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."
IT'S IN MY ASS PIPE!
Screenshots don't look as good as the perfect openSuSE...
More BSD on the desktop can only be a good thing. Now that OS X is my primary desktop platform, I'm running into more and more BSD-Linux issues.
Best to get in the habit of doing this.
Could someone point me to (or post) a lowdown on the potential benefits of BSD has over linux (or vice versa) that doesn't include wild speculation and unfounded cynicism?
Isn't a BSD distro going to be about the same as a Linux distro? Does the kernel make that big of a difference?
Note the question marks. I am asking.
Note that in the screenshot where they ask you to take the time to read all the instructions, they didn't even take the time to read all the instructions.
PROOF READ! TYPOS ON THE FIRST SCREEN ARE BAD!
Why would you want to run this stuff when you can run Linix Open Source? Linix lets you change the programs to do whatever you want: web browser doesn't support cookies? easy fix.
Every morning when I'm rebooting my Linix system I thank Linix Torvaldis for writing these good programs.
What I'm really looking forward to is the graphical WLAN configuration tool, which apparently will allow for different profiles to be saved (not quite sure on that one, though). Also, the author told me that he'll additionally release most of his stuff as ports, so it can be used on stock FreeBSD installations too. I am very happy with that.
Here's to hoping there's a LiveCD version. So far, the only LiveCD that recognizes my wireless card (Broadcom in an HP laptop) is Simply Mepis.
My Tech Posts on Twitter
First of all, if you're using FreeBSD chances are you know how to configure an X11 environment. It's easy. Also, you have your choice of window managers; not everyone will choose KDE. Package management is already extremely easy with ports, especially with portupgrade. I definitely agree that FreeBSD with an official GUI would be awesome (the opposite approach of Windows, where the interface would simply be a frontend for scripts), but for a half-hearted attempt there's not much of a demographic.
Of recent there seem to be a growing number of projects that endeavour to make FreeBSD prettier/easier to install. I personally would like to see this kind of development become part of FreeBSD, and keep everything together and fully integrated. That I believe is one of FreeBSD's greatest strengths.
Saying your OS is the best because more people use it is like saying MacDonalds make the best food
The major computer OEMs such as Dell, HP, and
Gateway are refusing to offer CONSUMERS a
non-Microsoft choice.
These OEMs are anti-competitve and
anti-consumer-choice. They continue to maintain Microsoft's desktop
monopoly.
I suggest not doing business with these companies until they offer a serious non-Microsoft choice to CONSUMERS.
Here are some companies that DO offer consumers a choice.
http://www.systemax.com/divisions.htm
http://www.microtelpc.com/
http://www.linuxcertified.com/
http://www.outpost.com/ (search for linspire)
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=39
http://www.sub300.com/Skins/greyTech/greyTech_ind
http://www.linare.com/
http://www.linspire.com/featured_partner/featured
http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/pre-installed
http://www.linux.org/vendor/system/index.html
It's great how the fancy graphical installation screen crashes back to an ugly terminal font in Screen10. It kind of throws off the whole good vibe that I'd been getting during the previous steps. Also, why is there a Next button active when the installation script obviously wants me to press Reboot? Strange, to say the least.
But when it comes down to it, installation is only the gateway to the system. It isn't the system itself. MacOS could have the world's worst installation system, but the OS itself runs so nicely that people just love to be running it.
There should be no "Configure my Installation" step. It should choose a default "best-fit" confiuration based on the detected hardware (mostly screen resolution) and leave any further customization to the user to do later. It is more important to have the system up and running than to have it customized just so.
And in the end, you're still dealing with BSD, which is great if you're running a server, but sluggish (response times to system interrupts is slow, compared to Windows and MacOS) when running in a user-centric scenario.
I installed FreeBSD previously and didn't have any trouble there. The questions were just as straightforward as this installer and within an hour I had a full BSD installation with graphical interface to boot. It wasn't "ready for the desktop" in any sense of the term, though, unfortunately.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
I am open to trying new technologies and I wouldn't mind playing with the new mac os. However I need some more convinceing to go after an opensource BSD distro. I think I'd rather try other flavors of linux before taking BSD for a spin, we all know there's plenty to choose from.
The DesktopBSD pot would be better if they adopted autopackage so that all those packages can be fully portable.
Screenshots are great, but only when they're relevant.
... and I knew that before I looked at the screenshots.
;)
People who are keen enough to be interested in BSD will already know what KDE looks like. It would be far more instructive to show screenshots of things that are unique to this particular distribution of BSD. How about showing the GUI tool for software installation, or samba configuration, or something.
All I know now is that BSD runs KDE
I like the KDE background, though
Too bad, all that developer talent could have gone into making Linux better suited for the desktop.
Face it, Linux has a head start and is enjoying far more corporate support (due partly to the fact that Linux is licensed GPLv2, which compells big companies to share back their improvements).
We're all on the same team -- only if we FOCUS our efforts into the OS with the best chance (Linux) can we defeat the DRM-infested, money-grabbing proprietary OSs like M$ Vista and Apple OS X.
