PDA

View Full Version : Why PCBSD and not Linux?


Johnson
09-14-2005, 10:02 AM
Why should someone choose PCBSD for desktop use instead of a Linux distribution (like Kubuntu, my favourite)?
What makes FreeBSD better than Linux for Desktop use?

jamiefoxer
09-14-2005, 11:23 AM
good question. My answer.

I've used about 10 different Linux distributions. ALL of them had some particular problem. Some of them were not too newbie friendly, wouldn't configure things for you. Others were very bloated, but newbie friendly. Others crashed for no reason on some things (Ubuntu).

ALL of them had unstable and unreliable package managers. I'd get dependency hell, system breaks, and try "updating" all your packages off repositories, and I guarantee you that most likely something will break.

For me, the issue was ease of use and reliability.

With FreeBSD, we can trust that the product has been heavily tested. FreeBSD has been known to be one of the most stable, if not the most stable OS out there. It's designed to be a system as a whole, rather than a kernel with a bunch of packages bundled together.

What does PCBSD bring to the FreeBSD mix? FreeBSD brings reliability. PCBSD brings ease of use and ease of package installation. PCBSD recognizes almost everything on my computer. I only have to edit the xfree config and fstab to add my windows partitions and to edit the video device that I have (Radeon). Everything else works great (network, sound, etc.) And best of all, software is downloadable in the easiest and most reliable system in the Unix-Linux world: PBI.

PBI is like Windows' self-extractable .EXE files in the way that it installs itself, but it's more like ZIP files, in that they create self-contained directories that do not modify the base system, do not register themselves in some "registry file", and can easily be removed by de-installing them (which essentially just deletes the directory, no registry editing needed).

No dependency hell. No system breaks. No modifying the base system. No having to "urpmi, yum, apt-get" anything from text. Just double click ONE FILE on your computer, and it will start the installation.

And if you absolutely need Linux for something, chances are that by installing Linux compatibility, you can use it. If you have something that you absolutely cannot use FreeBSD for (most of the major programs that work on Linux have native FreeBSD binaries), then you can always dual-boot into a Windows installation or a Linux distro.

Personally, I use PCBSD for everything except synchronizing my Mp3 player (FolderMatch in Windows), using my Lexmark printer/scanner (not supported in Linux/FreeBSD) and playing Windows games.

I assure that everything else, you can find a FreeBSD program.

Charles
09-14-2005, 12:05 PM
The question is not Linux vs. FreeBSD, but Linux distro foo vs. PC-BSD.

I have stopped using Linux for 2 years now, I am a FreeBSD enthusiast. If you want my opinion, feel free to see why I prefer FreeBSD.

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ra ... linux1.php (http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php)
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Linux_PR/bsd- ... rison.html (http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Linux_PR/bsd-linux-comparison.html)
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO885 ... omparison/ (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/linux-comparison/)

Basically, I like the way FreeBSD is designed, it is more powerful, more robust, it has better and more consistent documentation, and the community is quite professional/technical savvy.

I think PC-BSD is better than Kubuntu because it is based on FreeBSD 5.x, and it has .pbi's. Also, I love the PC-BSD community, they're all pretty neat people :D

09-14-2005, 12:48 PM
well, let us look this question based on the user point of view.

I like a lot pcbsd personally but these are my needs.

- Firefox with Flashplugin, Shockwave, Java and mplayer plugin.

- Rip a dvd in 700 mg cd in avi format.

- Connect my bluetooth usb flash with my mobile.

Right now (apart of bluetooth which needs some extra steps) i can very easily do that in Pc Linux OS 9.1 right after installation.

IMHO I think we should see PCBSD in the view of usability. This is a new project and there is a big road to achieve what Linux has achived as a desktop system. But my hope is that Pcbsd can make it if there is a support in money and people.

blind javelin thrower
09-14-2005, 03:51 PM
In response primarily to the question, "What makes FreeBSD better than Linux for Desktop use?", some rambling thoughts on FreeBSD vs. Linux for desktop use:

In general, I find FreeBSD much easier to configure than Linux.

Documentation for kernel and userland are generally better for FreeBSD than for Linux, and kept more up-to-date.

If you can configure and compile a Linux kernel, you can configure and compile the FreeBSD kernel after consuming two bottles of wine, and while playing a game of timed chess.

There is more third party software available for Linux than for FreeBSD, and you will likely find software easier/faster to install and upgrade under Linux.

Even if you have some knowledge of C programming, you will probably be frustrated from time-to-time when using FreeBSD's ports system.

In my experience, various X and KDE applications may be somewhat more stable under Linux than FreeBSD.

FreeBSD users tend to be more handsome and dynamic, more affluent, more creative, drive nicer cars, and have prettier women hanging around them than do Linux users.

Posters to the PC-BSD forum, as well as most FreeBSD forums, tend to be more knowledgeable and accurate in their advice than do posters on most Linux forums (Slackware not included.)

By comparison, FreeBSD is orderly, and Linux is a kludge.

