Preferred DE of the FreeBSD users

Which is your current DE or WM? If not listed please specify!

  • Total voters
    259
tgl said:
… In order to create an interest around the dekstop use leaving the OS without a default DE/WM is contradictory. …
Click to expand...

Slightly contradictory, but I don't treat this as an obstacle.

I do like that the Foundation's Guide to FreeBSD desktop distributions does not favour any particular distro, or desktop environment.

Since you joined in 2012, I guess that you used PC-BSD at some point?

Crivens said:
*cough* csh
Sometimes, but the ttys are neither stacking nor tiling.
Click to expand...

I liked the console-based workspace switcher in FreeBSD 15.0-ALPHA2:

1643430518514.png
 
mer said:
I don't want FreeBSD proper to have a default desktop environment or window manager. I want it to install a solid foundation that I can build upon to create the computing environment that I like, that make ME productive. That is exactly what we get from current FreeBSD.

If you want "A FreeBSD that installs a desktop environment of KDE/Gnome by default" then look for a distribution that does that.

Sorry if this got long and opinionated, but hey, it's Friday and snow's coming in.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't want change anything nor I interested in any change, I was just curious to know how much is important here having a well integrated DE, eventually FreeBSD differently from Linux is a real OS and not a collection of software, having a default DE might be coherent on FreeBSD.
 
kpedersen said:
You have now seen first hand that everyone uses different environments (the most common are WMs).
Any choice for a "default" DE would effectively be unsuitable for over 50% of users.

From the sounds of the comments, Window Maker might possibly be the most popular environment. Would you really want Window Maker in the default install?
Click to expand...

So far there is a slightly advantage for people preferring a DE rather than a WM, I mean this is pretty foreseeable, different people different needs, however if by default FreeBSD would allow to install Window Maker and help newbies to have a fully functional X11 environment for me would be perfectly fine and sane, I would probably skip this step anyway and install X.org and XFCE4 by myself the way I like.

Also having some default is useful to learn how things work, I extensively compared GhostBSD and NomadBSD against FreeBSD to understand and check out what setup the former derivatives used respect the latter. The same I did when I was using Linux.

Not having a DE/WM by default sounds more we want more people but not all the people, I can figure the reason but I am pretty neutral about this, I stopped to recommend Linux since a very long time, now some folks are asking me if it is worth changing to FreeBSD, I am expressing what I though that is worth, but I really tempted to say not it isn't.
 
grahamperrin said:
Slightly contradictory, but I don't treat this as an obstacle.

I do like that the Foundation's Guide to FreeBSD desktop distributions does not favour any particular distro, or desktop environment.

Since you joined in 2012, I guess that you used PC-BSD at some point?
Click to expand...

I think, personal opinion, that having a default DE/WM is a good idea, at least this will receive more attention and it will get better and will make better the desktop experience; but this doesn't mean to abandon all the others.

I joined the forum in the 2021 but I spent the 2020 playing with GhostBSD on a Virtual Machine, I tend to prefer "vanilla" version because any derivatives is a vision of someone else, hence I do agree the concept of the foundation is the right way, so I can build my vision of FreeBSD and I do really like the fact the installation is so modular that really you understand any process, however I am still finishing to setup my computer and when I have an issue I have to run Ghost or Midnight BSD to see how they addressed my current issue because there is anything that I can use to study or to compare.

If having a default DE/WM really doesn't encounter the favor of anyone here I would really loved having a Desktop Live iso to use as reference when I do not understand something or when the documentation is lacking.
 
Jose said:
You're assuming that not very tech savvy users are a target.
Click to expand...

Not I am not assuming this but I'd like to understand if there is an interest toward that category of users.

The reason is always related with the healthy state of desktop space. If this topic has been addressed several time across the years is unknown for me therefore I apology if I sound naive or stubborn.

The point is an easy setup of a desktop installation (I mean graphics, sound, bluetooth etc...) can make the life easier for many and therefore can be the manifestation of a vibrant interest around it.

From what I am reading here the interest is quite cold that means there will be lesser investment in this space then.
 
tgl said:
some folks are asking me if it is worth changing to FreeBSD, I am expressing what I though that is worth, but I really tempted to say not it isn't.
Click to expand...
I'd say that it is... FreeBSD has its similarities and differences with Linux. And IIRC, even FreeBSD derivatives do have 'Live' Iso's that you can try. I'd encourage you to do your homework on them.
 
tgl said:
The reason is always related with the healthy state of desktop space. If this topic has been addressed several time across the years is unknown for me therefore I apology if I sound naive or stubborn.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is a pitched battle that flares up on this forum every so often. I'll give you the shortest summary of my position I can come up with: Desktop is already dead anyway. Targeting the desktop is therefore ill-advised.
 
Again, my opinions, but:
I think a lot of folks have issues with the "by default" part of the question/discussion.

Let's look at Ubuntu for a moment: they have downloads for servers and downloads for "desktops". What is the biggest difference? The desktop downloads install a graphical environment by default. You can run a server on a desktop version (maybe a bit more work) and you can certainly install a DE on the server version.

Coming back to FreeBSD, a very long time ago the installer would ask about optional packages you want installed; one being "Graphical environment (X Window)". I don't believe that functionality is in the current versions of the installer, simply it gained some functionality and lost some. The sheer size of some packages nowdays means install media (ISO, USB images) need to actually be looked and decisions made on "what do we include by default to satisfy 99% of the people" and including a default graphical environment may mean dropping something else.

That's what I mean about issues with the "by default" part.