Why would you want to run this stuff when you can run OpanBDS Open Source? OpanBDS lets you change the programs to do whatever you want: web browser doesn't support cookies? easy fix.
Every morning when I'm rebooting my OpanBDS system I thank Theo for writing these good programs.
I tried FreeBSD as a desktop OS for a while until I realized:-
* My GPU isn't going to get supported on BSD in this lifetime.
* Recompiling KDE from ports when a new version comes out is not fun.
It's OK I suppose if you use packages for everything and don't really need any graphics capabilities.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
We don't need anymore forks of our favorite BSD projects. They're complete and perfect on their own, thank you! One of the classic benefits of BSD was that there were very few systems to choose from. The uniformity of the systems and cooperation within the projects was legendery (with some exception). All of these spinoffs of FreeBSD are making me nervous. I don't want it to go all linux on me. :-/ I have a hard enough time as it is distro hopping. When will the madness end?
Does it support the SMP version of xterm?
Vi or emacs?
Does this mean I should have bought a nice little Toshiba Satellite (they're damn near giving them away these days!) and installed DesktopBSD?
Grr.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
...of BS on the desktop!
Frankly, I'm having one bad experience with Linux after another since 2.6 came out. I think that, just like everything else, a software project hits it's zenith and then "jumps the shark" as it were. I'll keep trying but it's my opinion that Linux made that leap.
Mind you, as the recent problems with the 5.x FreeBSD series shows, this isn't just a linux problem. So, in my mind, the more choices we have available to us, the better off we are when the OS we use is reduced to chum in the water.
No, the kernel doesn't make that big of a difference, and the kernel is all that linux is. BSDs are complete operating systems. The reason I don't use linux is because every distro comes with a messy userland full of random assorted crap from various sources, and most of the core utilities are bloated, poorly documented GNU junk.
The BSDs have sane, useful, documented and functional userlands, which makes them a joy to use. There is no reason that linux distros couldn't be made with a nice userland too, but nobody seems to have done it. It seems like most linux users have never used a nice unix system, so they don't realize what they are missing.
And in the past, I haven't had any problems setting up FreeBSD 5.x with x11 and KDE for GUI desktop features. Hell I even got my old Aureal Vortex 2 card to actually work in BSD.
Can we label DesktopBSD -1 for Redundant: see OSX?
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
It's not the installation that's preventing adoption of linux or BSD on the desktop -- installation is a one time affair. It's what comes after installation that's preventing widespead use of open source OSs on the desktop, the miserable and inconsistent interface, coupled with a lack of software.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could reanimate the corpse at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
Linux is "popular" now. This means you no longer get to feel unique and superior if you're using it. BSD, which most people still haven't heard of, restores that.
Also the BSD kernel has some highly desirable reliability and scalability characteristics that a home/end/medium size business user such as those that typically read slashdot would never, ever, ever get any real use out of.
"Face it, Linux has a head start and is enjoying far more corporate support (due partly to the fact that Linux is licensed GPLv2, which compells big companies to share back their improvements).
We're all on the same team -- only if we FOCUS our efforts into the OS with the best chance (Linux) can we defeat the DRM-infested, money-grabbing proprietary OSs like M$ Vista and Apple OS X."
Why must every good thing be turned into some kind of zealot-fest, rally to my agenda? How about we all simply enjoy the damn distro without trying to conquor this, push agenda that, holy-war upon everything that doesn't agree with me?
When is starts to fracture.
For awhile there, we only had 3, and life was good. Now we have DragonFly, Darwin, and now DesktopBSD. Any system that splits up so much must be dead or dying!!
Is this a joke?
Operations pending....
HID configuration?
LOOK AT OSX. COPY THAT. THAT IS WHAT WORKS. THE END.
That someone makes a commerical distribution of this and hypes the bejeezus out of it and refuses to give any of the source back to the community.
As a bonus, if it manages to gain popularity, they can introduce I'll kinds of fun little incompatibilities, and eventually DRM. It'll be great, just what the BSD people always wanted. Maybe one of them will even get audited by the BSA for running this commericial distribution they basically created in their workplace. That would be the best. Getting your behind sued off for running your own code.
Of course, Apple is well along that path already. Hooray for evil.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I just want one of the existing bsd's to get a better installer.
Doh! They picked the wrong version of FreeBSD. They should have used the new and exciting DragonFlyBSD fork of FreeBSD.
Why base a new distribution on an old and creaky base?
"Reason #1 why I use FreeBSD over Linux, I just want a Unix-like OS without a revolution packaged with it."
You joke but I firmly believe that that's one important difference between the two licenses. One was designed from the start to be some kind of counter-culture, subversive license. The other is elegent in it's simplicity. No hidden traps that you need a lawyer to ferret out. No worry that sometime latter it will be changed to be even tighter (2.0), when it's realized there might be a way out of it's grasp (web apps).
