Slashdot Mirror
24-hour Test Drive of PC-BSD
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica has a concise introduction to PC-BSD, a FreeBSD derivative that emphasizes ease of use and aims to convert Windows users. The review describes the installation process, articulates the advantages of PC-BSD,and reveal some of the challenges that the reviewer faced along the way. From the article: 'In the end, I would suggest this distribution to new users provided they had someone to call in case of a driver malfunction during installation. I would also recommend PC-BSD to seasoned Unix users that have never tried using FreeBSD before and would prefer a shallower learning curve before getting down to business.'"
I would also recommend PC-BSD to seasoned Unix users that have never tried using FreeBSD before and would prefer a shallower learning curve before getting down to business.
I don't know... I always thought the learning curve for FreeBSD was pretty shallow. I used GNU/Linux for years before trying FreeBSD, and Linux distributions were all over the board; you never knew what bizarre software configuration you were going to get, or how the system was going to behave or configure. Even after steady use, Linux confused the hell out of me. When I tried FreeBSD, it took a little effort to learn the basics of managing the system: installing, updating, removing software packages. After that it was easy street. Tweaking the base system conf files was obvious... a little too obvious. They say editing text files isn't "intuitive", but this is as close as it gets. For the stuff you can't figure out, the documentation is complete and readily accessible.
Having a front end that helps you autoconfig stuff doesn't actually lesson the learning curve, but in my opinion steepens it. When the autoconfig goes wrong, you're pretty much stuck without a clue.
Go back to the drawing board with the name. Windows users want something simple sounding. Putting BSD, Linux, or some pun based on the names of a Linux distribution in the title isn't going to help. In fact, it's probably going to hurt because Linux and BSD sound difficult and dorky. You use Linux and BSD as a selling point when people don't want Linux or BSD. Don't go out of your way to advertise it as a Linux or BSD project, make it look like something other than BSD or Linux, and go from there. As someone who works with marketing, it just always blows my mind that one of the simplest things the OS community could do, give a project an easy, accessible, and non-dorky name, is never even attempted.
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
I am still waiting for a user-friendly FREE OS.
I tried to install Ubuntu last week, and it couldn't figure out my monitor's resolution of 1920x1200 (a pretty common one nowadays). After an hour of fiddling with it and reading technical advice on forums, I accidentally crashed the X-server and could no longer log into the GUI.
That is far from user friendly
A surprisingly excellent post in a sea of otherwise illucid responses. Thank you.
Yeah, I'm waiting for a user-friendly FREE car. Let's see who gets their wish first, huh?
I don't respond to AC's.
If this machine had been acquired without OS and the user, instead, decided to buy WindowsXP separately, this user would have had the same problems I had. In my case, the video device wasn't detected, the sound device wasn't detected and the network device wasn't detected. A beginner would also need to rely on someone with experience to get those issues resolved.
I have rather become accustomed to the idea of loading the OS and resolving driver and other hardware configuration issues as part of the installation process. It's the same in Windows as it is for Linux. (Not usually the case with Mac, but they control both the hardware AND the software and there's good reason for that.) The exceptions for this are when a hardware maker cobbles his own OS+Apps+Driver installation software to match the hardware or when, by some uncommon scenario, all hardware in the configuration is identified and supported by whatever comes with the OS. (It happens but it's rare.)
It shouldn't be said about Linux or Windows or *BSD that an expert or experienced user should be available in case of trouble as if this were a problem exclusive to it or to other OSes. It should be said because it's generally true of all.
Seems everyone is in the business of making a user-friendly OS. No one has yet understood that we have tons of user-friendly OSes and that the OS is not the problem?
How about you shut up, and go do something, versus tell other people what NOT to do.
I'm a Windows user who runs Linux servers (not very good at the latter, especially without my admin), and when I saw this article advertising shallower learning curve for Windows users, I downloaded it. And I plan to evaluate it and very likely use it.
Ah, but you modified the statement. Is Linux "not gaining market share" as you said or is it just taking a while like the parent said?
