Slashdot Mirror

http://www.pcbsd.org/ 7.1 is based off FreeBSD 7.1. I'm sure 7.2 of PCBSD will come out shortly.

The support forum does seem to be popular. I wonder is now a good time to revive United Linux?

although they lack a good pre-built distro like Ubuntu.

They do have a good pre-built distro. It's called PC-BSD. It's very good in my experience, very nice. And it's a breeze to install, just like Ubuntu.

I like Ubuntu even better. But PC-BSD is very fine, really, it deserves recognition. It's well worth trying.

Try out PCBSD, based of FreeBSD, aiming to be a alternative to Ubuntu.

If you are really that interested, you should be able to stomach installing GNOME on your own. Heck, google around, maybe somebody has already made a PCBSD remix with gnome as default.

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.

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

Yes, or at least close to it PC-BSD.

You'll have everything you need. You may want to consider PC-BSD, a.. friendlier edition of FreeBSD. It uses KDE by default, and as you're a Fluxbox user, you'll know how to swap that out as needed.

The only gotcha is that nVidia's binary drivers are just as finicky as in Linux, and you're SOL if you want to use the amd64 version of FreeBSD, unless I'm out of touch. You can find their binary driver here.

*BSD and Linux are both great. If you want very easy install, try PC-BSD. Very nice.

Dude, good GUI design is done with statistical testing and - gasp - even some theory of cognitive science thrown in. Measuring response times, irritation, how many times and how easily the user gets a task right. Etc. For instance, Microsoft Vista beta was tested on families for an extended period of time. This goes for an average user, the Ion-3 user doesn't count, does it?

You display a total lack of knowledge in the field. You gotta stop talking out of your ass. I don't work in the field either, but you're just thick...You've never even skimmed over a book or publications about the subject. If anything, the lack of progress in Linux land is startling. I'm talking usability. You're talking aesthetics/taste. You know what's aesthetics? The current fixation on spinning cubes and wobbly windows by the Linux crowd that adds nothing or near nothing to usability.

Now you prove me wrong and mention a slew of testing Gnome has conducted. I can only one or two remember small-samples tests. For years, in fact, the interface guidelines for Gnome were "stolen" straight out of Apple. KDE doesn't fare much better with its track record but, at least, they have talked about it and come to the conclusion that they needed testing and take the mattter more seriously.

I don't hate Linux...I don't give a damn about Linux because, in fact, I prefer FreeBSD (wanna see a real FOSS usability improvements? - go see what the people at PC-BSD are doing). What I hate is this fucking ignorant and stupid navel-gazing you displayed.

Then there's also PC-BSD's PBI format http://www.pcbsd.org/content/view/20/26/ I personally haven't used it yet but will be trying out later this week.

Most Linux fanboys are a buch of hypocrites. They would diss Linspire, but then go right ahead and install proprietary Flash and RealPlayer, and use a Windows codecs when available.

Lispire is the thing to give your papa, or granny. Power-users, shut up. Most of you aren't compiling stuff with MLTon anyway. So shut up. Even most of you don't need Debian or FreeBSD. It's just that fixing stuff that's breaking in Leenox distros feels like you're doing Real Work (TM). (Gee, look, I got Debian to install my package without removing the kernel!)

Just put "Linux" in people's mouth. Me, I'm happy they pronounce any word ending in *nix. Later we explain - "actually, that was just a Unix-like OS. Here, take PC-BSD. Give it a try."

Right now, for someone who wants a desktop system, I would recomend that you look at PC-BSD (see: http://www.pcbsd.org/). It is not a fork of FreeBSD. It's FreeBSD with nice end-user add ons, such as a graphical installer and PIBs. PIBs are apps packaged and easily installed (much like on Macs or Windows). PC-BSD got a lot of positive reviews.

FreeBSD has more software than the other BSDs and has more commercial products being developed for it, such as some IDEs, back-up products, VMs (see: http://www.win4bsd.com/, http://serenityvirtual.com/), anti-virus (although geared toward corporate users, but see: http://www.kaspersky.com/kaspersky_security_mail_server?chapter=207716294) even an excelent Microsoft-Word commpatible Word Processor (see: http://www.softmaker.com/english/). Plus, Java certified by Sun.

Also, a nice feature of BSDs is the ability to run software for Linux on them. I have Maple 8 runing on my FreeBSD and I did it after the thing just broke with the Debian upgrades.

"Can I pop in an install dvd, have all of my hardware recognized and configured, and be dropped into kde or gnome, depending on what I chose?"