I like FreeBSD simply for what it is. I like Linux for what I can do with it, and as an alternative to MS Windows.

If you have an ATI video card, you will probably find it easier to spend long hours in front of your Linux desktop than with your FreeBSD desktop.

FreeBSD's Linux emulation is terrific, and necessary (IMO) to FreeBSD's viability for desktop use.

If FreeBSD is "faster" than Linux, I haven't seen it. However many Linux apps do seem to load and run faster under FreeBSD's Linux emulation than they do natively under Linux.

There may be occasions with either FreeBSD or Linux when you're glad you still have Windows installed; e.g., printing, or working with shared office documents.

BJT's corollary to the Pareto Principle, as applied to PCs: Whether you choose FreeBSD or Linux as your primary OS, you will probably find it more effort than it's worth to try to make it your *only* OS.

Solarin
09-14-2005, 04:35 PM
FreeBSD users tend to be more handsome and dynamic, more affluent, more creative, drive nicer cars, and have prettier women hanging around them than do Linux users.

I'd like to post here as a FreeBSD user and a testament to the accuracy of the above statement. 8) :wink:

jamiefoxer
09-14-2005, 05:52 PM
I'm not sure about that KDE X stability issue. It used to be that X would give segfault crashes all the time with different Linux distro. Only slackware based distros didn't do that (VectorLinux).

I haven't seen a SINGLE CRASH in PCBSD. Early on, I had Mplayer problems related to video codecs and an an early PCBSD sound bug that wouldn't allow the soundcard to output multiple programs' sound. But, once Kris figured it out and fixed it, I haven't had a SINGLE crash, and it works as fast as anything under KDE would go.

I run a 3.0 GHZ 512MB computer with 128MB ATI Radeon X300 SE vid card.

FreeBSD is a heck of a lot more stable than most Linux distros are (i'd keep slackware out of it, they are pretty stable). And in terms of server usage, the comparisons have been unequivocal. FreeBSD servers can last years without turning off. Linux servers usually last a maximum of 7-8 months before a crash, and have been known to not work as efficiently/fast under high traffic pressure.

I just think that FreeBSD's more conservative testing period and design has to do with it being more stable. It's not piecemeal, it's a System.

However, some of the Desktop extensions available on Linux, are not available on FreeBSD, or you have to use Linux compatability to get it (like Flash player).

Depends on what you're doing. So far, FreeBSD natively has given me all I need, except for the flash plugin wrapper, which is technically a Linux binary running in Linux compat mode.

epsilon>0
09-14-2005, 06:05 PM
No dependency hell. No system breaks. No modifying the base system. No having to "urpmi, yum, apt-get" anything from text. Just double click ONE FILE on your computer, and it will start the installation.

Amen to that, this weekend I tried to update my KDE from 3.3 to 3.4, on Mandriva Linux, forget it. :roll:
I think 3 out of all the packages installed. Some wanted rpms you couldn't find, others, after the rpm was installed, still wouldn't recognize it.:evil:
I couldn't even get konstruct to work.
What a joke!
And yes the people in the BSD forums are much more knowledgeable than the Linux forums.

blind javelin thrower
09-14-2005, 06:52 PM
FreeBSD users tend to be more handsome and dynamic, more affluent, more creative, drive nicer cars, and have prettier women hanging around them than do Linux users.
I'd like to post here as a FreeBSD user and a testament to the accuracy of the above statement. 8) :wink:
My girlfriends all insistent that the FreeBSD Daemon really gets them hot. Linux Penguins, though cute, just don't have the same effect.

I'm not sure about that KDE X stability issue....
Well, you'll notice my careful wording: "In my experience, various X and KDE applications may be somewhat more stable under Linux than FreeBSD." I've never had X per se crash under FreeBSD ... but I also can't remember it happening under Linux since the time I was a truly rank noob, and was still learning the most basic of basics.

I've had the KDE kicker crash a number of times under FreeBSD, and have experienced occasional crashes of Konqueror, Firefox, and a couple of multimedia apps. By contrast, I currently have a Debian install that I've been using for months, and despite numerous upgrades and changes, the closest I've ever come to any kind of crash was a KDE "Konsole" window freezing up, and I had to click the "X" in the upper right corner to close it.

Note, however, that I don't particularly fault FreeBSD for this. Even if we were to assume that my experience parallels that of the broad user base out there, generalizing from the proverbial "n" of 1, so to speak, the fact remains that you can't reasonably expect the same amount of time and effort to be placed on development of KDE or other X applications for BSD as for Linux.

All of which is a big reason for my interest in PC-BSD. Anything which increases user interest in FreeBSD as a desktop system is likely to result in greater development, more and better third party software. And that, in turn, should further stimulate desktop user interest. A true virtuous cycle, which I'd very much like to see (you don't really think I enjoy the needlessly arcane aspects of configuring Debian, do you? :))

shawn
09-14-2005, 11:08 PM
I used to like/run linux. Then I installed FreeBSD for an internet server, i fell in love, but trying to use fbsd as a desktop was a pain in the ass (thanks pc-bsd) so I used linux/windows

for the linux vs. bsd... i chose bsd because it's not as popular and is more 'geeky' than linux.