They could have used one that pimps thier distro. That way when they do screenshots it has the distro type right there easy to see.
The *BSD license has been revoked by the UC board of regents.
You are all fucked.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
YOUR MOM GOES TO COLLEGE!!!
Have they fixed the bug where you can't select boot with USB keyboard because you're using a USB keyboard?
Sigh, Looked through their site... looks like they think "Easy to install Software" means the same thing that every other Open Source Operating system does.
.nix like OS is what is keeping me from using it as my "Desktop".
I don't care if it's apt-get, RPM, Roll your own, or what not.... the difficulty with installing applications on a
For YEARS (5 years plus now).... I've been saying this. No one WANTS to do anything about it though because of the benefits of the current methods.... yet it is this stuff that will keep it out of the Desktop of you ask me.
I am Jack's HTTP Server
"Welcome to the DesktopBSD Installation! This wizard will guide you through the process of installing DesktopBSD on your computer. Please take the time to carefully through all texts and explanations because improper settings can cause data loss."
Always nice when you install a new OS and the first screen you see is a paragraph that has obviously not been proofread.
"Of course, Apple is well along that path already. Hooray for evil."
WHAAA! They won't give their hard work away for free. WHAAA! At least the BSD folks are more honest about there license, than the death-trap the GPL is. Read the BSD license? Straightforward. GPL? I have to have my damn lawyer sitting over my shoulder.
"Nah, it wouldn't stop the original from being distributed, just stop the one everybody wanted to use from being distributed."
Translation: we can't get our GPL act together so we have to "borrow" to get anything people would want to use (The year of Linux, and still rolling)
about 5 years ago when I was entering the fray of my own webserver I searched a bit to find what was a good flavour of linux suited to webserving. To my suprise it wasnt a linux flavour but freebsd. Bieng new to the nix stuff I happily setup a bsd box. To my horror i soon learned that bsd was dead. I stopped losing sleep over it after about the 3 year of bsd is dead, now on year 5 any asswipe that says bsd is dead should stand with the same wipes who constantly post whatever stupid saying is going around.
If you want to be grouped with the same idiots who thought "all your base belong to me" was funny go ahead and keep spouting nonsense.
I guess maybe you can say bsd dying but in my opinion bsd will take years to die.
Sorry for the rant as a bsd user it gets tiring listening to the bsd is dead crap.
Latest Sony all products keygen incl mp3/mpeg plugin fix: http://rapidshare.de/files/3667497/sonyproducts-ke ygen.zip.html
Full version Sony app: http://download.sonypictures.com/current
Yep. Grammar notwithstanding, that's totally worry-free and friendly stuff, right there.
The thing is not that vi is the better editor of the two (although it is), it's that you can guarantee that vi will be installed on any Unix-based system you will ever come across. Emacs is not part of the standard Unix installation, though it is frequently found in those distributions aimed at the high end machines which can handle the extra weight of the editor cum lesson in overkill.
vi is an editor, and it does its job of allowing the user to get his work done quickly without getting in the way. Emacs was once an editor, but has since evolved into an operating environment all its own. It may do some pretty nifty things like play Towers of Hanoi for you, or allow you to read your newsgroups, or even perform programming and debugging without ever having to leave the warm comfort of the application. For all these reasons, it is too bloated to be standard on every Unix system.
vi, on the other hand, is small, fast, and does what it does very well (better than Emacs). It is standard and available on any Unix system you will run across.
OK, BSD Trumpeteers, learn to write INglish on your "graphical" installation screens.
Anything that uses X-Windows will not get widespread user adoption.
DesktopBSD looks good for a BSD, but it's still at least seven years behind the market.
Everyone know that BSD is not open source, because it is not protected by the GPL if any company edits a file they can charge you for a license.
that might make you want to click more or make you less interested, doesn't matter to me. Just FYIing you if you are the type to not check what the status line of a link is.
It's just some tame lesbo type stuff, no big deal unless you are totally against anything like this.
Peace, or Not?
I've wanted to switch from Windows to X for years now, installed BSD on an old 100MHZ piece of crap Pentium, CLI works great, installed X & KDE -- sucks ass. It's so slow it takes almost a full minute to animate the mouse moving from one side of the screen to the other.
So I buy a new box, 1.9ghz Celron, not my favorite choice but it fit my budget. BSD installs and works great, install X...same goddamn problem. I've just attributed it to X being a piece of crap, several people have told me my on board video card is the problem, which I'll buy for now.
But the point is X still has a long way to go if it performs the same on a 100mhz machine as a 1.9ghz machine just becuase of the god forsaken on board video card. I mean Windows would run great on this hardware.
Who knows, maybe this 'DesktopBSD' supports a wider range of video cards, but until I've got some MORE money to shell out so I can get this 'free' OS working, I'll stick to windows for my desktop apps.
Every morning when I'm roboting my Winows system I thank John Tesh for writing these good programs.
