will freebsd15 have default desktop?

mro said:
... but mostly doesn't need much attention.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps in some sense.

It seems that a lot of people think an OS without "Desktop environment" is incomplete.

I have installed some times Ubuntu, and I had to disable the desktop environment and enable the display of device
probing when booting to have an OS as "must be".

I have installed some times Debian, and I had to install a lot of things (like C compiler, make, man pages, etc)
to have an OS as "must be".

And when I install FreeBSD, I must install X11 and a lot of X11 clients separately, to have it.

The most out of the box is OpenBSD for me, I install it with xenocara and that was all.

My concept of an OS is something like traditional Unix plus X11 server to be started if and when I want.
And it seems that most linux distros are far away, although Linux is Unix like.

Linux distros need a default desktop environment, to differentiate among themselves, otherwise all would be almost identical.
 
This thread has been hilarious to read. The OP has confused the article's statement of 'FreeBSD is working on a graphical installer' (to replace bsdinstall and bdsconfig) with 'FreeBSD is offering a default desktop during installation'. Interesting to see everybody's reactions though :)
 
hruodr said:
FreeBSD developers are wasting time, for replacing something that works with something probably worse.

The best installer has OpenBSD.
Click to expand...
Any installer I can read what is happening is good, graphical or not.
I'm not sure why people thing something "shinny" is easier, perhaps they want to pilot a mouse, but you have to read as well.
 
Holger said:
Are the three lines below really that hard to type in yourself:
Code: 
$ sudo pkg install xorg <window-manager-of-your-choice>
$ echo "exec <window-manager-of-your-choice>" > ~/.xinitrc
$ startx
Click to expand...
Yes! Everything should exactly be the way I want it and function the way I expect it without me doing anything myself. Even if my understanding of how something should function is objectively wrong, it's still not my fault. Either it's 100% exactly what I expect and everybody's efforts are only put towards reaching that goal or it's clearly just a shitty, useless product that nobody can or should use!
 
hruodr said:
It seems that a lot of people think an OS without "Desktop environment" is incomplete.
Click to expand...
I find it odd to refuse using non-preinstalled things.

Not being preinstalled doesn't mean 'does not exist'. So FreeBSD very well has desktops, just not preinstalled. How would you preinstall multiple to offer choice?

What are the expectations? 'Tailored for my personal taste' rarely makes a good general packaging, does it?

I prefer having choice and rather build up than weed out when beginning. But that's personal taste. And happens to align well with FreeBSD. That's onboarding not pushing in certain directions. Bumpy if you're unfamiliar with the options.

I see FreeBSD like a table full of groceries and kitchen gear,, not the convenience-food box to put into the microwave. Best if a cook is around to help.
 
menelkir said:
Any installer I can read what is happening is good, graphical or not.
Click to expand...
Many times I had problems installing Linux, because the installer needs more resources than the OS self.
Sometimes it takes a lot of time to run the installer, sometimes hangs, sometimes interrupts after a lot of
time and I must begin again and again, sometimes I manage to install the OS with a lot of effort, sometimes
no chance in spite of all effort.

I must say that also FreeBSD installer has a little of this problem, not like linux, but it has it.
With OpenBSD installation is easy, no strange behaviour, is a process that just run without delay, lag, strange things.
Now the FreeBSD developers want to inflate more the installer instead of making it better, because other has
inflated installers.

Why is FreeBSD not (more) like .... Linux? It is getting like Linux!!!!​

 
Ilovehotdog said:
will freebsd15 have default desktop?
Click to expand...
Basically FreeBSD comes without GUI installed -- core orientation, heritage, free of bloatware, free choice to install whatever you need/like/want. Everybody always wants customization. Of hamburgers, cars, buttocks, the lot. FreeBSD provides such customization for using the Operating System. And that is Great, and actually quite modern!

When you install x11/xorg, the Tab Window Manager 11-wm/twm is automatically installed.

So:

TWM is the default desktop when you use GUI on FreeBSD

The learning curve will enhance your mental-body capacities as a positive side effect.

