Automatic plus distance-adjustable cruise control, of course. And the passenger needs to hold the wheel because the driver is too busy lighting a cigaretteUNIXgod said:FreeBSD = Stick Shift Transmission
WinbunuX = Automatic
Zare said:If you mix those two categories you'll end up with a bastard OS full of compromise...
bbzz said:AKA Linux.
Thx.
As far as FreeBSD as a desktop.....there is none better.
Yes. It's called PC-BSD.SR_Ind said:I think its possible to provide a soft landing for newbies with minimum effort.
drhowarddrfine said:Yes. It's called PC-BSD.
bbzz said:
Whoever posted that and the people cheering him do not understand release engineering nor they understand target audience segmentation.bbzz said:
I was not aware of this. If this true then one cannot but admire the long term goals and foresightedness of the core team.roddierod said:Does anyone remember the instant-workstation and instant-server meta ports from way back in the day?
True. Something like "for every type of app, BSD licensed app first" policy could be an acceptable solution to all.roddierod said:Perhaps something like that needs to be brought back from the dead? Although that would probably cause more issues than not since people work just argue over should it be gnome, kde or any other DE,WM.
It seems to me that when core developers went to Apple all this chaos of focus seem to start. It could just be my perception.
SR_Ind said:I was not aware of this. If this true then one cannot but admire the long term goals and foresightedness of the core team.
SR_Ind said:Now let me take the analogy to FreeBSD. The FreeBSD installation CD/DVD contains everything you need for a desktop. This means the engineering/R&D (developers of kernel/base/ports) have done their job. I'd say the release engineering is half way there.
What's missing? The choice to install some pre-configured apps right from the first run installer.
The "bastard"/"mixed" comment is very interesting. The poster says FreeBSD is for technical users and some even say FreeBSD is for servers. If that is so, for servers one would expect to have complete stack available on the initial system. So, when will a BSD licensed HTTP server make it to the base? Or even a RDBMS? For developers, what libraries and tools are available out of the box?
Why? Finishing. Great many products lose out to competition because of this. Yes the last mile effort is always the difficult part.bbzz said:But why? The work needed to install required apps is minimal at best. And you missed the point of that other post. If someone needs basic help for installing apps than maybe this OS just isn't the right place, yet.
Its not out of context. It is the fit and finish or lack of completeness of it that prevents an readily usable server or desktop configuration.bbzz said:That's just taking it out of the context; sorry I don't agree with this. Are you saying that what makes one OS a great platform for servers is the fact that it comes preinstalled with needed apps and libraries? Sorry.
Perfectly agreed. Lets atleast be consistent. If a FTP server and SSH server merits placement in the base, so does a HTTP server (and many other network tools, a running SNMP agent for example), unless the OS restricts itself to network devices.bbzz said:I like the way things are. Whether you want to go for server deployment or desktop use, there's a clear cut separation between what constitutes a solid base and what is an additional software.
SR_Ind said:With all due respects to the tremendous effort put in the PC-BSD team, it does not meet my requirements of good system based on FreeBSD.
I put together a lightweight desktop, precisely because of the shortcomings of PC-BSD. Unfortunately it is the shortcomings borne out of misdirected zeal. They have messed up package management system by putting in non-standard/non-FreeBSD package management system.
Sorry, a newbie cannot deal with PC-BSD beneath the hood for package management by reading FreeBSD handbook.
You do not seem to apprecite the benefits of a dedicated desktop environment. KDE4 does not suit me....
Thanks, I'd like to give it a try on my home desktop. BTW, my choice of alternative WM has been Fluxbox.NewGuy said:With respect to you, SR_Ind, I think you should try a more recent version of PC-BSD. PC-BSD 9 supports several desktop environments, not just KDE. GNOME, Xfce and LXDE are available on the install media. Plus it's possible to use common window managers, like OpenBox, if you don't like the heavier environments.
PC-BSD's PBI package system is a bit different from FreeBSD's, but you don't have to use it. Since PC-BSD is really just a layer on top of FreeBSD, you can use the Ports system and the freebsdupdate tool if you want, rather than deal with PBIs. Or, for that matter, you can go the other way and use PBIs pretty much exclusively.
Most of your complaints with the OS seem to stem from KDE, but since there are plenty of other environments available and no need to use KDE I think it would be worth taking another go at the project.
asifnaz said:As it does not come with GUI installer
asifnaz said:I come here and ask how to installfreebsdFreeBSD with GUI DE (like gnome). I am asked to read handbook which is a bit beyond my skills.
fluca1978 said:I believe some efforts to learn the operating system is required for any OS. The difference here is that a lot of OSs manuals have only pictures, the FreeBSD handbook has text.
Moreover, every user that approaches FreeBSD (or any other OS not for dummies) should first try to understand the culture.