As a matter of fact, yes you can. See: PC-BSD

"Do I have nice programs available from the default install like SuSE or Fedora give me...so I don't have to use the command line and can take care of my machine from the GUI?"

Why, yes you do. The exact same programs, in fact.

"Your average non-geek user doesn't want to spend a large portion of his time using his computer working with config files trying to get things working right. They just want it to work. "

This is usually the argument that is used when people talk about Linux. Who wants to spend hours editing conf files, build and rebuilding the kernel, etc.? It's awesome to see that Linux has crossed that threshold!

Ok, maybe OpenBSD isn't aimed at the desktop, but apparently PC-BSD is.

there are 3 ways to install packages in PC-BSD. The "best" way is to use the PBI as that is the main innovation of PC-BSD itself. Other than the PBI, you can use the native FreeBSD packages and ports collection to install programs. Read more here: http://docs.pcbsd.org/guide/chap4.1.html

as for upgrading, it depends on which way you installed. If you stuck with the PBI, which should be your first route to take, I believe you simply remove the old and install the new. I can't remember if it will do that automatically for you or not. FreeBSD packages and ports collection have their own set of commands to upgrade and I think other people already covered those.

I've already got VMs out the nose with different OSs I just had to try. The PC-BSD folks make one readily available at the following location:

PC-BSD VMWare Image

I recommend this method of trying out new OSs, or avoiding corrupting your computer's virtue by installing one is made by whichever large West Coast corporation you dislike.

Official PCBSD web and download page.

--
The easiest way to earn money with your web.

Official PCBSD web and download page.

--
The easiest way to earn money with your web.

I'll admit it's a longshot and might not be mature enough for business desktop use, but I'm voting PC-BSD with it's PBI system.

This idea is a good one provided that this autonomous division is given ample exposure by Dell. The risk in this kind of business model is that there will be not enough media exposure or advertising and just die off. The success is also heavily dependent upon good leadership in a very fragmented market. Unfortunately, Linux is a fragmented market with consumers coming up with excellent arguments for and against the use of, say, Ubuntu versus others. If I had my two cents, I'd love to see Dell consider PC-BSD. I have had an easier time installing PC-BSD. Realistically, how many distributions could one company support? By offering a choice of distributions that is too broad, more people would need to be hired, trained, and retained that have expertise in various Linux distributions. Linux experts do not come cheap and the extra cost would ultimately be passed on to the consumer through higher hardware prices for support and hardware. Therefore, the consumer seeking open source may pay more. This is unfortunate market economics in a David versus Goliath struggle. This is a type of dilemma that every business faces when introducing a new product. Dell may have faced this difficulty before, during the radical change from Windows 3.11 to 95.

Hey, it would be nice if we could get one of the BSDs as an option. But, it probably won't happen. PC-BSD would be a great candidate. It is very easy to use and has software installers called PBIs which behave very similarly to the Windows installer interface. The only thing I am not so crazy about is that it is KDE based. I am more of a fan of Gnome. Have a look at the website. Methinks you'll like it. http://www.pcbsd.org

Its not linux, but pcbsd has download and install from single file. Unlike klik, you can download file while in windows.
http://www.pcbsd.org/

It's called FreeBSD or you can use PC BSD.

Plus they're free, unlike Windows or OSX.

Furthermore, don't wait around for fscking Vista to fix problems that Microsoft cannot afford to fix.

Protecting computers from vulnerabilities that need not be there in the first place is a multi-billion dollar business encompassing thousands of product and service vendors world-wide that ultimately trickle capital back up the vulnerability supply chain.

This bizarre altruistic myth of Microsoft working around the clock to solve these problems, to deliver the customer a trouble-free computing experience, is to be awash on the shoals of pure reason. It is idiocy. No monopoly in it's right mind can afford to produce a flawless, self-obsolescing product. MS is all about creating a sickness and providing itself as the only cure. There's no reason that given time, Apple would do otherwise either - such is the legacy of these old proprietary software corporations and their rental operating systems.

If you want to step out of this self-flagellating pit, try a desktop quality BSD or find peace in the sanity of a certain brownish distribution of Linux.

Try PCBSD. I have had a nightmare of a time with Linux too. PCBSD uses the FreeBSD distribution of BSD (which is not a linux kernel but a true, independent Operating system) Not only is it easy to install, but installing packages works very similarly to Windows. try this www.pcbsd.org.

...To quote the film Brewster's Millions, "None of the above."