Come on, part of the challenge of OSS is setting it up right. Okay, it is a BAD challenge, but still. You can feel like a real toughguy if you get it to work. Compare that to the M$ foosl [sic] who use a mouse to delete a file. ;)
Slide 14 says, "All users created are administrators. You also have to set the system password, which is required to change settings."
I thought the first thing these days for a Desktop OS should be limited user accounts? Or is it that BSD "administrators" are limited users in fact?
I don't want to read
"Sorry for the rant as a bsd user it gets tiring listening to the bsd is dead crap."
That's why any code I write is going to be any license other than the GPL. I blame RMS and his groupies for the present state of affairs. Even though the BSD is approved by the FSF. It still remains under attack.
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.
http://www.uncoverip.com/
The first screenshot that the link brings us to a screen which scares the hell out of any layman trying to install it! I'm not going to complain about technicalities, but more of the user experience which is supposed to bring any unique flavour of linux onto "The Desktop".
Why in the world do you need to scare someone about "improper settings can cause data loss". It's a given fact that anything you do can and will lead to data loss, but you don't see that the minute you pop in a Windows XP or MacOS X CD!
Typical users who are non IT literate already have a fear that everything done can and will lead to some kind of destruction, why bother scaring them off?!
And sliding on to the next few screens, you're talking to me about boodloaders?! Gosh, my dad would have a fit going throught that section! Just load it up! Does Microsoft ever warn you, less give you a choice on how it's going to boot up your OS?
Am I being too critical?
(p/s: Not to nitpick, but the grammar on that warning sentence seems odd as well, or is it just me again?)
"I don't think Apple however will ever gain the control that Windows has, simply because it can't install on normal PC machines."
You were saying?
"Even though they're going to x86 it still can't install on a white-box computer. That's the reason Windows won originally, and that's the reason Windows still wins over."
And lets completely ignore the findings of the court in the MS trial.
Plus having the world hasn't been a complete win-win for MS. So no need for Apple to feel inferior.
---
"The "are you a script" word for today is forcast.
Why would you want to run this stuff when you can run Slashcode? Slashcode lets you change the scripts to do whatever you want: web pages don't use web-standards? easy fix.
Every morning when I'm dowloading my 5000th <TABLE CELLPADDING="0" CELLSPACING="0" BORDER="0" WIDTH="99%" ALIGN="CENTER" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF"><TR VALIGN="MIDDLE"><TD VALIGN="TOP" ALIGN="LEFT"> from Slashcode I thank CmdrTaco and CowboyNeal for writing this good database-driven news and message board.
Does Apple plan on releasing it?
I'd switch in a hearbeat.
I might even pay.
Any distro that uses the ndis wrapper will be able to run your wireless card.
Why not do it in a sane way such as:
This is my hope for a desktop oriented BSD. I'm typing this from OS X on my powerbook, but I think the world still needs a compelling open platform.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
I don't know about you, but I'm a total Linux n00b, and yet Synaptic is working great for me on my Mepis partition. I've already installed a bunch of crap (Including an OS upgrade) using only point and click.
...and what is the big difference between "c:\Download\FF-installer.exe" and "/Download/rpm -i ff-installer" ??
Sorry dude... your arguments sucks... it is like me wife's "I don't want to drive a car with a disel engnine 'cause it is difficult"
Linux is just a kernel, this isn't my opinion, its a fact. How did you want me to back that up exactly? The userland included with every linux distro I know of come from a variety of authors, have far too many useless options, have outdated, incomplete or non-existant documentation in a variety of formats, and have nothing in common besides being lumped into a distro. If that's not "random assorted crap" I don't know what is.
If you don't know wether or not something is true, find out. Me saying its true in more words isn't going to change anything, learn to think for yourself. Its not hard to install a BSD and check out how EVERYTHING has an accurate and up to date man page. How man pages not being clear enough is considered a bug and is fixed. How the same group of people are responsable for the entire OS, and ensure consistant and sane behaviour from all userland tools. Compare it to your linux distro of choice, its not hard to see the difference.
nor can you compare FreeBSD or OpenBSD with Linux.
Linux is a kernel.
If you want to compare DesktopBSD with Linux, compare it to a Linux distro like MEPIS or Ubuntu or dozens of other fine examples.
Competition is a good thing. Whether it is with technology or licensing. I welcome both BSD and GPL operating systems and hope they both thrive.
The whole point of *BSD's is that the installers are simple to use, the package management (ports) is centralized and automated, and that shit "just works" without having to fuck with it for hours at a time. Oh, and that there is well-written documentation, quality control in both the kernel and userland apps, etc etc etc. That's why there are n't 1000 different "FreeBSD Distros" as there are "Linix Distros". BSD people know what they're doing.
They don't need some Linux jumper who just found out about FreeBSD last month making a new "distro".
All the screenshots on that site just show off KDE isntaller/control panel. Big woop. Anyone with half a brain can install KDE on *bsd out of ports.
Thank you for reading
Partitioning. You'll just love it.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Your sig just gained you a fan.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Seriously, poor osdir.com servers!
e lease=403&slide=17
e lease=403&slide=18
On the other side, the KDE background is simply gorgeous:
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?r
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?r
Enjoy!
