Slashdot Mirror
PC-BSD 0.5a Beta: BSD For Dummies
linuxbeta writes "PC-BSD 0.5a beta has now been released! You can download the 670Mb ISO file from our download page. This version fixes some minor bugs, and now has fully automatic network support. Screenshots available." So what's it all about? From the PC-BSD FAQ: "This OS has as its goals to be user-friendly, especially in the area of software installation and management, something that many of the *nix based distros have not yet mastered."
Yes. I admit that Darwin is a good example of a BSD based OS as a Desktop OS. But there have been many, and fairly extensive, changes to the base. Darwin may owe it's roots and much code to the BSDs, but it is not a direct derivative like this PC-BSD is. The PC-BSD is the same as FreeBSD plus a graphical installer and KDE packaged in. I have not used it yet, so there may be other diferences. From the website it seems there isn't much else.
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!
The philosophy is interesting. It's also the first instance of something that sounds cheesey but I'd love to tack on to XP when I tortured with that: The Eye Candy Meter
But, the question is what's it for? The key thing seems to be a great sense of integration, etc. But, as far as I can tell, most of the things that someone who wants a *nix with a gui are not there. I may have missed some included alternatives, but you'll do without:
Ouch! I suspect you won't be using this to do office, web or database work for now. Complete package list/release notes here
the clock on the wall says 4 til 7
Didn't they just release Tiger?
What's the point? To me and many others *BSD is about 1) a different license and 2) a different philosophy of development - that is, centralised development of an entire operating system, not just a kernel.
I definitely agree, but let's remember that KDE on FreeBSD is hardly news.
http://freebsd.kde.org/
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
The BSDs do use GPL code, gcc being one of many examples. For the most part, it's the installer we're probably talking about here, thus not part of the base system, so it's probably not so much of an issue if one of the BSDs decided to adopt it.
Not sure if I would want this sort of installation or not, but I think that the BSD projects could benefit from easier installations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do it now, but it could be made a bit easier. Right now I'd say the future of BSD installation is the DragonFly installer.
Thanks. I've already been there and done that - a few times. I'm always having to make a custom kernel to support SMP and this wierd Alteon (IBM Netfinity) gigabit NIC. Portupgrading was always easy, I was always seeming to get tripped up with mergemaster and build world (after tripping up the kernel confing a time or two).
3 _install2.htm
More time tinkering later and I'm sure I'll figure out where I went wrong.
BTW, has the Pango problems with 5.3 been fixed in 5.4RC?
Best install guide for newbies I've yet come across:
http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~reinholz/freebsd/5
FreeBSD:
rc.conf - ifconfig_if0="DHCP"
NetBSD:
ifconfig.if0 - !dhclient $int
Not much fiddling and farking required, and it shouldn't be accompanied by much cursing of you and your companions for still resisting the reading of the manual as if learning how to operate your system was an affront to nature. Market cornering is hardly a related to this argument. That's how Windows got where it is. IF ease of use == market share, then Windows certainly wouldn't be the king right now, MacOS would. Microsoft scored lucrative deals with vendors to include exclusively their products on cheap hardware in the days of DOS (which was hardly user-friendly - want to run an app? change your emm config first amigo! Memory doesn't allocate itself you know!)
In seriousness, I'd like to counter your argument by saying that quickly hacking on a config file is much easier to do (and more independent of interactivity) than munging through a GUI tool hoping to find the right menu with the right option for what you want (if it's even available). Configuration is a one-step process of opening a text file and explicitly stating what configuration options the user wants. This is easy.
I have a hunch that by ease of use, you are actually referring to obviousness of use. While editing a text file really is not hard to do, it isn't necessarily obvious to the novice user. Personally, I think that users who want obvious should stick to something simple like Windows. It fits their purpose, which is probably surfing the web and writing emails to grandma. But for more serious users that want a serious system, there is BSD.
I am not opposed, however, to providing simple tools for simple users. I just do not want to sacrifice the power of the system to them.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
"and I couldn't figure out the damned Ports system"
The ports system is what makes FreeBSD so easy to use. Install whatever you want with "pkg_add -r portname". How hard is that to figure out? The port is installed along with all its dependiencies.