I heartily recommend evaluating FreeBSD. For people seeking something a little less prickly than the vanilla tree, PC-BSD is also available, which adds a graphical user interface by default and a more graphically oriented form of package management, among other things.

Stallman raises some valid points with regards to how Vista users are likely to get the shaft...but what Stallman isn't likely to want you to know is that there is a third option, which means you don't have to climb aboard the FSF/Linux bandwagon either.

FreeBSD is a very solid system. The Linux binary support means you can get such things as Adobe's binary browser plugins working with it, and FreeBSD also has native binary nVidia video card drivers available, meaning that you can play World of Warcraft and all of the usual 3D games with Wine. Ports, the package management system, has makefiles for over 16,000 applications, and it's also pretty much the only package management system I've used that I consider genuinely reliable and decent.

You will possibly see some people aligned with the FSF shouting me down for writing this...Stallman doesn't want anyone using FreeBSD or the BSD license, and the reason why is because if people do, that's less people who end up seeing him as an authority figure, or who he has to use as extra bodies for his activism.

It's got to the point where to a large degree, using an operating system associated with any particular group means you're vulnerable to control by that particular group. With Microsoft, sure, you end up with DRM. With Linux, you end up with *only* the license/s Stallman wants you to use, and no other...as well as possibly getting conscripted for his activism if you become sufficiently close with the FSF.

The only solution I've been able to find is to seek an operating system which isn't affiliated with any particular group...or at least controlling agenda. FreeBSD is one, and is probably the most mature that I've been able to find...but there are a few others, for people who want to investigate those. That however is what we need...an operating system, without economic, political, or technological control. Microsoft want economic and technological control of people...Richard Stallman wants political control of people. The reason why I don't find the offerings of either of those two camps appealing is because I value self-determination...the ability to make my own choices.

Binary compatability across a version tree... in other words, if you are running v4.1 BSD and go to 4.2, your drivers still work, good thing for binary drivers (nvidia, ati, etc)... down side is it isn't as well supported..

I think that the Linux side of things should *REALLY* start to emphasize binary compatible trees at the kernel level, as I honestly get tired of having to update drivers every kernel update... Sometimes things break when this happens.. far less likely with BSD over Linux.

Emerge which is Gentoo's claim to fame is modelled after the BSD ports system, which has been around far longer. BSD's binary package system has been around longer than apt, yum, or other linux distribution systems is stable, and consistant.

The down side is BSD hasn't reached any critical mass. The FreeBSD, and I would assume the OpenBSD installers are a painful experience getting a system setup, especially getting software raid working (though I prefer hardware). Driver support is limited, and most new drivers are ports of linux drivers, however the support layer is pretty good. There is also a linux compatability layer which will allow for most linux binaries to run.

For the desktop side, PC-BSD has made huge strides, it's very easy to get installed, and use... there are a few other desktop oriented versions, but imho this is the best. It's installer is based in QT and is basically a FreeBSD 6.x install with X-Windows, and KDE installed an preconfigured, there are also some extra configuration utilities that are enhanced, in addition to some custom utils.

Now, I can see if you have current applications that you could not switch to OSS. But, the training issue I believe you are exaggerating greatly. It's hardly a "whole new way of doing things". We're talking about desktops, right? A point is still a point and a click is still a click. (I use FreeBSD. PC-BSD is reported to be a very user-freindly variant.)

And, if we're not talking about desktops, then I'm even more baffled. I've always found network administration and servers to be way easier to manage on unix than on w1ndows.

Chill out dude. Without your submissions, Slashdot wouldn't be able to bring us so many dupes. I'm sure your submission will be approved soon.

On another note, my recent submission was rejected. I guess the release of another firewall based on another firewall based on FreeBSD is more newsworthy than a FreeBSD based desktop OS getting corporate backing.

"Older machine" covers a lot of ground. ME-stake could have come on anything from about a 266 MHz machine with 64 MB of RAM to a 800 MHz or so with 256 MB. I'd have very different recommendations depending upon which end of the spectrum the machine fell. First of all, I'd suggest upgrading the memory to at least 128 MB to run a modern full-sized distro.

For a really lower end box I'd suggest a Slackware-based distribution with XFCE like Vectorlinux or Zenwalk. Slackware itself is remarkable fast on older hardware. I have a 400 MHz/128 MB machine on the back porch running KDE on 10.2 with no problem, and while it isn't exactly zippy, it works fine (and I won't lose any sleep if the neighborhood kids decide they need the machine more than I do). But Slack requires quite a bit of time and some experience with Linux to set up (when will the mouse wheel work out of the box without editing xorg.conf?) Though I haven't used it much, PC-BSD also seemed adequate running KDE on an older box (128 MB), as well, and isn't as fiddly as Slack.

