separate steps -- there are no magical buttons). Me rude? Sure, my rudeness is all over these forums and I get no thanks for it What is not all over these forums is generic tired MS/Windows-bashing. Now that is old school around here, because it's a complete waste of energy. Even Linus thinks so. It's "not a religion", right? Have fun with FreeBSD, you'll grow to like it and wonder why you didn't try it sooner.

 

[JohnE1]

[SOLVED] No GNOME or X running after install

I appreciate your encouragement to learn more about FreeBSD. One comment on the installation process: there are so many screens to go through, I was wishing for a Back or Previous button on them. The first time through Disk 1, I accidentally went on to the next screen and could not get back to the screen I missed; the only recovery was to start all over again.

Btw, my intention was to praise UNIX, not bash Windows, but guilty as charged. I admit, I hypocritically got religious... Look! I even just used the word, "praise." :r LOL

I think I found the answer to my install problem in the very first link ale sent me!

The first standout note states required disk space of 4 GB to install X. I never saw a message regarding insufficient diskspace during the install, but if X really uses 4 GB of fres space to install, then that's the problem.

 

[ale]

The first standout note states required disk space of 4 GB to install X. I never saw a message regarding insufficient diskspace during the install, but if X really uses 4 GB of fres space to install, then that's the problem.

All that space is needed maybe to build X, not to install it.
If you tried installing software with sysinstall, it will install from packages, which are already built.
Please, try to understand the differences between ports and packages in the 4th chapter of The FreeBSD Handbook.
And please, give your FreeBSD install more space if you want to enjoy it!

 

[JohnE1]

I'm going to backtrack and remove X, GNOME, Linux compatibility and anything else I think is not necessary; then try again with pkg_add. If X and GNOME still won't fit, then I'll put a text web browser on it.

Thanks for the info and help, guys!!

 

[aragon]

RTFM, is so old school.

No it is not. People spend days, weeks, and months writing, proofing, and translating documentation to HELP people like you, and the FreeBSD documentation is particularly good in my experience. The least you can do is read them, and when you get the response "RTFM", the least you can do is reread them.

The FreeBSD installer is notoriously confusing. It is being worked on by Randi Harper who might like your feedback.

 

[Beastie]

If X and GNOME still won't fit, then I'll put a text web browser on it.

It all depends on how well (i.e. space efficient) your partitioning scheme is, which in turn depends on your intended use of FreeBSD and your hardware specs (e.g. RAM & swap).
I don't know how much GNOME needs, but I'd say 4GB is well enough for FreeBSD, full Xorg, a lightweight WM/DE and a bunch of average desktop applications (web browser, media player, image viewer, and more).
Even with less than 3GB, you could still have a few hundreds MBs left for your /home directory/partition.

The FreeBSD installer is notoriously confusing.

I disagree. I find the setup process using sysinstall easier and faster than MS Windows' setup, THE user friendly OS.
If you choose the Custom Installation, your work could be done in 5 minutes. Really, what's so confusing with checking a few setup Options, doing the usual fdisk/bsdlabel, choosing what to install (the Distribution), the media and committing?

 

[SR_Ind]

FreeBSD has a steep learning curve, with the emphasis on learning. You'll come away with a much better understanding of Unix in general, as anyone who has been through the documentation and the installing will tell you. You'll even understand other Unices much better. What you call less user-friendly, most FreeBSD users would call required learning and valuable insight. RTFM is not quite old school around here; there is even a thread about the subject, and people get referred to documentation and manuals in almost every thread. That's because they're both excellent. FreeBSD will not take you by the hand and magically work without your input. You decide, every step of the way (tip: installing, configuring, and starting are three separate steps -- there are no magical buttons). Me rude? Sure, my rudeness is all over these forums and I get no thanks for it What is not all over these forums is generic tired MS/Windows-bashing. Now that is old school around here, because it's a complete waste of energy. Even Linus thinks so. It's "not a religion", right? Have fun with FreeBSD, you'll grow to like it and wonder why you didn't try it sooner.

It hardly matters if RTFM is old school here or not. You are dealing with newbies trying to adopt an operating system.

Lets look at it this way, nowadays OS installers are so intutive that people with basic skills can install an OS.

I empathise with the OP. The FreeBSD installer nowhere prompts you to choose a DE during the installation. You can navigate around and pick out Gnome, but then you can pick up any of the 18K odd ports.

DE installation is not part of basic installation, and that causes confusion. Well an average Joe selects it after mucking through menus and yet doesn't appear on next book, and that leaves him or her confused.

The takeaway is that the FreeBSD installer urgently requires a facelift, in terms of streamlined workflows, less clutter etc.

 

[ale]

Lets look at it this way, nowadays OS installers are so intutive that people with basic skills can install an OS.

Yes, but most of the non BSD operating system install what they want for you.

DE installation is not part of basic installation, and that causes confusion.

It's quite the contrary: the confusion is caused by assuming that a DE is part of the operating system.

Well an average Joe selects it after mucking through menus and yet doesn't appear on next book, and that leaves him or her confused.

No, if he read the handbook before installing.
Anyway you can have a look at PC-BSD or DesktopBSD.