Weixiong
09-14-2005, 11:43 PM
Because it's UNIX.

password
09-17-2005, 09:28 AM
BSD is what Linux should've been.

bsdguy
09-19-2005, 02:57 PM
well, let us look this question based on the user point of view.

I like a lot pcbsd personally but these are my needs.

- Firefox with Flashplugin, Shockwave, Java and mplayer plugin.

- Rip a dvd in 700 mg cd in avi format.

- Connect my bluetooth usb flash with my mobile.

Right now (apart of bluetooth which needs some extra steps) i can very easily do that in Pc Linux OS 9.1 right after installation.

IMHO I think we should see PCBSD in the view of usability. This is a new project and there is a big road to achieve what Linux has achived as a desktop system. But my hope is that Pcbsd can make it if there is a support in money and people.

I agree with you test1

I have used Linux though like MEPIS and other Debian based ones and I absolutely hate them.

They do come bundled with pre-installed Flash etc and somewhat better compatibility for some devices and this is the only (albeit) large issue PC-BSD/FreeBSD in general must overcome to switch users.

Right now I can't even play MIDI sound and the boot loader is just horrible and causing issues for many people.

There are work-arounds and it will get better I'm sure. FreeBSD once setup is easier to maintain and update unlike Linux distros that are unstable , have dependench hell and other annoying issues.

I found with Linux what you see is what you get and it is hard to upgrade packages and maintain things without compromising stability

chris319
09-19-2005, 05:00 PM
From a quality-control standpoint, Linux might as well be UNIX manufactured by Microsoft. My experience with Linux is consistent with that of other users here. Whether RPM or Debian, every Linux distro I've tried eventually folds over on itself, resulting in one or more major components becoming completely non-functional. Synaptic, KPackage, dpkg, apt-get, etc. make it easier to deal with the package management cesspool that is Linux, but it's still a cesspool.

bsdguy
09-20-2005, 08:48 PM
After my experience it is because BSD doesn't support hardware and multimedia as well

09-21-2005, 07:07 PM
What about hardware detection, does PC-BSD support a great variety of hardware, for example have I got the possibility to use my Skystar2 card?

09-25-2005, 10:29 AM
In my opinion there should be question rather like "why use other os than windows?" I don't want to see linux vs bsd wars just because i think that there should be clear and free competition between them. Wars are bad, wars make all sides weaker. I wish i could see at least 3 or maybe 5 strong operating systems on the market. I wish i could see windows, linux, bsd, apple, solaris in the shops, all with compatibile hardware, all with billions of applications ;) I think that this is possible in the nearest future. Five different os's will make our computers much safer than now :-)

September
07-16-2008, 09:29 AM
FreeBSD and the Linux distinct ?FreeBSD are a complete of operate system, include from development tool arrive the applied procedure of various each kind.It is support by a core team of software development and the whole original procedure code will have organization ground to carry on renewal, so the procedure code relatively has consistency.FreeBSD mainly from it of core group to release.But the Linux be just pit inside 1, from Linus Torvalds personal maintenance of.Hope my answer to be in aid of you?

dw5437
07-26-2008, 05:13 AM
I don't know what some of you fellows have been smoking, but this reminds me of the Linux/Windows flame wars. Everyone has their own preferences. Mine is Linux Mint Daryna because everything just works out of the box. No adding codecs or anything else. It has never crashed on me and I absolutely love it. I also have fun with PC-BSD, what little I have played with it. I am retired so I can afford to play all day with distro's. Nights are for something else altogether.
I guess what I am saying is the best distro is which ever one you are comfortable with. I know I am using the word distro alot, but I don't know what y'all call these dang things yet. :) :)

Oko
07-26-2008, 06:54 AM
No adding codecs or anything else.


Really, no codecs? Do not be funny Mint is just shipped with codecs. That is
illegal in U. S. but Mint is British based project so their mirrors are not in U. S.


It has never crashed on me and I absolutely love it. I also have fun with PC-BSD, what little I have played with it. I am retired so I can afford to play all day with distro's. Nights are for something else altogether.
I guess what I am saying is the best distro is which ever one you are comfortable with. I know I am using the word distro alot, but I don't know what y'all call these dang things yet. :) :)

Most people about 94.5% are comfortable with Windows on their Desktop machines.In my experience properly maintained Windows is extremely stable Desktop OS with the largest number of drivers and best hardware support.
It is "easier" to use than Linux almost all my family members with the exception of my late mother who worked on IBM platforms are using it.
The other 5% are using OS X which is Mach kernel + BSD userland.
Linux is on the third place with about 0.5% of all desktop installations.

