Please pay more attention to desktop development

Any specifics? Because you do realize it's all third party software that makes up a desktop?
 
What is this "reputation" that you're talking about? As far as I know FreeBSD is not marketed as a desktop operating system specifically but as a "general purpose operating system" and to me that means its use is not limited to just desktops and certainly its "reputation" is not solely dependent on its usability in desktop systems.
 
Please pay more attention to what "third-party applications" means.
 
Not sure how relevant it is. X11 and everything GUI is in ports, not the base system. So official FreeBSD doesn't really have any GUI support except for providing drivers and infrastructure. The only time something gets imported into the base system is based on need and how actively it is developed. If it's too actively developed there isn't much chance of it getting into base.

It is somewhat of a cop out since the same developers also help maintain ports. Why not just integrate more stuff? The truth is these things are being actively developed are not stable. So no one wants the responsibility of integrating them into the main system.

The biggest problem with ports is that they are ports. They were developed by other people with their own development models and practices. More than likely developed on Linux and have to be adapted to Freebsd each and every time there is a revision. It's nice when they adopt FreeBSD patches upstream but those patches break because the main developers are not targeting FreeBSD and are not testing their code against it. And it is one thing to get something compiled, another to get it working the way it should.
 
The main complication with integrating more stuff to the base system is "ABI stability" that is one of the defining characteristics of FreeBSD. Once you import something to the base system you're stuck completely with the version of the imported software for the lifetime of the major FreeBSD version. For example if one of the base X11 libraries was now imported to FreeBSD 10 it would have to remain at the version it was at the time of the import, no exceptions and no way to update it to a newer version in FreeBSD 10 (except bug fixes that don't break API/ABI compatibility).

The right solution imho would be to create experimental/project branches for the ports tree where the developers have their own playgrounds for testing out the bleeding edge stuff and the main trunk would be easier to keep stable and consistent.
 
I suppose PC-BSD should be like Ubuntu. And it is dedicated to a mature and stable integration, KDE+X11+FreeBSD etc.
 
That's what PC-BSD is for. Not that FreeBSD can't have desktops, but it's not Ubuntu and does not need to be more like Linux. It should stay the way it is.
 
As a new FreeBSD user, I have to say FreeBSD is great the way it is. It's not what an average user thinks of an OS, but as is it is totally customized by the user. PC-BSD really does fill the void I believe you are looking for.

All the major desktop environments (Gnome, KDE, XFCE, LXDE) are already available. I suppose someone could develop a single installation package that you could be guided through your options and install Xorg/X11, display manager (Slim, XDM, GDM, KDM, etc) and the desktop environment (Gnome, KDE, XFCE, LXDE) plus many more items all at once to simplify things. It would require a fair amount of maintenance so it would take a lot of dedication by whomever wanted to do such a project. Still, this would be a 3rd party project and not really anything that should be added to FreeBSD's core system. So then, if one wanted such a simplification to install X & the desktop on FreeBSD why wouldn't PC-BSD be sufficient? Especially since that basically is what PC-BSD is.
 
There are a few FreeBSD based desktop distributions like the already mentioned PCBSD and also GhostBSD, that provide an out-of-the-box system that runs also a full desktop.
Please document and search before asking for such silly questions.
 
I just want to point out that while we like to claim that "those programs in the ports tree aren't part of FreeBSD" few of us would use FreeBSD without them. The ports tree is an integral part of what FreeBSD provides to its user base.
 
Oh please, FreeBSD, please, stay the way you are now! I don't want you to be yet another Gnome/KDE/whatever-centric distribution on the block. I am so happy to finally be able to get rid of a bloated desktop environment, with my window manager taking only 2000 lines of C code, and doing things exactly the way I want, at a blazing speed. I am so happy I don't have my environment polluted with wizards, helpers, assistants, and other captive doitformeware. Let those other people sail wherever they want.

Thank you, FreeBSD.
 
Uniballer said:
I just want to point out that while we like to claim that "those programs in the ports tree aren't part of FreeBSD" few of us would use FreeBSD without them. The ports tree is an integral part of what FreeBSD provides to its user base.
Click to expand...

Whether people use them or not, they are not written by the FreeBSD developers.
 
throAU said:
Whether people use them or not, they are not written by the FreeBSD developers.
Click to expand...

Correct, but they are merged and mantained by FreeBSD people.
There is nothing wrong in considering the ports a fundamental part of the FreeBSD, after all what makes a distribution different is also the package and application management.

I agree that FreeBSD should stay as it is, and it will stay. You have the power to customize it as you like, but it is required for you to do your homework. If you want something pre-customized, than looking at other desktop based BSD is surely the right option.
 
The big question is imo, who is the vendor of port X that you first turn to for support? For ports that compile on FreeBSD without any major patching you could argue that the vendor is the upstream. For ports that require a major work to get working on FreeBSD the port maintainer is at least partly the vendor for the port.

Correct, but they are merged and mantained by FreeBSD people.
There is nothing wrong in considering the ports a fundamental part of the FreeBSD, after all what makes a distribution different is also the package and application management.
Click to expand...

The FreeBSD foundation very explicitly denies any responsibility for the contents of the ports tree, be it usability or security of the software contained. They provide the framework and the facilities like the ports(7) build system and the bug tracking database, it's for the interested individuals and organizations to provide the software (with some obvious exceptions of course).
 
I think the original poster's comment is valid, though it may belong in the Installation and Maintenance of FreeBSD Ports or Packages section of the forums rather than the Base System.