For a machine with a little more pop I think Freespire would be fine. Xandros free addition is a little dated (2004), but would also work well for someone with Windows experience. It's version of KDE is ancient and doesn't have tabs, but I think it would be more intuitive for first time Linux users. PCLinuxOS is easy to set up and comes with MPlayer configured to play Windows formats without the need for win32-codecs.

A lot of the pain of setting up a desktop Linux box is to set it up to deal with proprietary formats that you are likely to encounter on the net, things like Flash, Realplayer, various codecs, Java, DVDs, etc. Many distros have been actually removing proprietary stuff from their default installs (for instance, libdvdcss is no longer part of PCLinuxOS). So any distro that has tools available to easily add that stuff might make your life easier. EasyUbuntu and Automatix automate all that stuff for Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu and Mepis (Automatix), so that makes those distros very appealing. There is something similar available for Debian Etch and I suspect other projects like them are in the works for other major distros. (Anyone know?)

Bearing this in mind, I might suggest Xubuntu, the XFCE version of Ubuntu. It will run on 128 MB machines and the proprietary multimedia stuff is easy to add with those scripts. Plus, it has a very clean, simply interface that a new user would be less likely to find confusing. You can install from the liveCD "Desktop" edition if you have 192 MB of RAM or more or use the "Alternate CD" installation disc with 128 MB. I haven't tried it on a slow machine, but it is very snappy on my lappy.

to the website. It looks like they have a windows like enviroment, but the real advantage is that they created an installer that doesn't rely on dependencies. Each application installs with all dependencies self contained, and with an installer that looks like a regular window/mac installer.

So it might be worth an install just to check out the system. Looks clean, they tout that it's fast, but I want to look for it myself. Will install this weekend on my Laptop and see if it really detects hardware like they say.

Skip the article, go to the website.

http://www.pcbsd.org/

The article is of very poor quality. It doesn't even provide a link to the PC-BSD website.

Today, have you tried PC-BSD? http://www.pcbsd.org/

http://www.pcbsd.org/

You might want to check out PC-BSD http://www.pcbsd.org/.

PC-BSD is startlingly easy to install and use. Nice GUI installer that doesn't require the user to answer questions that require any technical knowledge. Autodetection of hardware and automagic configuration rivals anything I've seen, and certainly appears to beat Windows in this regard, generally speaking.

A single-CD install, no DVD drive requirement, or multiple CDs to swap. Additional software is available as click-to-install .PBI packages, with a GUI installer and uninstaller. It will also run many programs written for linux. There is also autoupdating for both the OS and programs.

PC-BSD can also use the HUGE amount of software in the FreeBSD "Ports" tree, although this *does* require using the command-line. The lack of a GUI ports installer/uninstaller is one of the niggles I have with PC-BSD, although for most people that just want a functional home PC, the .PBI collection would suffice without requiring the user to *have* to use a command-line software install.

Being based upon FreeBSD, PC-BSD is very secure as opposed to Microsofts' offerings.

There are a couple of reviews of PC-BSD online, one of which by Clement Lefebvre at linuxforums.org is available here: http://www.linuxforums.org/reviews/pc-bsd_1.0_revi ew.html.

Personally, I see this "pay-as-you-go computing" as a way to rake in money, while at the same time, removing the ability of users to do things they can currently do with a conventional PC. This could also be a step in the direction of ending consumer ownership of general-purpose computers and the freedom that comes with them, as well as throwing a huge wrench into F/OSS software and operating systems if widely adopted or legislated as mandatory.

Cheers!

Strat

The problem is that Microsoft succeeded by doing this, while the others did not.

Almost anyone can install Windows on almost any computer.

The noob and desktop friendly PC-BSD hit 1.0 release recently.

I wonder how this differs from PC-BSD.

They managed to ship earlier despite a later start. I'm not sure if that's good or bad.

Good comments. You bring up some valid points regarding a consistent installation/upgrade mechanism for Linux apps. DPKG for Debian is probably the most reliable, and versatile of the bunch. As a user that's concerned with this, I'd like to know what your thoughts are on something like PBI that the folks over at PCBSD are developing. I think what they are on to is potentially better than what Linux/Unix/Windows are doing. Their installer actually releases the user from dependency (or in Windows' case, dll) hell by providing all the files that the user needs to run the application in it's own "container". Apps no longer have to share files with other apps (or the operating system), so you may upgrade the OS, and never have your apps break. It's an interesting concept that I think Linux could do well from.