There are no more than 10 000 *BSD based desktops in U.S. Most people who use them like myself have actually never used anything else in their life except Unix so there was no really a choice until last year when SUN released Open Solaris. But Solaris is bloated OS with lots of legacy support (much like Windows) which has a very poor support for i386 hardware. On Sparc machines
Solaris is actually pretty good. I used it most my adult life after switching from Digital Unix and Irix. Frankly speaking the old Indy station I had in my office is the best "Desktop" computer I had in my life.

I started using *BSD when I switched to commodity hardware. I would use it on Sparc as well just because it is cleaner and I am now used to it.

nitebreez
07-26-2008, 10:12 PM
I'm glad to see this thread being "up-dated". Very important ideas here. I'm not as knowledgeable as most who have posted on here,..(only about 6 months into linux, and BSD from windows).

I have win2k Pro and PC-Bsd dual-booted on my main HD,..with Puppy Linux on a 40G secondary HD. I consider PC_Bsd my "main" OS,....because it's clean-cut,..no-nonsence, professional, and very stable. The only thing it hasn't done for me,..is have the driver for my older deskjet printer. (Win2k and "Microsoft Office" work for that). Puppy Linux is just for fun,...and doing quick net-surfing, and stuff like that. (Slackware based is why).
I tried a dozen or more of the "big" linux distros,....but didn't like any of them (OpenSuse11,..Mandriva,..Ubuntu,..Kubuntu,..Xubunt u,..Vector Linux,...Simply Mepis,...PcLinuxOs,..
Just too much OS,...and something usually wouldn't work for me.

PC-Bsd is the one I always come back to,...and I intend to stay with.
One thing that attracted me to it in the first place,...was that I read that some non-profit organizations were switching their old win98se machines over to PC-Bsd,...and the people that used it,...loved it!

unix
07-30-2008, 04:06 PM
Why should someone choose PCBSD for desktop use instead of a Linux distribution (like Kubuntu, my favourite)?
What makes FreeBSD better than Linux for Desktop use?
There is only one problem with FreeBSD- ID smartcard, opensc, ccid and FreeBSD "all things need manual config".
Today.
If PCBSD fix all FreeBSD ports 'shit', then that is number one. (ANd then *buntu is big shit!)
:evil:

DarkStarAeon
08-05-2008, 11:25 PM
BSD doesn't do everything I need it to do, but it does the good majority. I primarily use it to store sensitive information that has to be stored on an internet connected computer, as well as develop websites with it. Then of course there is the general day to day email, surfing, etc. etc.

I also use Linux, and like it, because it allows me to do everything I need to do in terms of audio/visual editing and creation.
I haven't experienced any dependency issues for a couple years now, I noticed some people in this thread said they faulted Linux for that, but they also said they have been solely BSD users for about the same amount of time. ;)

Which is more stable and safer? Without a doubt BSD.

Which is more straight forward? I think BSD.

Which has more multimedia codecs/apps/tools? Linux, by far.


Which is "better"? I think it depends entirely on what you need to do, and what you personally view as strength and weaknesses. Some put security before usability, others vice versa. Either way, both are still better than Windows. ;)

Dingens
08-05-2008, 11:51 PM
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/ ... linux.html (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/explaining-bsd/comparing-bsd-and-linux.html)

or

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/de/articles/ ... linux.html (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/de/articles/explaining-bsd/comparing-bsd-and-linux.html)
http://www.allbsd.de/src/Flyer/FreeBSD/ ... -linux.pdf (http://www.allbsd.de/src/Flyer/FreeBSD/PDF/flyer-de-bsd-linux.pdf)

http://www.allbsd.de/src/Flyer/FreeBSD/PDF/
there are also englisch pdf flyer.

DarkStarAeon
08-06-2008, 12:25 AM
That's a good link. I think the part at the bottom of the page says it best. "If it ain't broke...".

Dingens
08-06-2008, 12:35 AM
http://www.allbsd.de/src/Flyer/FreeBSD/PDF/

and there are one espaniol and three french pdf flyers!

DarkStarAeon
08-06-2008, 01:05 AM
Nice!

gaffer
08-06-2008, 10:58 PM
Which is more stable and safer? Without a doubt BSD.
Which is more straight forward? I think BSD.
Which has more multimedia codecs/apps/tools? Linux, by far.

Another question is which is faster? And I mean for desktop usage (zipping/unzipping files, encoding, ripping, opening programs, booting up etc.)

DarkStarAeon
08-06-2008, 11:25 PM
Well, much of that will depend on your hardware of course, but I do have two computers with the same hardware (except the sound card) and one runs 4 different Linux distros and the other runs PC-BSD, and to be honest it seems to just boil down to what the job is.

I think it will also depend on which distro you use. I've found gNewSense boots up much faster than Ubuntu does, even though gNewSense is based on Ubuntu. Probably helps they pulled a bunch of junk out of it, lol. Linux Mint XFCE is faster then Linux Mint GNOME. Fluxbuntu is faster than Xubuntu. Slackware using IceWM or Fluxbox is really fast. So on and so on.