If it's just taking a while, it hasn't failed (yet) unless you define that it must gain a certain market share in a certain amount of time.
I don't know the actual stats on any of that, but my guess is that Linux is probably not losing market share... just gaining it more slowly than some want it to. It may never get a majority market share, and that could be considered a failure, but I think it's too early to say.
With mac/darwin ports, I get all the ease of install of my favorite tool sets just like the ports tree with BSD and I can even purchase that *evil* commercial software like Quickbooks, Office, and *gasp* Photoshop.
I personally found FreeBSD easy to deal with and the ports tree a much better way of installing software than on the Linux systems of the day as there was no standard way to do this between distros. At least with FreeBSD, there was pretty much ONE FreeBSD.
If I was going to set up a simple inexpensive webserver, FreeBSD would still be my first choice on some cheap PC hardware.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
I am still waiting for a user-friendly PROPRIETARY OS.
I tried to install Windows last week, and it required special drivers to recognize the hard drive. Worse than that, it demanded I enter all kinds of activation keys and jump through various hoops just to get work done. It also didn't include an office suite (a pretty common productivity tool nowadays). After an hour of fiddling with it and reading the useless quickstart guide, I accidentally got infected with malware and could no longer use the computer.
That is far from user friendly. In fact, I would almost say that it was user-hostile.
Of course, different people have different definitions of 'friendly.'
It's got a complete BSD user space, and its kernel (xnu, not Mach) is a mixture of Mach and BSD.
If you were to completely excise BSD from OS X, even though most of what makes OS X what it is would remain, OS X would no longer function.
OS X is a Unix (properly certified, even, in Leopard), and it's derived in no small part from BSD.
There's a lot of great hardware that is extremely poorly supported under Linux. Certainly, that's not the fault of Linux or its developers, but it's absurd to pretend it's just "shitty hardware".
How is that different than DesktopBSD or PC-BSD? Redhat is a combination of the linux kernel + gnu tools + desktops.. its maintained in parallel with the movement of those projects and snapshots of that work are releases. Redhat has a package manager as does FreeBSD, and the other BSDs. The most noticable difference between using FreeBSD by itself or using one of the ripoffs is the package manager has a nice custom gui that's preloaded.
Also it has been argued many times that the term Linux can also be applied as a common name for the various distros using the kernel. Its an accepted use even if its not correct. If you go into a bookstore and look for a book on Linux its not about the kernel, but rather the software that makes up an OS including the linux kernel. O'Reilly published books with Linux kernel or Linux driver development in the names to distinguish. Your argument would have been useful 15 years ago, but now you've lost the battle. My first book on the os was called "Teach yourself Linux in 24 hours". I bought that in 1999. (or was it 98) It included Redhat 5.0 anyway. Even Robert Love's book on the Linux kernel is called "Linux Kernel Development." I have it sitting on my bookshelf right now in this very room.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
malheureusement la stupidité n'est ni curable, ni mortelle.
Linux does have a lead in hardware support. Binary blobs are available and BSDs can't tap the drivers written because of licensing to catch up. The Linux community is much more accepting of commercial endevors. Sometimes that is a good trait and sometimes its not. OpenBSD has gained attention for fighting binary blobs. FreeBSD has embrased binary blobs with their intel wireless deal. OpenBSD's approach is better down the road, but FreeBSD is arguably a better desktop right now because they have drivers. What happens when FreeBSD 8 or 9 come out and vendors stop supporting the new or old versions?
You are right that most users see Gnome or KDE. I've chosen a GNUstep path with some (hopefully) custom software additions for MidnightBSD for just this reason. No one else is doing it. Apple has used some open source software in OS X and it seems to be gaining momentum. Their market share is going up. I think Apple and Mozilla has demonstrated that people don't care if they use OSS or not. We won't win them over with philosophy, but with better software at a cheaper (read free) price.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
Test the following: Grab a Joe Average, get them in front of a freshly installed Windows XP machine, give them a regular h264 video file, and ask them to play it. Watch him suffer. Windows freshly installed is not as tinkering-free as you make it seem ;)