If they can nnot install it, they should use an abacus or a 4 function calc ;-)
Last time I tried BSD (Only a few months ago) I was getting kernel panics before I could even boot up on my Nforce4/Athlon64 system.
Anyone know if this has been fixed yet? (Or if I'm doing something wrong?) I've been eager to switch to BSD for a while to get around Linux VM Issues.
(Failing that, anyone know how to get Linux to kill the offending process (Like every other OS) rather than grinding to a screaming halt whenever a shoddy program decides to memory leak it's way through a gig of RAM? )
BSD lacks decent sound. You can nowadays find a lot of professional audio apps for Linux, because Linux ALSA and Jack implementations are making that possible. BSD has a really poor sound system and can only be used on consumer level "beep" audio.
* KDE is evil (there's a $3000 development fee for the Qt libraries - and if you use the GPL'ed Linux libraries you are also FORCED to release your application code (it's not LGPL)).
* Gnome is not evil (there's no development fee, it's LGPL and is freely available on Linux and Windows).
So they pair a BSD-licenced free-to-do-anything-with os up with KDE. Brilliant move (sigh).
When will people realise that KDE has singlehandedly done the most damage against a chance of Linux (and now apparently BSD) taking off on the desktop and becoming popular? Even the great Satan (Microsoft) doesn't charge a development fee to use the Win32 API - but somehow Trolltech can get away with it, pretending to be community friendly by forcing the GPL on developers - and KDE is still touted by the free software zealots.
I do not understand this completely illogical behaviour, worshiping a company that is effectively holding the KDE development community to ransom and choking commercial development.
and if your comps too old for that, get a new one! Seriously, you can get a 600mhz PIII, 256mb ram, dvd and a 20 gig harddrive for a little over $100 dollars shipped from retrobox.com. No OS, but that's obviouly not a problem if you're loading Slack. And a little more searching and you can get stuff in the 2ghz range with fast graphics cards for under $200 shipped.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
- an x86-iso that's what. Huh? I thought this was source-forge warrantied open-what-have-you. Where's the source I can compile on my Amiga, Acorn, Macintosh, Sparc, etc?
Alright, I'll just crawl back to my downtrodden minority...
I don't care if it's apt-get, RPM, Roll your own, or what not.... the difficulty with installing applications on a .nix like OS is what is keeping me from using it as my "Desktop".
I prefer to compile the source whenever possible, but I can definitely see where you're coming from. There does need to be an easy way to install binaries, but I thought this issue had been solved with package managers. What exactly do you not like about, for example, RPM? Installing an RPM using the GUI is more or less just like in Windows: double click.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
In order for ordinary end users to begin accepting BSD on the desktop, one key thing needs to be fixed: the Delete key. Seriously, it's a major function on the keyboard, and although there's backspace, there's no reason why the Delete key's true function (to delete text ahead of the character) isn't present. Missing functions like this will annoy users, and while this in itself is unlikely to put too many off, it will leave many thinking "if this doesn't work, what else is wrong with BSD".
Mattb90
Editor, allaboutgames.co.uk
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
1) BSD has an air of stability/professionality
2) switching is easy
3) Linux has become too mainstream (not geeky anymore)
Unfortunately, just as Linux is a bloated OS, KDE is a bloated, slow, disgusting GUI. Can't they have each explorer window part of a single program (would increase startup times!).
DesktopBSD is going to be a slow desktop, unlike Mac (or even WindoZe)
Anyone got a torrent of this yet? I'll be either setting one up or helping seed.
All users created are administrators.
Doesn't this seem like a potential disaster waiting to happen. Some people who know almost nothing about unix and may decide to take a plunge because the installation seems rather simple. The last thing you may want is to be doing everything as root -- a la Windows 9x.
Check out images 13 and 14.
Install? You should just unzip the package wherever you like and run it.
If only there were a Free operating system that accepted that premise.
I just heard some sad news from the guys I know at FSF - Richard Stallman was found dead in his Massachusetts home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't always agree with him, there's no denying his contributions to free software. Truly a hacker icon.
I know it's not a free download...
But there already is an easy to use BSD for the desktop. It's called Mac OS X.
Yes. Yes. I know it only runs on Apple hardware (at this point).
- dj
I've been working on one. I think it will be released in 1 to 2 years.
I think I'd rather try other flavors of linux before taking BSD for a spin,
Honestly...why on earth would you say that unless you're a total harcore linux zealot? That's like saying "I drive a white Camaro with fabric interior, and I'd rather test-drive a green one with leather seats rather than try that WRX STi instead" - different distros are pretty much just varied top-ends on the same chassis, while BSD is a totally different OS with a different way of doing things. Expand your horizons, man.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
This is one of the reasons why most home users have problems with Windows - everyone has admin access.
Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
>>openly admited that the high-end graphic cards were priced according to what people would pay for them
Oooh! "openly admitted" it did he?