Now, if one searches here you come across some very nice tutorials ( Trihexagonal vermaden ) on installing a desktop environment that a lot of people have used easily. There is also the desktop-installer package (probably others) that when run asks you a few things and pulls down the needed bits from the package repos. A well written set of documentation (the handbook or release notes) makes the tutorials and packages easy and understandable to use.

Easy enough for Grandma? Probably not, but that's what they make grandkids for :)

I've never looked, but the installer may be scriptable. If so, then all you need to do is create an installer script (think in terms of kickstart scripts for some Linux distros) that does the base install, asks some questions, fires up the network, downloads packages and sets up a few things. Instant "install to a graphical environment of the users choice". To me, that would be the proper way to create a FreeBSD distribution that will install a graphical user environment by default.

Thanks for reading, time for more coffee.
 
tgl said:
?… I joined the forum in the 2021 …
Click to expand...

Oops! Sorry. I misread that as 2012.

When I began using FreeBSD-based PC-BSD, it included multiple desktop environments. A Wayback Machine capture from shortly before the switch to Lumina as a default: <https://web.archive.org/web/20151125152824/http://www.pcbsd.org/> "… a host of popular open source window managers …".

mer said:
desktop-installer
Click to expand...

For convenience: sysutils/desktop-installer, maintained by jwb@. Not to be confused with jhb@, who provided this gem:

1643446198415.png


mer said:
… A well written set of documentation (the handbook or release notes) makes the tutorials and packages easy and understandable to use. …
Click to expand...

The FreeBSD Handbook is fairly well-written, however it's:
 
tgl said:
eventually FreeBSD differently from Linux is a real OS and not a collection of software, having a default DE might be coherent on FreeBSD.
Click to expand...
FreeBSD is both (and the collection of software is pretty large). With that argument, you're obviously suggesting some DE should be integrated in the base system? Won't ever happen (thankfully).
 
tgl said:
I heard that Lumina is supposed to be BSD DE made by the BSD folks, although I like it is not in a very good shape; but it is not alone looks like is a condition shared across all the DE
Click to expand...
Ah, no. Lumina has considerably worse code than, say, XFCE. It really does not fulfill expectations with regard to the "BSD folks" and quality. Not that it tries to, but somehow people here always seem to assume that something done specifically for *BSD is always better than counterparts.
 
mer said:
Let's look at Ubuntu for a moment: they have downloads for servers and downloads for "desktops".
Click to expand...
It muddies up the documentation. Suddenly when googling for information, every site on networking starts by opening up some old, long since replaced Gnome network manager (that never really worked in the first place) rather than the actual CLI way to do it which will work in every environment people want to actually use.

Not to mention when a distro "favours" a specific desktop, it tends to leak into other packages as dependencies. For example on Ubuntu if you install LibreOffice, you somehow end up with their terribly ugly Gtk theme and naff mouse cursors. Just little "tweaks" here and there really bring down the correctness and tightness of a system.

Possibly the biggest example that annoyed me was RHEL 8 and installing it as a minimal server install. It had some tacky boot splash screen (by default). Yes, great for all those 12 year olds and grandparents installing RedHat but my server's Matrox GPU could barely deal with the needless fade effect.
 
Voted for x11/mate but in fact I have also x11/kde5 and and XFCE4 installed at the same time. For login I am using x11/sddm which lets me choose the WM every time I log in. However, having a choice, I find myself choosing MATE almost every time.
For better desktop experience I am using deskutils/cairo-dock also. It works with MATE and KDE5.
 
I do find one thing interesting. Most "user-friendly" Linux distributions ship with Gnome 3 as their default. Yet that is really not doing well here when the user is presented with a choice.

If we did have a default as Gnome 3, I wonder if more people would be using it "just because it is already there" whereas it isn't truly their first choice. That is not user-friendly in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mer
kpedersen said:
Possibly the biggest example that annoyed me was RHEL 8 and installing it as a minimal server install. It had some tacky boot splash screen (by default). Yes, great for all those 12 year olds and grandparents installing RedHat but my server's Matrox GPU could barely deal with the needless fade effect.
Click to expand...
Interesting how some problems repeat. Back in the mid '90s I was a Windows admin tasked with "upgrading" our servers from Windows NT 3.51 to 4.0. One of the things Microsoft did in 4.0 was move the video drivers into ring 0 for better UI responsiveness on the desktop. Problem was most of the server hardware of the era, including ours, had cheap and weak video hardware. It sat in a server room with no one in front of it most of the time, after all. The Trident video chips in our servers were either flaky or had bad drivers, or both. We went from 99% uptime to blue screens and reboots every other day.

Another thing that was fun in those days was when some genius would decide to put the bezier curves screen saver on a server. Lots of users would complain about the server's performance. Admin at the console would dismiss the screen saver and observe no performance problems whatsoever. A few minutes after the all clear, the performance problems would return inexplicably.
 
kpedersen said:
Most "user-friendly" Linux distributions ship with Gnome 3 as their default. Yet that is really not doing well here when the user is presented with a choice.
Click to expand...
Gnome being extremely Linux- (and systemd-)centric might play a role as well. It just sucks even more on FreeBSD than it already does on Linux ?
 
Keep in mind, all graphical components outside the base system is upstream Linux. Unless the committers are actively developing and maintaining their own graphics/desktop stack concurrently in -CURRENT. We’ll never see a graphical release of FreeBSD. This is why GhostBSD, etc exists.

The only viable alternative would be to facilitate automagic configuration of one or more desktops from bsdinstall (I’m looking at you, KDE) , which I’ve stated years ago.

helloSystem is the only FreeBSD first desktop project as far as I know. Albeit the upstream DMX stack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top