will freebsd15 have default desktop?

[Cath O'Deray]

… the article's statement of 'FreeBSD is working on a graphical installer' (to replace bsdinstall and bdsconfig) …

Where was replacement suggested?

 

[Cath O'Deray]

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. …

Interesting, thanks. That was before my time.

… a desktop-oriented installation image, with a default desktop environment …

From a 2015 review of FreeBSD-based PC-BSD:

"… Despite the rough start, the installer is nice and presents the user with decent options. The installer lets the user install PC-BSD; TrueOS, a server variant; or restore a system using a backup created by Life Preserver (PC-BSD's backup utility). When installing PC-BSD, there is large selection of desktop environments and other software on the installation media. GNOME, KDE, Cinnamon, and MATE, as well as many other, lighter options are available …

"By default, PC-BSD installs the KDE 4 desktop environment …

"… Most of the value PC-BSD adds to the experience comes from additional utilities, such as the Life Preserver backup program and the system update utility, …"

That was during my time:

• … Macs, including XServe and XServe RAID, for around twenty-one years …
• I sort of switched to PC-BSD, then TrueOS, both of which offered ease of use that taught me to be fearless about straying from -RELEASE, so I switched to FreeBSD -CURRENT

 

[astyle]

FreeBSD is building a graphical installer – OSnews

www.osnews.com

The next step – perhaps in 2037 – would be to offer a desktop-oriented installation image, with a default desktop environment and settings optimised for desktop use.


...
it is too long time.

FreeBSD just doesn't offer a a desktop-oriented image. It comes with a way to install any DE (Desktop Environment) you want. You can install it and set it up any way you want - if you're willing to put in the time and effort it takes. It's kind of like the choice between a prefab home and a pile of building materials. FreeBSD is the pile of building materials.

 

[fraxamo]

Where was replacement suggested?

In the article, but reading it again it seems that it's an enhancement rather than a replacement. My interpretation of Pierre's comment (see below) was wrong:

Instead, with knowledge of the current bsdinstall(8) and bsdconfig(8) utilities, I envisioned a BSD-licensed replacement for Xdialog(1). Just like when invoking bsdconfig with the -X switch for graphical mode, it could be dropped in instead of bsddialog(1) and allow graphical installation...

Apologies for the confusion.

 

[mer]

Interesting, thanks. That was before my time.

And hindsight being 20/20, it was stupid of me to get rid of all my old media a while ago. Walnut Creek got a good bit of my money in the past.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

there hardly could be a more irrelevant thing for me as popularity among the masses. That's so much inferior to e.g. aptness for the task at hand. In fact popularity with the masses is a potent repellent for me seeking to avoid mediocre noise.

The question was about a default desktop, not that you can install one.

 

[mro]

The question was about a default desktop, not that you can install one.

my rant was about being appealing for the masses as a motivation. I touched nudged vs. unbiased choice earlier on.

 

[Swithun]

I doubt that FreeBSD will ever have any kind of default DE installed.

What would be nice, I think someone already mentioned this, is the option to choose what kind of install i.e. Workstation - this would install relevant X/Wayland DE by asking the user which DE and so on.

But with that said, I don't see a reason why this would be added due to how easily adding a DE can be done.

 

[T-Aoki]

It is not better to see screenshots in the internet before installing?

I had no such idea. I assumed the screenshot bundled in the install media, captured by the maintainer of the installer (or other voluteers).

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

Yes. It should be ADDITIONAL FOLLOWUP STEP. If I recall correctly, sysinstall (the installer before current bsdinstall) had menus (shown after base is installed) to choose something to install from bundled packages.

If one wants to install and begin installing, one must at least know what he wants to install.

Brief description (in ports Makefile) or pkg-messages and bundled screenshot (not exist now) would help. That't my point.

 

[T-Aoki]

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. …"

Thanks. I've missed the sectiont.
What seems to be clear is that it should have "what current bsdinstall has as CUI" as GUI. Of course, it it's correct, no default DE is assumed.

 

[T-Aoki]

The question was about a default desktop, not that you can install one.

I couldn' find any description about "default DE". So my assumption (and hope) is "NO, not at all".
Nothing to force, let users decide what to do and give them multiple possible choices via ports/packages is FreeBSD's excellent philosophy.

More, FreeBSD is provided under BSD license. Means, anyone, even if it's Microsoft, IBM and/or Apple, can provide customized DE based distribution like Ghost BSD and (ancient) PC-BSD. It even can be a closed-source'd commersially licensed products like PlayStation4 and initial MacOSX.

Note that MacOSX is already hardly modified that their smb/cifs implementation on Darwin layer cannot be a "drop-in replacement" for FreeBSD (possibly, it happened as of their merges with Mach microkernel).

 

[richardtoohey2]

MacOSX is already hardly modified

heavily?

 

[drhowarddrfine]

I couldn' find any description about "default DE".

The very title of this thread to begin with

 

[drhowarddrfine]

my rant was about being appealing for the masses as a motivation. I touched nudged vs. unbiased choice earlier on.

Which has nothing to do with what I was replying to him about

 

[astyle]

I had no such idea. I assumed the screenshot bundled in the install media, captured by the maintainer of the installer (or other voluteers).