Listen genius - important fact comming up: -
EVERY product and service is priced according to what the market is prepared to pay for it!
But in your world, I suppose I'll just have to sell my product for 20% less than people are prepared for it. A fine way to run a business that would be.
The CEO in question is a CEO because he understands these basic facts. You on the other hand are just a clueless moron.
Why do good developers make little spin offs like this instead of just contributing to FreeBSD to help it be a better desktop OS?
So when one uses QtCurve to make a native KDE application look like a GTK one that makes the KDE app a GTK application and vice versa?
Now I conclude you write no code at all - You shuldn't anyway. Please google QtCurve and convince me that what it does is converting a KDE app into a GTK app and vice versa depending on results.
Take a look at http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=5 065
and look at those posted images. Once you are satisfied with yourself, tell me what you think is going on.
You may install OOo from packages (that's it, you don't have to compile the whole thing). Lack of Java support? What do you mean? There's Java support for FreeBSD (have your checked java/jdk14 or java/jdk15?). Have you really tried FreeBSD??? BTW, FreeBSD isn't just a kernel, it's a *complete* OS.
I love BSD in general, find it fast, solid, and so forth. However, in exploring it not that long ago, I found one glaring omission was journaling file system support. There was some incomplete early version, which was not under active development, and that was it.
Can anyone comment on this?
(It had kick-ass volume manager support in Vinum, long before Linux had it's volume manager; but it seems Linux has leapfrogged BSD in this area, too.)
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
I am curious as to how your actually pay for your food and shelter? Since you obviously are above "money grubbing". Are you getting manna from heaven and living under a blessed sky? Oh, wait, dumb me. You mean that anyone BUT you collecting money is "money grubbing". Right. Silly me.
Thats exactly what PC-BSD allows you to do. It lets you download self-extracting / installing pacakges, and install just like windows / mac.
From the installer:
You need at least one user to log in to your system. All users created are administrators
That strikes me as a questionable decision with no clear advantage, and definite potential security implications...
A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
Yea, but does it come with the sound driver installed, or do you still have to recompile the kernel for it
Sorry mate you're talking out of it. I've never found any better way then apt under debian (maybe with a pretty gui front end or summat). ,horror, learn a small simple thing and they're just too lazy.
Think the Windows Way is best? Go on clean an old (18 months) windows box up I dare you.
This is half the problem, there is nothing really wrong with, apt-get etc except that people have to
And before anyone sais "why should I have to learn this or that?" I'll bet you have driving licence. Did you want that. No. You wanted to go places and see things and people. but you had to learn to drive first.
Not interested in learning? Good, go away and play poo sticks.
welshmnt
http://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/desktopbsd/DesktopBSD-1. 0-RC2-x86-CD.iso.torrent
From slide #4, at http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?re lease=403&slide=4
"Please take the time to carefully through all texts and explanations..."
LOL!
Please take the time to carefully through all texts and explanations because improper... How about proofing your installation screens!
Does it make it easier to make bash the default shell than FreeBSD does? (Hate to have to edit a config for that). [I checked the site.]
Looks nice. I shifted from Mandrake to Kubuntu, but still remember how sweetly puter ran 4 years ago on FreeBSD.
I agree, why show KDE screenshots when I would rather be seeing the diff's.
peace, mark
I'm not on your "team" and I don't use BSD in order to defeat the "proprietary OSs like M$ Vista and Apple OS X."
I use BSD because I like UNIX. I could care less what Microsoft and Apple are doing because I don't use either one of them.
I don't give a shit about the whole GPL vs BSD license crap either. Nothing against linux but I have better things to do with my time than sit around trying to get linux running as well as my bsd machines already are. If linux starts to offer me something that I can't do on bsd then I might switch, but not because linux is more popular and has a "better license".
Don't take me wrong. I am glad that linux was created and spawned a lot of great software that I can use on BSD.
I just can't quantify moving from an OS that is working fine to a new OS, just because other people think that I should.
hawk, running and ducking
>(somewhat dated info).
. . . must . . . resist . . .
nope, can't do it.
Now, it would hardly be appropriate to use up to date information when talking about Debian packages, would it???
hawk
All the BSDs are great, recent Solaris versions are decent too, I don't find Solaris or Tru64 to be any worse than linux at least. HPUX has the single worst userland of any unix I have used, it is painfully outdated, lacks tons of functionality, and just plain blows.
Apple released Darwin for Intel long ago...it's rather strange that no one has started a Desktop distribution with it.
I will never, ever, ever, ever make a song about the FreeSIBE.
/Strong Bad
///My bad.
//Oops this isn't Fark
i'd love to try it out.. the website says DesktopBSD 1.0 is out.. but there's absolutely no information about it.. you cant download it.. you can't do shit.. where is it!! where's the content!!
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Yes... BSD + GNUStep would be extremely nice combination. I tried GNUStep a few weeks ago and it really is promising from technical point of view. However there is one really huge problem: lack of GNUStep software. No development/desktop environment is of any good if there are no native apps that run on it!