Many FreeBSD users would like for it to remain primarily a server OS. (Perhaps they don't look forward to the influx of "noobs" asking questions that they feel have already been adequately answered in the documentation). But I see it differently. I'm not running a server or administering a network. I'm using it strictly as a laptop operating system. I'd like to see the use of FreeBSD expand to be as large a share of desktops as that of some of the large Linux distributions. More users means more ports and more maintainers, and ultimately a larger pool of developers for the base system as well. It would likely lead to supporting more hardware, e.g. I'd like to have a FreeBSD driver for my printer. I have a work-around but it's a bit of a kludge.

Typical responses to these desktop posts in the forums is to immediately steer the poster to PC-BSD and/or GhostBSD, or steer them back into Linux (from whence they came). Linux is OK, and PC-BSD and GhostBSD may be the right answer for many. But I prefer to setup my FreeBSD desktop for myself. I think I learn more that way, and wind up with a better, more responsive desktop. I don't mean to discourage the use of PC-BSD or GhostBSD, but I wish I didn't see so many discouraging responses to those who choose to set up their desktop directly from FreeBSD ports and packages. Whether they mean to or not, the responses seem to be saying, "You're not really smart enough to be in our club. Now go away.":)
 
SirDice said:
Any specifics? Because you do realize it's all third party software that makes up a desktop?
Click to expand...

I would say that GEM/TTM porting to the FreeBSD kernel makes up a desktop (Intel already done, AMD in the works), making sure that 2D and 3D acceleration would work fine when You add that third party software.

Making 802.11n working and making 802.11g better makes up a desktop.

Adding proper Giant Lock Free support for common filesystems like NTFS, HFS+ and EXT2/3/4 makes up a desktop.

Adding support for various ACPI quirks makes up the desktop.

Support for the UEFI (unfortunately) boot makes up the desktop.

Making the package infrastructure to work (PKGng helped a little) with binary upgrades, binary variant packages (like pkg_add -i on OpenBSD) makes up a desktop.

Making PCMCIA/PC Card and SDHC/SDXC Slot work out of the box makes up a desktop.

...

You got the idea, all the needed changes are on the FreeBSD side (mostly).
 
srobert said:
But I prefer to setup my FreeBSD desktop for myself. I think I learn more that way, and wind up with a better, more responsive desktop.
Click to expand...
Same, that is pretty much the exact reason why we steer the OPs of these kind of posts towards PC-BSD because he wants a preset (fully tested) and default desktop. That is PC-BSD.
We on the other hand require the flexibility of setting things up manually from individual components.

srobert said:
but I wish I didn't see so many discouraging responses to those who choose to set up their desktop directly from FreeBSD ports and packages. Whether they mean to or not, the responses seem to be saying, "You're not really smart enough to be in our club. Now go away.":)
Click to expand...

This view often shows a lack of understanding of what PC-BSD is. This isn't about trying to be a trendy hipster with FreeBSD being "much cooler" than PC-BSD. They are the same thing apart from a different installer and the KDE desktop environment by default.

Which is *exactly* what the OP was asking for. So was referred to PC-BSD. Problem solved.

PC-BSD isn't completely separate from FreeBSD. You will find at places like FOSDEM, they are generally a single group.

I personally happen to despise KDE4+ and the PC-BSD installer didn't even work for me when I tried it so it would make little sense for me to use PC-BSD. That is my only reason.. nothing more.
 
If you want bleeding edge on FreeBSD why not try my experimental playground of ArchBSD. It uses the latest software. Xorg 1.13 mesa 9.1 etc. Everything that is the latest stable release.

Though, it is experimental:
 
kpedersen said:
Which is *exactly* what the OP was asking for. So was referred to PC-BSD. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Oh God no. Please don't give me what I ask for. Give me what I want. They're two different things. :e

When we refer, let's say a Kubuntu user to PC-BSD, he's going to try it and it's highly likely he'll be disappointed and walk away bad-mouthing *BSD in general. I say this because, from his experience, he'll be comparing it to a desktop system upon which, probably, all of his hardware worked out-of-the-box. If something doesn't work, the Linux community is more available to help him, a search engine is more likely to yield an immediate solution, etc.

But if we BOTH point him to PC-BSD, AND, encourage him to try configuring his own desktop under FreeBSD, then his curiosity might be aroused. He might become more willing to be enlisted in the intriguing effort to figure out HOW to do what he wants to do with *BSD. Then we can add his experiences to those of the community. The cumulative effect of having more users is solving more problems faster.

From where exactly, do we think future FreeBSD developers will come? Sorry, fluca1978, but how does an answer like ...
Code: 
Please document and search before asking for such silly questions.
... reflect on FreeBSD? If you posted a question and got a response like that, how would it make you feel? Would you want to be in a classroom where an instructor answered your query in this way?

Most of the satisfaction that I get from using FreeBSD is in solving the myriad little puzzles that are involved in making it work. If I just wanted an out-of-the-box working desktop, I'd just install Xubuntu and get on with going skiing or something.

(*Again, I'm not saying that PC-BSD is bad. It's quite good and it's getting better all the time. But the expectations of my hypothetical Kubuntu user have been well established with respect to what a desktop environment should do. By the way, kpederson, I share your disdain for KDE4. I usually use XFCE or Fluxbox. XFCE is a choice in the PC-BSD installer now.)
 
srobert said:
Oh God no. Please don't give me what I ask for. Give me what I want. They're two different things. :e
Click to expand...

Very true, but FreeBSD has a base assumption that the user knows what they are doing. Granted, that's frequently not true, so the right thing to do is to find out what the user really wants or expects. A shortcut is to just give them both options by saying "if you are expecting a pre-configured X desktop system, see PC-BSD; if you want to install all the pieces from scratch, use FreeBSD."
 
Why should he be excused from doing his homework? Everyone else did theirs. If he's not willing to learn, then this isn't the right operating system for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top