Slashdot Mirror
Another Step Towards BSD on the Desktop
linuxbeta writes "DesktopBSD is the latest easy to install BSD aimed squarely at the desktop. Installation screen shots. From their site: 'DesktopBSD aims at being a stable and powerful operating system for desktop users. DesktopBSD combines the stability of FreeBSD, the usability and functionality of KDE and the simplicity of specially developed software to provide a system that's easy to use and install.' DesktopBSD joins the ranks of PC-BSD and FreeSBIE."
That's the bootloader, you nut. Even Fedora Core's bootloader uses that "ugly terminal font," just with different colors. Windows NT/2000/XP's bootloader looks like that too (and if you push the right buttons while booting your Mac, you'll get (you guessed it) a text-mode command prompt/boot loader (ie openfirmware). As with OpenFirmware, the FreeBSD bootloader can be configured silent so as not to display that menu). Sheesh. We give you KDE and you give us this hogwash about our installer. >:(
Here you go.
OH NOES!!! IT APPEARS YUO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DIS HERE PIZZA! WAHT EVER ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?
RC2 is actually out, just not listed on their download page. I found it on the Oregon Mirror, however that mirror is extremely slow -- (20K/sec).
I'm hosting a mirror of DesktopBSD-1.0-RC2-x86-CD.iso
May this post be indexed by spiders, and archived for all to see as my Internet epitaph.
I agree with you that man pages should not be deprecated (they serve their purpose damn well, and have a very long tradition).
...) for your manual, from the same .texi source. The integration with the autotools is also marvellous (make pdf, make html, make ps, ..).
That said, texinfo has HUGE benefits for developers and users. It is a breeze for example to generate all sort of formats (pdf, html, text, info
I think both man and info should remain, with man helping you when you just need to look at that cmdline option you forgot, and info giving you the full manual with chapters, examples, etc.
You are missing the point. Linux is a kernel and each distro is a Linux based OS. FreeBSD is _not_ a kernel - it is a full operating system. DesktopBSD is not just the FreeBSD 'kernel', with a 'graphical installer' and a 'gui'. It is the full FreeBSD OS with a few extra desktop-friendly tools added (I'm not judging it, just stating what it is).
Short answer: because FreeBSD has softupdates, which for most people turn out to be just as good, and for some better.
There are two ways to get the advantages most people want from a journaling file system. The obvious is to write a journal. FreeBSD instead spent time to make sure that meta-data could not get out of date in the first place, and thus there is no need for a journal. The latter is harder to implement, but has some significant advantages, and other disadvantages. For most people either will work fine, for those who have a case where it matters FreeBSD is implementing the journal. The real question is why nobody else is implementing softupdates so they don't need a journal in the cases where it is worse.
Remember, this is not a case where journals are always better than softupdates. For some workloads journals are better, for others softupdates is better. FreeBSD will soon be the only one to let you choose based on your real-world needs.