It's very easy to get a FreeBSD/KDE desktop up and running.

You could also give PC-BSD a try, It's an offshoot of FreeBSD designed for desktop use. It uses KDE (3.5.1), GUI installer, has auto updating stuff, self-contained program packages (Like on Mac's) and simple GUI package & system management tools, and many other cool stuff.

http://www.pcbsd.org/
http://www.freebsd.org/
-------------------
Anyways... KDE has completely won me over. My opinion is it's *better* then Windows and almost as good as Mac OS X, just wait till KDE 4 is out! The three KDE/QT apps I can't live without are Qalculate!, amaroK, and Quanta Plus. It would be nice if you could build Firefox, OOo, and Java with QT, and have KDE bindings.

"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

They should have also tested PC-BSD.

Linux isn't the only open souce desktop option, and I've been more impressed with PC-BSD than any Linux distro for desktop use.

It's almost at a 1.0 version, is already extremely stable. You can install packages by downloading them and double-clicking, or you can use the FreeBSD ports system. It also has an extremely simple graphical installer.

I suppose the only disadvantage of going with a BSD desktop rather than Linux would be that Linux has more drivers... but all of my hardware works so far.

Why do embedded developers continue to imprison themselves in the GPL trap by using Linux, when there are better available alternatives that provide more freedom for developers?

I only say this because mplayer on my FreeBSD 5-STABLE desktop works flawlessly. I know how frustrating is when someone comes up with a "works perfectly on my install" kinda reply, but you need to supply more info. Is mplayer buggy on Debian Linux? SuSe? Fedora? All of those? (I doubt it!). Solution is to find a distro that is most suitable for desktop use. There are a lot of problems with our current concepts of "Desktop friendly Linux." We tend to think of Mandrake, Ubuntu, SuSE and others that offer easy installation and GUI configuration tools. But whether or not a distro is desktop friendly depends more on the quality of the packages they maintain. Writing GUI tools or simplifying things is really not that difficult. PC-BSD comes to mind, that has 1/10 of the resources that popular Desktop Linux distroes have at their disposal, yet arguably, in about a year, they become as close to a user friendly *nix like desktop as any of the big names.

Actually, that is why the KDE project is exemplary, and is one of the best managed open source projects out there. They do things in the right order: they make sure that the supporting infrastructure (QT4 in this case) is solid. Then they build developer-friendly tools (and artists/usability guys and girls friendly) like klik. They do workshops all around the world now (New Delhi is the next station) - familiarizing developers with their tools (oh, and don't forget the excellent documentation of QT). And once that infrastructure is in place, maintainability of the code base is assured. That is how a user friendly linux distro should be built. Take a small but solid base (slackware would be a good candidate) and make sure every single package works as expected (that is not the case with Debian unfortunately). Build the whole damn thing slowly from the ground up, make it easy, make it low-barrier for future contributors (Document every aspect!). Organize a quality assurance team! And as a final step, build a user friendly installer/gui config tools.

Again, look at pc-bsd for an example of this. What they inherit from FreeBSD is a sense of integration. PC-BSD is a misnomer - it should be named KDE/PC-BSD (just like gnu linux). They use every configuration tool that is already available in kcontrolcenter. What is missing is written in QT (including the installer). In mandrake (as far as memory servers) you could manage users in both kcontrolcenter and mandrake's own control center - which is understandable as long as desktop linux efforts are shackled by the perception that they must be desktop agnostic. That is why Ubuntu was a great success imho (of course, I know that now we have Kubuntu).

Anyhow, my choice of FreeBSD is based on my personal preferences - but what primarily drove me to it is the problem you describe. What should a non-techie user do when mplayer crashes? Complain to ... whom? Finally, I found myself switching distroes (rh 7.3 >> Mandrake 9.0/9.1 >> Debian Woody >> Unstable - where half the packages had some quirks) until I realized I was looking for exactly what FreeBSD had to offer. My current problem with linux distroes is that I can't find any that is relatively flawless or comes close to Free~'s quality. Well, maybe slackware - or arch (I have the former installed, and I have heard good things about the latter). But as long as there is no distro that has quality and simplicity (that is where slackware is excellent) as their first and foremost

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.