I've found PC-BSD boots up much faster than any other BSD distro I have tried except FreeBSD of course ;)

When it comes to encoding, that always seems to boil down to one thing...processing power.

So, yeah, I think it just depends on what you are doing, your hardware, and what distro you use. They all run faster and use less resources than Windows does anyway.

TerryP
08-06-2008, 11:47 PM
For the types of action you state, for example speed of compressing files:


Depends on input datam
Depends on algorithm(s) used
Depends on implementation of algorithm
Depends on implementation language / execution environment
Depends on input speed (buffered memory, disk)
Depends on execution speed of system calls
Depends on disk speed to access data
Depends on bus speed
Depends on CPU speed
Depends on memory speed
Depends on scheduler



The work of the kernel only goes so far into the calculation.


If you want to find the best video/video encoder or graphics render (etc), don't look at your Operating System first -- look at your hardware, then your software and find the fastest one that supports that machine. It's not like the systems use the same drivers all around !

gaffer
08-07-2008, 12:19 AM
Let me restate. All things being equal (hardware, cross platform software) with the OS being different (PC-BSD vs Linux distro), is there a demonstrated advantage performance-wise of one over another? On the same hardware with using the same utility, which system will be faster and will the difference be significant?

DarkStarAeon
08-07-2008, 12:36 AM
Your question doesn't have the definitive answer you are looking for, but, for the most part I don't think you'll notice any significant difference.

gaffer
08-07-2008, 10:44 PM
That would have been one of the clinchers for me (and others)! There are at least two things that are quantifiable and hard to argue against: Price and Performance: BSD and Linux both match up on price ($0.00) and I was hoping that PC-BSD would win on performance.

Other differentiators like philosphy and personal preference (lots of p's there!) are less tangible.

DarkStarAeon
08-07-2008, 11:06 PM
Well, the performance is still far greater than Windows, and BSD is definitely the most secure, stable, and reliable. So, I guess it depends on what matters most to you.

I didn't offer any philosophy or personal preference, but yeah, I see where you're coming from.

gaffer
08-07-2008, 11:26 PM
Well, the performance is still far greater than Windows, and BSD is definitely the most secure, stable, and reliable. So, I guess it depends on what matters most to you.
I actually found Windows XP pretty fast (shudder). But I have seen lots of other Windows systems that are molasses-like in performance.

I didn't offer any philosophy or personal preference, but yeah, I see where you're coming from.

Oh, I just meant in a general sense, not referring to you specifically.

Other (subjective) things in PC-BSD's favor:
- the message board is filled with nice people
- the BSD mascot is cooler (or is that hotter?)
- the version names are awesome (anyone know what version 7 is gonna be called?)
- the concept of PBI's (I may be in the minority on this one)

DarkStarAeon
08-07-2008, 11:40 PM
Well, XP, if configured properly and used by someone who is knowledgeable, admittedly, can run pretty fast. But my PC-BSD box runs much faster on the same hardware and with a heck of a lot less hassle.

Haha, yes, the mascot is hot, lol.

I really like pbi's. Convenient. PC-BSD really has a good thing going with them. I don't always use them, but they are very handy.

The people here are always very cool, they even put up with me when I first came here and didn't have clue, hahaha.

dejamuse
08-19-2008, 02:25 AM
I love PCBSD for all the same reasons everyone else here loves it.

BUT, it's not a real desktop if it doesn't support the most basic of hardware - the webcam. Can't do Skype very well without that!

The native version of FF3 has video problems on some machines, and there's no native Flash 9. These are fairly mainstream issues that a lot of users can't get by.

The 2nd major problem is this website - compare it to Ubuntu and it's night and day. For example, people have complained that the forums are badly organized for a long time now and nothing has happened.

The PBI site has pretty much ground to a halt - nothing new lately. Should at least be a part of it that shows what Linux programs can be run (with the compatibility layer).

We love that the next PCBSD version will be awesome, but spend some time and clean up the presentation to attract more people. I hope the next version does in fact address the first points.

kmf
08-19-2008, 07:22 AM
Why should someone choose PCBSD for desktop use instead of a Linux distribution (like Kubuntu, my favourite)?
What makes FreeBSD better than Linux for Desktop use?

Control, with PC-BSD / FreeBSD the packages systems work in in the same way.
When you switch form *ubuntu to Suse/RedHat they differ.

True Freedom. BSD Licensing gives you more liberty than than Linux Licensing (if you compare the BSD License with the GPL)

just my 2c
Karl

TerryP
08-19-2008, 11:03 PM
BUT, it's not a real desktop if it doesn't support the most basic of hardware - the webcam. Can't do Skype very well without that!

The native version of FF3 has video problems on some machines, and there's no native Flash 9. These are fairly mainstream issues that a lot of users can't get by.


This may be what you need for a desktop but it is not what everyone needs -- although I do admit, it is much *better* to have it available then not at all.



The 2nd major problem is this website - compare it to Ubuntu and it's night and day. For example, people have complained that the forums are badly organized for a long time now and nothing has happened.

