Slashdot Mirror

Well, it's aimed at the desktop, maybe they could call it "Desktop-BSD". Except that "Desktop" as a word is somewhat anachronistic.

And it is already taken.

No, those are forks. FreeBSD is not just a kernel like Linux. FreeBSD is the entire package. You don't have other distros, you have forks of the original.

http://desktopbsd.net/wiki/doku.php?id=doc:faqs

Of course, I appreciate the fact that FreeBSD's base is an integrated system which is maintained as a unit as opposed to Linux distributions which are sourced from multiple projects.

Yes, the only FreeBSD 'distro'. FreeBSD is not fragmented like the 100 and 1 Linux distros

There are FreeBSD-based PC-BSD and DesktopBSD Both of them are using KDE, though.

Please look at PC-BSD or DesktopBSD; they would be the equivalent to Ubuntu.

http://www.pcbsd.org/
http://www.desktopbsd.net/

Disk Geometry trolling isn't funny or have you confused this with partitioning. So, are you trolling or are you stating that you don't like to partition drives. If it is partitioning then you may want to check out the above links; if you're trolling, then continue with what you're doing

If you want to go that way, then it's worth looking at DesktopBSD for newbies. It's FreeBSD with KDE, a graphical installer, and a ports GUI.

1) Actually, I run KDE with nVidia drivers installed, and I made it a point to ask people how the fonts look (since it used to be such a big issue with Linux newbies. When asked, numerous Windows users either said they looked nice, or they looked better than Windows.

2) KDE can easily be changed to take us less screen space. If you ever decide to give up your career in trolling and start using computer software, I recommend you try DesktopBSD. By default, they size down the KDE taskbar, making it the same size as Windows XP.

If they ever get things "resolved", then people like you would be crying that they're trying to look too much like Windows.

A bit off-topic and shameless fanboyism but with a project like Desktop BSD enjoying all the pleasures of a BSD is very easy and noobfriendly.

I prefer DesktopBSD to PC-BSD as DesktopBSD uses ports, whereas PC-BSD seems rather fond of these PBI things, which seem to emulate the worst Windows has to offer (a solution such as this would have been a bit more bearable if they wanted to get away from the orthodox package management system.) That being said, I do with DesktopBSD would move on to FreeBSD 6 instead of 5.5.

Or try DesktopBSD. Stable and the installation is the easiest I've seen (I've seen Windows, Suse, Red Hat and Ubuntu) You can download it here: DesktopBSD

ftp://ftp.desktopbsd.net/torrents/

From here...

Hardware requirements and support

DesktopBSD is running on any decent i386, AMD64 or EM64T computer. We recommend at least 4 GB of disk space and 256 MB memory for installation, maybe less is possible.

If you want to know if a specific hardware component is supported, please see the FreeBSD Hardware Notes for i386 or AMD64/EM64T.

Most people have a hard time remembering if their CPU is made by Pentium or made by Intel. They won't have a clue whether it's i386 or AMD64.

"And beyond that it's probably safer to use something like OpenBSD instead of XP."

I mean, seriously, just who is your post directed too? I can tell my clients: Use Firefox instead of IE, I sometimes tell them use OSX instead of XP. I even see situations where I might suggest Linux over XP or OSX.

But for the life of me, I don't ever ever see a situation where I go: " Yeah!, use BSD - it's a viable alternative to XP or OSX".

You should take a look at the current FreeBSD. I've found it to be quite practical as a home or office desktop with KDE or Gnome. The excellent remote-administration capabilties make it a good choice for multiple-workstation environments.

There are also some beginner-oriented FreeBSD-based distributions that make installing and setting up a FreeBSD desktop system an almost Mandriva-like experience, and quite a bit easier (IMHO) than installing and setting up any windows version I've tried. A couple that come to mind are PC-BSD http://www.pcbsd.org/ and DesktopBSD http://www.desktopbsd.net/

PC-BSD has, in addition to the excellent BSD "ports" system for software management, a custom software-package system that makes installing things like Java and Flash a click-click-click-done nearly windows-like experience.

Strat

DesktopBSD http://www.desktopbsd.net/ might be easier for Windrones. But it seems like MS Norway are using Mac... I don't know if this method are reliable, but # xprobe2 81.93.160.182 gives:

[+] Host 81.93.160.182 Running OS: "Apple Mac OS X 10.3.8" (Guess probability: 100%)
[+] Host 81.93.160.182 Running OS: "Apple Mac OS X 10.3.9" (Guess probability: 100%)
[+] Host 81.93.160.182 Running OS: "Apple Mac OS X 10.4.0" (Guess probability: 100%)
[+] Host 81.93.160.182 Running OS: "Apple Mac OS X 10.4.1" (Guess probability: 100%)

DesktopBSD

Good point. I had no trouble installing and using the 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 Free BSD O/S. It was for personal use & just to see ... Never could get a functioning system out of the 5.x series. It is silly for FreeBSD to be getting harder to istall while Debian has gotten trivially easy.

However, PC-BSD works quite well, but with limited software installation, unless one goes to the ports. The base is OK for someone who just wants to surf and e-mail. Getting OO installed is trickier. It got a good review from Dru Lavigne also here. There's a fresh beta, 0.8 just released.

There's also Desktop BSD over here, which I have not tried as there seem to be problems with installation on boxes with an Athlon CPU. When they get that fixed ... we'll see.