[SOLVED]
 
victort said:
pkg install -y desktop-installer && desktop-installer

FreshPorts -- sysutils/desktop-installer: Quickly configure a FreeBSD desktop system

Desktop-installer is a post-install script to assist in setting up a FreeBSD desktop system using any of the mainstream desktop systems. It automatically installs essential software and configures subsystems such as dbus, CUPS, etc. for typical use.
www.freshports.org www.freshports.org
Click to expand...
Is it "actually usable" now?
I tried it when it first appeared in ports tree, but at the moment, it didn't work well for me (if I recall correctly, not NLS-aware at least for CJK).
Yes, it's more than 10 years before. It could be better, I hope.
 
meine said:
FreeBSD provides such customization for using the Operating System.
Click to expand...
Yes. Even most of common-on-Linux daemons are not pre-configured.
Almost nothing pre-configured bother us, and let us configure almost everything as each of us ourselves want to be (if all needed softwares are in ports tree. Fingers crossed ;) ).
 
jbo@ said:
Yes! Everything should exactly be the way I want it and function the way I expect it without me doing anything myself. Even if my understanding of how something should function is objectively wrong, it's still not my fault. Either it's 100% exactly what I expect and everybody's efforts are only put towards reaching that goal or it's clearly just a shitty, useless product that nobody can or should use!
Click to expand...
Totally!
 
hruodr said:
Now the FreeBSD developers want to inflate more the installer instead of making it better, because other has
inflated installers.
Click to expand...

Which FreeBSD developers want that? Please name names.

I've seen no evidence of that, only a few very vocal, mostly inexperienced forum users continuing to bang that drum.

Unless you can prove your statement with examples, I'll have to ask you to retract it.
 
tyson said:
… it comes with GUI, …
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

freezr said:
… I don't recall in the FreeBSD installer the options to install a DE or X11.
Click to expand...

Quoted on 3rd June in my profile – DVD package set modernisation for 14.1:

The goal of the packages on the DVD is "give people enough packages to get a desktop up and running". They'll almost certainly want to use pkg(8) to install more packages later (maybe Chromium, maybe Thunderbird, maybe Libreoffice...) but we can't include everything and this at least provides a decent starting point.
Click to expand...

KDE Plasma, SDDM, GNOME, X.Org, Sway.

Ilovehotdog please note, this type of installation does not require a DVD. The image is commonly written to a USB flash drive.
 

Attachments

  • 1718466749001.png
    1718466749001.png
    147.3 KB · Views: 22
Very long time ago, around the 3.x timeframe I think the installer did give you the option to install a bunch of other packages; I think there was a "workstation" option that would install X. Of course it depended on you having downloaded or ordered the full CD-ROM set.
My opinion, based on using FreeBSD for a long time and installing different Linux distros for $WORK, I've come to prefer a mininal installer.
Good hardware detection, give me a complete system except for my desired user applications (X and DEs are user applications), give me good documentation on the tools I need to install the desired applications.
 
hruodr said:
See the thread, there is a report that FreeBSD is working on graphical interface for the installer.
Click to expand...
Yes, INSTALLER, NOT DESKTOP ENVIRONMENT.
And as far as I know, the goal is unclear now.
As, at least for PC (amd64, mostly), firmwares are switching to UEFI, which screen (without compat layer called CSM) is actually a framebuffer, making installer graphical is technically straightforward. In fact, vt console driver physically renders texts on framebuffer.

What I imagine for the essential advantages of graphical installer is that it can show screenshots graphically before actually install pkgs as followup steps of base components. Showing a screenshot for each candidates of DEs/WMs (Mate, Xfce, KDE, Motif, Gnome, twm, ...) when the user click for selection would be helpful for choosing which DE/WM (or nothing for console only or headless) to install/use. But INSTALLER SHALL NOT FORCE SPECIFIC DE FOR THE USER. The user SHALL have the right to choose.
 
T-Aoki said:
essential advantages of graphical installer is that it can show screenshots graphically
Click to expand...
It is not better to see screenshots in the internet before installing?

During installation is not the time to decide what to install.

If one wants to install and begin installing, one must at least know what he wants to install.
 
T-Aoki said:
… as far as I know, the goal is unclear …
Click to expand...

From the status report:

"… The most important objective of this project was to improve bsdinstall, regardless of the success of this integration. …"

"… the installer we have and are familiar with, and I think it can still be saved and improved. …"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top