The PBI site has pretty much ground to a halt - nothing new lately. Should at least be a part of it that shows what Linux programs can be run (with the compatibility layer).

We love that the next PCBSD version will be awesome, but spend some time and clean up the presentation to attract more people. I hope the next version does in fact address the first points.

IMHO the big problem with PC-BSDs website is no maintenance and no semblance of order ... But it's not my job, so I don't complane, I just learn how to locate things I need.


I don't hang out at Ubuntu's forums either, but looking at there index, I find it feels like someone did a


generate_forum_index --verbose --verbose --verbose --title=ubuntu --type=support


but while I find it very evil on my eyes to parse, for Ubuntu's target audience it's probably very well organized.



The entire PBI system.... I refuse to comment upon for moral reasons, rest assured... It won't always be as it is now as long as there is a community.



Webcams and Flash for FreeBSD exceed PC-BSDs goals, it would be better to help port a few things from OpenBSD and tell Adobe top piss off, imho.

xenonsoft
08-20-2008, 09:52 AM
Why should someone choose PCBSD for desktop use instead of a Linux distribution (like Kubuntu, my favourite)?
What makes FreeBSD better than Linux for Desktop use?

Control, with PC-BSD / FreeBSD the packages systems work in in the same way.
When you switch form *ubuntu to Suse/RedHat they differ.

True Freedom. BSD Licensing gives you more liberty than than Linux Licensing (if you compare the BSD License with the GPL)

just my 2c
Karl

You're right, standarization of all FreeBSD based systems is a real fact. And mostly a unified development. This is why I've chosen PCBSD. (Well, now I only use it on my laptop, on my desktop computer I had too much problems with my integrated NVidia). I know PCBSD doesn't some of linux drivers (some of them also slower) or apps, but PCBSD also it's reaching its goal as a user friendly, easy and powerful system. And future versions will tell us that we are right :wink:

Regards,

blackbelt_jones
08-31-2008, 10:11 PM
Well, this is interesting. I've sort of experienced that there's no one "perfect" Linux distribution, though Ubuntu and Lenny come pretty close. I have two computers, and running a debian-based distro on one and a Slackware based distro on the other, and that gives me total coverage. Most of you folks just come off as crazy Unix snobs, but I'm interested enough to look into PCBSD. Is there a live CD I can try?

TerryP
08-31-2008, 10:45 PM
As far as I am aware, the only official (and officially unsupported) Live CD is like 1.4Alpha. You might try the VMWare image for the release you want to try or one of the USB images for 7beta1.

964racer
08-31-2008, 11:57 PM
In addition to what has already been said, my main motivation of using freebsd over Linux is the ports system. For the work that I do, the tools are there and they are easily accessible. I also use a mac, so I have access to mac ports or darwin ports, but it is not as comprehensive as the ports system. If I didn't have a mac for media apps, it looks like most of the media capability I need for movies, graphics and photography are now available on freebsd. The PC-BSD installation/configuration of the desktop,, which by default is KDE - does save a significant amount of time over trying to do it yourself with freeBSD (which I have done several times.). I was not a huge fan of kde3, but I am liking how kde4 is much more refined and not as much of a mess in terms of the organization of all of the programs.

If you have to have linux and a ports-like environment, Gentoo is a good distribution. My only complaint is that it is another hobby project to install and it was not easy getting plug-and-play working with USB/firewire devices for me with gnome. I was able to install PC-BSD 7 beta and get it all working in less than 15 minutes. Everything seems to work so far. (although I have not really tested plug-in devices yet - as I had on 1.5.

I'm a big PC-BSD fan. I think the guys have done a great job putting this together. The version 7 beta 1 that just came out is a very strong beta. It's been running since I installed - no major problems that I have encountered. In fact, I'm kind of wondering if I will even need to upgrade to the final release when it comes out if I have to wipe my system again - but as I mentioned, I have not had a chance to test all the h/w I have with 7 yet - I've just been using some of the dev tools in ports, built emacs and have done only some basic things.

My hope is that the freeBSD project will add the capabilites (more modern install and automated configuration of system, desktop and media tools.) that PC-BSD provides and then I would use freeBSD directly again.

graedus
09-01-2008, 02:29 AM
Most of you folks just come off as crazy Unix snobs
ROTFL
I'm flattered, really!

Protagonist
09-01-2008, 03:31 AM
Most of you folks just come off as crazy Unix snobs
ROTFL
I'm flattered, really!

And you can add me to the list of snobs too. Having cruised the Linux forums in years past I will take that as a compliment as well.

catlord17
09-01-2008, 05:23 AM
As a BSD lover who is forced to use Linux instead, I'll pitch in an answer on both sides of the fence for this one.

Why PC-BSD instead of Linux:

1. The whole thing, kernel and userland, is developed as a coherent unified whole. This leads to a much better overall OS and experience, because the system is not a patchwork quilt, so to speak. Fewer possible points of failure because of closer unity and collaboration on the whole.