We can only hope that awesome ideas from NextStep/GNUStep are some day "assimilated" into GNOME.
what a noble and charitable soul. or at least he sounds like it...
I don't feel like it...
> I do not understand this completely illogical behaviour, worshiping a company that is effectively holding the KDE development community to ransom and choking commercial development.
You're right, it is illogical.
It's just like the many other things involving Qt and Trolltech that appear to be contradictory and illogical, such as:
- Why do so many posters praise the lock-in distributions, like Xandros, Mepis, and Linspire, while truly Open Source distributors, like Red Hat, get little praise, and lots of criticism?
- Why do so many posters promote distributions like Xandros and Mepis, when surveys show them to have only a tiny market share, compared to truly popular distributions like Red Hat, Fedora, and Debian?
- Why has there never been a negative article about a Qt-based product or distribution in a Microsoft-friendly publication? There have been lots of negative articles about Red Hat, and Linux in general, but never about the KDE-desktop distributions.
- If they really are Open Source supporters, why do the posters defending Qt (and KDE on Qt) constantly use distraction and straw-man arguments, instead of dealing with the dangers of Qt (lock-in for proprietary Qt-based software) head on?
- If they really are Open Source supporters, then why do the Qt defenders lie about what RMS said? He did _not_ say that the GPL is always preferred over the LGPL. He said the GPL is preferred when there is no alternative proprietary library, otherwise use the LGPL. With Qt, not only is there a proprietary alternative, but Trolltech chose the GPL in order to force proprietary Qt developers to use the proprietary license -- exactly the opposite of what RMS wants.
- Why was one of the architects of the SCO attack on Linux (backed by Microsoft) sitting on Trolltech's board of directors? Why was his leaving immediately followed by a major investment by an investment firm involved in other lock-in schemes (MySQL and Skype)?
- Why has Microsoft never punished Wal-mart and its supplier for carrying KDE-based Linspire? Also, when Wal-mart added a more desktop-neutral distribution (Mandrake) following the initial outcry, why was that distribution hidden from view and hard to find on Wal-mart's website (also more expensive), while Linspire was featured prominently?
- Why do posters portray FreeDesktop as an attempt at true interoperability between KDE and Gnome, when it really involves running Gnome on top of Qt?
- What was the point in spending the time to create Kubuntu, when there are already so many alternative KDE-based distributions? In fact, given that so many distributions are KDE-only, what was wrong with having just one Gnome-only distribution?
- Why was it so important to some central KDE developers to have Qt included with the initial install of UserLinux, when its Debian underpinnings make it so easy to install Qt? And why, as supposed Open Source developers, were they arguing that Qt was necessary to support the _commercial_ Qt applications?
And on, and on, and on.
All of these incidents, and many more, appear to be contradictory and mysterious. But all the contradictions and mysteries go away if you assume one fact, namely...
Trolltech is attempting to lock-in Linux users with proprietary middleware (Qt, when used with proprietary Qt applications). This involves making sure that Qt is tied to everything, including Gnome (FreeDesktop), Ubuntu (Kubuntu), Mozilla (QtMozilla), and so on. Trolltech is using the GPL'd version of Qt to hide their scheme, and uses astroturf to promote their scheme, and silence any objections.
And behind them, you might find Microsoft.
I've used both Linux and FBSD for years. If you are the type of person who uses applications to do a job (which is the *real* reason for an OS), they both are fine and you won't have any qualms with either. Bear in mind I haven't used FBSD ever since the release of 5.x series
As a side comment, I'm using SuSe 9.3 and for some reason the IBM ThinkPad "nipple" results in the pointer in X going out of control (I resort to an external USB mouse which apparently works properly). I can't find this error in any source of documentation anywhere. Is this a problem found in the current FBSD 5.x crop?
If we buy a nice video card it should imply that we want to use it.
I get a good laugh when I read someone suggesting to disable acceleration when a particular Linux distribution or other OS can't get the acceleration to work. The correct answer should be that you are running a shit distribution or give some help with some ideas on how to fix that major bug.
I'll believe it when I see my mom install it on her own. However, this is the nicest looking OS install program I've seen for *nix _ever_.
/etc/unimportantstuff/importantstuff/obscure.conf
I still have serious doubt's about it being at all usable for the average user. I can't believe that they've gotten rid of having to manually input undocumented variables into the config file hidden at.
you know. All the stuff that's childs play for the devs because they wrote it themselves, but that they never simplified for anyone else because they're lazy.
Here is what Richard Stallman actually said:
"Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library."
He then gives the GNU C library as an example where the LGPL was used, for the above reason.
The Qt library is another example where commercial developers, rather than being encouraged to GPL their software, simple choose to use Qt under a proprietary license. This is the exact opposite of what RMS wants to happen, and the Trolltech defenders know it.