We do have a thread for screenshots, and what's possible. It's just that FreeBSD doesn't come with a default desktop, and has no plans to do that:
Thread freebsd-screen-shots.8877

 

[T-Aoki]

The very title of this thread to begin with

Yes, with this thread. But no, with the quaterly report mentioned.
I meant the latter here. As my comment was related with "Why the OP thought as written in the thread title?".

 

[GlitchyDot]

It reminds me of Arch Linux where people where saying thing like this but about auto installer and answer from Arch Linux was top notch: If you want installer - Arch is not for you! i think FreeBSD same thing/logic.
If every distro or OS came with DE/WM as standard - whats the point of having OS like FreeBSD or distro like Arch when they are build using this approach.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

Yes, with this thread. But no, with the quaterly report mentioned.
I meant the latter here. As my comment was related with "Why the OP thought as written in the thread title?".

But I never commented on anything you said so I think you are confused

 

[T-Aoki]

But I never commented on anything you said so I think you are confused

Possibly. Multiple discussions are ongoing here.

 

[T-Aoki]

It reminds me of Arch Linux where people where saying thing like this but about auto installer and answer from Arch Linux was top notch: If you want installer - Arch is not for you! i think FreeBSD same thing/logic.
If every distro or OS came with DE/WM as standard - whats the point of having OS like FreeBSD or distro like Arch when they are build using this approach.

Approaches like FreeBSD and Arch would be to become base OS for variants.
If FreeBSD defaults any of DEs, it would make it harder to build variants like GhostBSD if the chosen DE is different (even worse, X vs Wayland protocols).
It's not a good thing for base vanilla OS.
If FreeBSD gets defaut DE, someone should fork and keep base OS, making FreeBSD as one of its DOWNSTREAM/VARIANT.

And exactly speaking, Linux is just a kernel maintained at kernel.org.
It does not have any default DE, of course. Even doesn't have userland.
What people call "Linux" is usually any of distros using Linux kernel and other libraries/apps/DEs.

With this context, FreeBSD is at kernel.org side and GhostBSD and other variants are distros side like Mint, Ubuntu, RHEL and so on.

Don't forget that FreeBSD is used on something like IoT gears/routers that DEs cannot run on.

 

[smithi]

Which FreeBSD developers want that? Please name names.

See the thread, there is a report that FreeBSD is working on graphical interface for the installer.

Not-so-artfully dodged. Find somewhere in a 3 page, 70 post thread? Unhelpful.

'FreeBSD' isn't a person, but a project. Only persons can work on software, and people have names and can have work attributed to them.

Your response and original wild assertion is how rumour and misinformation breed if unchallenged.

 

[hruodr]

Yes. It should be ADDITIONAL FOLLOWUP STEP.

No, the smaller the installer, the better.

After installing one can enjoy screenshoots, videos, etc and install more with pkg.

 

[T-Aoki]

No, the smaller the installer, the better.

After installing one can enjoy screenshoots, videos, etc and install more with pkg.

If I recall correctly, sysinstall, which was the former installer of bsdinstall, already had post-install configuration menu, including installing packages in the installation media. So from system side of view, it's additional step. But from installer side of view, no additional steps at all.

 

[Cath O'Deray]

… GhostBSD - comes with MATE and XFCE flavors. …

The official image uses just one desktop environment: MATE.

Let's note that the GhostBSD Project is not responsible for the quality of community spins, such as the unofficial image that uses Xfce.

… If FreeBSD defaults any of DEs, it would make it harder to build variants like GhostBSD if the chosen DE is different …

Pictured:

• KDE as a GhostBSD default in 1999 – alternatives comprised Afterstep, Enlightenment, GNOME, and Windowmaker
• GhostBSD with Plasma in 2024.

It's not difficult to install things such as SDDM and KDE Plasma with GhostBSD.

Whilst I don't intend to create a community spin for Plasma, it shouldn't be difficult for interested people to do so. A community spin might be overkill, given the ease with which alternative DEs can be used.

… GhostBSD isn't part of FreeBSD ecosystem, it's just a derivative. …

The ecosystem, as currently described, does include the thousands of dedicated and talented developers, contributors, and end users that create FreeBSD according to an open governance model, so:

• let's acknowledge Eric as one of these dedicated and talented people.

 

[T-Aoki]

It's not difficult to install things such as SDDM and KDE Plasma with GhostBSD.

Whilst I don't intend to create a community spin for Plasma, it shouldn't be difficult for interested people to do so. A community spin might be overkill, given the ease with which alternative DEs can be used.

By specifying default DE, users would assume and expect it is FULLY FUNCTIONAL.Means, no dropped/regressed features exists.
And default DEs are (I assume) prohibited to be deinstalled (if done, automatically and forcibly reinstalled). This would make some components conflicting other DEs/WMs. (As tools for maintaining OS would be [and should be] strongly tied with the default DE.)
This is what I expect for the default DE, but I don't think it matches FreeBSD philosophy, letting everything to users/admins.
And what's worse, the efforts to keep default DE up-to-date could attract develpment/porting resources to the default, suspected to make other DEs/WMs much behind than now. I don't want such a situation.