2. In my experience, FreeBSD (and PC-BSD) are indeed faster than Linux, and noticeably so.

3. PC-BSD is easier to use than most Linux distros.

4. Legendary stability - as in, virtually unbreakable. In my experience, it's at least an order of magnitude more stable than most Linux distros, and still claims more stability than even the most venerable and stable of the bunch. When BSD crashes, it's a damned good bet you just had a hardware failure somewhere that caused it.

5. The ports system. Not perfect, but better than what most Linux distros offer.

6. If you like to roll your own, building, configuring and rebuilding the system and the kernel is very easy compared to Linux.

7. There's not a million and one versions.

8. BSD is more secure than Linux.

9. Better file systems.

Why Linux and not PC-BSD?

1. Flash must be emulated in BSD, and may or may not work well in this capacity, especially the latest versions. Linux has a native version, which is more-or-less up to date.

2. Linux has more hardware supported - although BSD tends to support better the hardware it does support.

3. More users = more forums and articles for figuring things out.

4. More users = more high profile corporate awareness = more companies taking notice of Linux.

5. Virtualization.

6. Linux has a larger variety of file systems to offer, if that interests you.

If it were not for the virtualization, I'd probably be using PC-BSD as my desktop OS, and you can be sure my employees would too. As it stands, I am using PCLinuxOS instead because I need to use Virtual Box to run Windows XP so I can run Adobe Audition, since Adobe has deemed the Open Source world "unworthy".

Anyway... hope that helps.

wm
09-01-2008, 09:18 AM
4. Legendary stability - as in, virtually unbreakable. In my experience, it's at least an order of magnitude more stable than most Linux distros, and still claims more stability than even the most venerable and stable of the bunch. When BSD crashes, it's a damned good bet you just had a hardware failure somewhere that caused it.



Its stability is questionable as I wrote in this bug report:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12132 (http://forums.pcbsd.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12132)

Never seen a linux distro being able to crash the whole system from userland just by trying to edit a file...

I don`t think this is hardware issue as I have windows and several linuces on this machine working flawlessly.

TerryP
09-01-2008, 06:24 PM
Never seen a linux distro being able to crash the whole system from userland just by trying to edit a file...



Write support for XFS is __experimental_ and unsupported last I heard. The manual page for xfs is available in FreeBSD 7 but not 6.3 (stable branches). The manual page also says that the XFS driver (which is ported from Linux) is used via kernel compile time option or using an LKM. You'll also notice that XFS support is _not_ compiled into the FreeBSD GENERIC kernel for i386, and if it was, there would probably be protest at the developers 'sudden' change of attitudes. If you used the mount program, you should really be executing instructions above user level for a period of time. The XFS driver implements the necessary routines to handle the operation (e.g. xfs_mountfs()/xfs_umountfs() and supporting routines from what I can see). When /sbin/mount is used, it basically looks for a mount_ program to execute, which will understand how to mount the file system (e.g. mount_fsname).


If user programs never invoked code above their own level, you wouldn't even be able to open a file on Linux or BSD based systems. Because the fopen() library call is often implemented using a system calls. The most general idea of a system call, is a program saying, "HI colonel, I can't do this here, please do it for me". fopen() is used to open a file in the C Programming language in a hosted environment, on FreeBSD this is implemented via the open() system call. With fopen() just being a small wrapper around open(), providing access to the file through a 'FILE' structure and returning a pointer to it. No idea about GNU, but some BSD user utilities skip the standard I/O routines and directly use the provided system calls.


IMHO It's better to correctly implement things the first time around, because it's virtually impossible to avoid things like that at some level. It's just a matter of where the problems occur and how many. But then again, that's probably why my dictionary points out that the word 'experimental' essentially means learning by experience, rather then knowing what is proper and stable before it bytes you in the ass.



PS: By default only root can typically mount a file system, PC-BSD changes that, as do I on FreeBSD systems of my own.

blackbelt_jones
09-02-2008, 04:49 AM
Most of you folks just come off as crazy Unix snobs
ROTFL
I'm flattered, really!

And you can add me to the list of snobs too. Having cruised the Linux forums in years past I will take that as a compliment as well.


Well, it wasn't exactly meant as a complent, but it was meant to be good-natured. Calling Linux "Unix made by Microsoft" seems a little... snobbish.

Ah well, I'm intrigued, but I can't get PCBSD to detect my hard drives on this old machine, so I guess I'll have to try it when I get my next old computer. I will say this... it looks like a nice slick installer program. I'm looking forward to the experience.

So does it install with KDE? And if so, is it KDE 3 or (cough)(crap)(cough)KDE 4? Tell me PCBSD will be sticking with KDE 3 forever and I'll switch right now!

wm
09-02-2008, 09:44 AM
Write support for XFS is __experimental_ and unsupported last I heard.