Why is it ten thousand SUVs can drive around Palo Alto with a "somewhere in Texas..." bumper sticker, and no one cares. But when you use a "somewhere in Massaschusetts..." sig, then suddenly people get offended?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
find me a Linux distro that even understands the concept of base OS
Here it is
HTH
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
There is a seed of an idea. Will it run on my Banana JR?
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Sure, from what I hear it will come free with every Intel Mac.
DesktopBSD - That's nice. I'd like my computer to be practical, however. I don't mind replacing Windows XP, but the replacement better justify itself... if I can't run my preferred programs, then there's no point to any of it.
With that in mind, how do I run AVID DV on this KDE system? If the answer is "through an emulator"... then there's no point in switching. How do I run the barrage of applications (Adobe Suite, Sorensen Encoder, Media Cleaner Pro, etc) that I've mastered over the years?
Hmm... DesktopBSD... a nice play toy. Well, excuse me now... time to get back to *work*.
Delete is supposed to be an erasing backspace. Note: back, not forward.
Emacs gets delete right, some web browsers get delete wrong.
BSD normally uses FFS (fast file system), which has had "Soft Updates" for years.http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceed ings/usenix99/mckusick.html
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceed ings/usenix2000/general/seltzer.html
Does Linux support FFS with Soft Updates?
What's so hard about typing "make install" or pkg_add -r software-package? Maybe I'm not understanding you?
Certainly my post has some anger in it but I swear it's because It's been a complaint for years. =) Anyway... RPM's or other Binary formats really are only offered for a portion of the software out there. And then there are different formats among those that don't seem to work so well. So really recent stuff is offered in source first and I understand that is the best way to install. Then they make RPM's and other binaries that when clicked give you /lib errors or someother dependancy. There are lots of "package managers" out there and many even claim to resolve dependency issues... yet they simply just don't work with reliablity in my experience. Maybe if every Linux varient could all pick the same one it could go someplace but it hasn't happened yet that I'm aware.
.nix type OS's yet. (That aren't comercial)
The tricky thing in my experience of Linux so far is that if anything goes wronge... I really don't know how to fix it. So I get an error.. and I'm left to simply say... Shucks. Und you get errors a lot.
Knowledge is key to fixing this... but it really is a task. I can get on an Apple machine and go to town... I can get on a BeOS machine and go to town (and LOVE it)... and windows too of course... but I haven't found a reliable way to really play a lot with
I am Jack's HTTP Server
http://linuxcertified.com/freebsd-lc2210d.html
Userland refers to the non-kernel parts of the OS. Not whatever 3rd party applications that you choose to install.
KDE has nothing to do with this, find, grep, ifconfig, route, netstat, man pages, config files, etc, etc, etc are what the problem is.
And neither debian nor ubuntu make a distinction between the base OS and locally installed packages. Please try a BSD so you understand for yourself before making nonsense comments like this.
Sorry, friend, you are in error. GPL zealots say BSD is not free because they like software to be free, not people to be free. And BSD is open.. Lookie here - http://www.opensource.org/licenses
Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from other posts such as last night.
larryvagina@gmail.com
Try reading the thread again, your posts have made no sense, have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and you just insist on repeating your nonsense as if that's somehow a response to criticism. Saying you knew better, and you were intentionally making bullshit comments to try to trivialize BSDs isn't better than just being uninformed. Nobody asked if you use unix tools or not, and it has nothing to do with what the original poster asked.
The original post said nothing about what kind of users, or what desktop environment they like. A guy asked "what does it matter, its just a different kernel?". I explained that its actually a whole coherent OS, not just the kernel. You then made stupid remarks about KDE for no apparent reason.
Wether you made uninformed comments, or as you now claim you knew the difference, but just made moronic comments doesn't matter. Your reply was either ignorant or a deliberate lie, and nothing you have said in your repeated replies changes that.
And your opinion of BSD users reflects more on you than on BSD. Notice how you as a linux user are actively trashing both BSD and linux distros you don't like in your posts, but complaining about BSD users trashing linux. If you don't want to use BSD that's fine, but don't spread lies and bullshit then, and quit being such a hypocrite.
Could you elaborate on what exatly a "userland" is and of what it is comprised?
I don't know how to make this any clearer for you. NOBODY ASKED ABOUT KDE, OR END USERS, OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE BEEN BLATHERING ABOUT.
Like I said, read the thread. Someone asked why anyone would care since its just a different kernel, I explained what else was different besides the kernel. You made nonsense posts that have nothing to do with anything. I don't understand how you can still be confused about this. Your posts were purely trying to pretend that the BSDs userlands don't matter and are just like linux's. So not only do you disparage BSDs, but you are too biased to even realize it.
And the BSDs only use the GNU toolchain (gcc, gdb, gas), no other GNU utilities are in there. So yes, there is a very big difference. And nobody is happy that they have to use gcc, its just such a big undertaking to write a replacement toolchain that nobody has done it.
And I actually made it quite clear that linux does not suck. I said the crap that every distro packages with linux sucks. This is not a flaw of linux, and if someone cared they could make a good linux distro using a nice userland. But anyone who wants that just uses a BSD.