 

[DutchDaemon]

It hardly matters if RTFM is old school here or not. You are dealing with newbies trying to adopt an operating system.

Which is why there is so much documentation, which simply needs to be read to get ahead. FreeBSD is not for the impatient. RTFM is a prerequisite for FreeBSD. And once you 'get it', nothing installs and configures faster than FreeBSD, thanks to its clear and strong design principles and transparent structure.

Lets look at it this way, nowadays OS installers are so intutive that people with basic skills can install an OS.

Yes, and it turns everybody into users who have no idea of what goes wrong when something goes wrong, how to troubleshoot it and how to fix it. If it can't be done with point & click, they're lost. It produces the type of OS that decides for you, installs for you, configures for you, and leaves you none the wiser. That's progress? Not for me.

The takeaway is that the FreeBSD installer urgently requires a facelift, in terms of streamlined workflows, less clutter etc.

The installer gets you to the command-line of a FreeBSD installation. That's all it's supposed to do. The rest is added on by the user, after having read the relevant documentation. It has a proven track record, and I'd rather see people adjust to FreeBSD than the other way around. Not to say that there's nothing to improve, just that dumbing down is not an option.

Don't want to dig in and learn, just want to intuit your way through an operating system without too much insight, but with jungle noises? Stay away from FreeBSD. That's how I feel about it. And I will reiterate/paraphrase what I said elsewhere: FreeBSD is basically a server operating system with add-on functionality. FreeBSD provides the server by installing the base OS, the user takes care of the add-ons using ports or packages and creates their own functionality.

 

[SR_Ind]

Yes, and it turns everybody into users who have no idea of what goes wrong when something goes wrong, how to troubleshoot it and how to fix it. If it can't be done with point & click, they're lost. It produces the type of OS that decides for you, installs for you, configures for you, and leaves you none the wiser. That's progress? Not for me.

You have a point there. But do you oppose if FreeBSD evolves to be a general purpose OS for lay users?

The installer gets you to the command-line of a FreeBSD installation. That's all it's supposed to do. The rest is added on by the user, after having read the relevant documentation. It has a proven track record, and I'd rather see people adjust to FreeBSD than the other way around. Not to say that there's nothing to improve, just that dumbing down is not an option.

Hmm..JKH thinks sysinstall is past its sell date.

However, as I wrote earlier what really needed is lean workflows in sysinstall. Currently sysinstall is an installation program, package manager and generic admin tool rolled into one. one could have three separate programs (sysinstall can be invoked for selected functions, so why not 3 shell scripts doing the same?)

Don't want to dig in and learn, just want to intuit your way through an operating system without too much insight, but with jungle noises? Stay away from FreeBSD. That's how I feel about it. And I will reiterate/paraphrase what I said elsewhere: FreeBSD is basically a server operating system with add-on functionality. FreeBSD provides the server by installing the base OS, the user takes care of the add-ons using ports or packages and creates their own functionality.

Server != Command_line_only

FreeBSD or any OS for that matter has no worth as a server without availability of server side applications in user space.

FreeBSD has a top notch TCP/IP stack, syscalls are very efficient, that's best fit for a server OS. However, that's also a good foundation for a network aware graphical client application.

Which is why there is so much documentation, which simply needs to be read to get ahead. FreeBSD is not for the impatient. RTFM is a prerequisite for FreeBSD. And once you 'get it', nothing installs and configures faster than FreeBSD, thanks to its clear and strong design principles and transparent structure.

I've been using FreeBSD for last 6 years. I consulted the handbook only once, while compiling a custom kernel. "RTFM is a prerequisite" is not an absolute truth. My IT skills proved to be transferable, it may not be the case for others, but doesn't mean profanities like RTFM are acceptable (yep, we had one bright chap fired because he blurted out the same to a customer).

 

[DutchDaemon]

What's profane about Fine?

 

[DutchDaemon]

Server != Command_line_only

Strange statement to any FreeBSD server admin.

FreeBSD or any OS for that matter has no worth as a server without availability of server side applications in user space.

Where's the contradiction? You don't need anythting other than the command line to install/run/maintain a server and install/run/maintain server side applications from ports or packages. I have never produced a server (hundreds) containing anything other than a straight command-line. Nothing more is needed. Nothing more is wanted, for that matter. Even an X server doesn't need more than a cli...

Desktops, laptops, sure. Server, no.

 

[SR_Ind]

What's profane about Fine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM

 

[SR_Ind]

Strange statement to any FreeBSD server admin.

True.

But technologically - "Server != Command_line_only" - also stands true.

So, your case is a cultural issue, nothing to do with advancement of technological options.

 

[DutchDaemon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_humor

 

[DutchDaemon]

But technologically - "Server != Command_line_only" - also stands true.

You can put a GUI on a server, that's 'technologically true', and it is technologically superfluous. You should see what some people put on their cars, just because they can.

So, your case is a cultural issue, nothing to do with advancement of technological options.

FreeBSD had advanced pretty well technologically without a GUI in the base system, I should think. Nothing cultural about that. Burdening and complicating a server with a GUI is certainly not a technological advancement. A linuxism, maybe. Certainly not an improvement on the KISS principle that FreeBSD admins love.