This is all nice what you are saying but imagine an average Joe who has little knowledge on BSD, filesystems, kernel, etc. He wants to try PC-BSD (he heard it is easy to use). Unfortunately he tested Ubuntu before and he still has an XFS partition that he wants to use from PC-BSD. Conclusion fo him is: BSD is unstaible.

graedus
09-02-2008, 02:05 PM
Well, it wasn't exactly meant as a complent, but it was meant to be good-natured.We know, anyway, thank you for having the courtesy to clear that out.

Calling Linux "Unix made by Microsoft" seems a little... snobbish.I like adequacy.org, too.

So does it install with KDE? And if so, is it KDE 3 or (cough)(crap)(cough)KDE 4? Tell me PCBSD will be sticking with KDE 3 forever and I'll switch right now!My bad I forgot, those linux guys really don't like to read/write documentation. From a quick grasp at the release notes, readily available at the project site: PCBSD 1.5.1 (the latest release) has KDE3, and the upcoming release PCBSD 7, has KDE4.

TerryP
09-02-2008, 11:05 PM
So does it install with KDE? And if so, is it KDE 3 or (cough)(crap)(cough)KDE 4? Tell me PCBSD will be sticking with KDE 3 forever and I'll switch right now!


PC-BSD <=1.5.1.x uses KDE 3.x.x, PC-BSD 7 alpha/beta have been using KDE4, with KDE 4.1 expected for the release I believe.




Write support for XFS is __experimental_ and unsupported last I heard.

This is all nice what you are saying but imagine an average Joe who has little knowledge on BSD, file systems, kernel, etc. He wants to try PC-BSD (he heard it is easy to use). Unfortunately he tested Ubuntu before and he still has an XFS partition that he wants to use from PC-BSD. Conclusion fo him is: BSD is unstable.

You have a good point, but this isn't a FreeBSD problem, it's a culture problem. I might sound rude here, but I don't meant to be -- just blunt and to the point....




To use XFS partitions with FreeBSD you have to explicitly do something to use it, how well it works is in the hands of the XFS porters and the utility that created the XFS partition. If the user can't read the documentation needed to set it up (which includes the warning), then IMHO they deserve what happens! Because if you just Google a how to and skip good sense.... Well, you get my point. Although I admit many people do seem to just blindly follow how to's for some stupid reason.



Likewise if (any) the developers enable experimental support without warning just for the sake of a feature, then the developers deserve to be shouted at very loudly! The FreeBSD GENERIC for 7.0 release i386, PC-BSD kernel builds for i386/amd64 on 1.5.x, and the PC-BSD 'trunk' (latest version possible). All are lacking the XFS option in there kernel configuration according to current CVS/SVN. If the user has no concept of file systems, they should have used Ubuntu's default. Which last I checked was Linux's native ext3 file system, not XFS, and ext2/ext3 is quite usable under FreeBSD. Just like they should use PC-BSDs default if they don't know what they are dealing with.




To me, it is like....


If a shooter has been using an M1911 all there life and for some dangerous reason always rests their finger on the trigger (which is not safe!!!). Then go switch to a Glock and don't read the safety instructions for their new firearm, whether they shoot themselves in the foot or not is not Glocks business. It is their's for not reading the warning label!


*Glock == Safe Action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_action), M1911A1 == Signal Action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Action) with Grip Safety, Manual Safety

**You never put your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to fire a live round.

blackbelt_jones
09-03-2008, 04:19 AM
I dislike KDE4 intensely, but I was wrong to imply that it's crap. It's not crap.

Cippycup
09-04-2008, 08:26 AM
My Opinion/Answer ::

I could some it up in one word mostly "community" the BSD community is far more friendly and helpful. The issues I had with Linux is mostly that the community was less then helpful. The problems I had with the OS when I first tried it was that people in the community never really helped. If one made an inquiry about dependency problem or general user questions, the community treated the inquiry for lack of a better word childishly or with and elitist attitude. There are a few in the Linux community that are good people and really try to help you out but you may be hard press to find some of these people.

Real Life Example::
I had to make a fax server for my work place. After spending almost 2 months on trying to get a dependency file needed for a email fax server to work in Linux. I almost gave up hope on the project as the community was not helpful. I was given code that could not possibly work, Files that did not function or cause the Kernel to go into panic, or suggestions that opened more security holes and made Windows 95 look like the Pentagon supercomputer OS. Then luck came about when I ran into a Chinese gamer by chance and he told me the problem was that I was using an Linux its community is too uptight we had a good laugh. He then gave me a copy of Red Flag Linux made by the Chinese government which had the less then 2 meg dependency file I needed.

My point is no one should even have to put up with such headache to get a simple less then 2 meg file. Pretty much that is what ended my relationship with Linux Tux and I found a new love & community in BSD Daemon lol. I have found flavors of BSD I like such as FreeBSD, PC=BSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Mac OSX, NEXT. But no matter the version of BSD the community always remains helpful and the OS all seem to work together well and not against each other like in Linux. From what I seen most people that are turned off by Linux have similar stories to what I have stated. Even Kris Moore the project leader of PC=BSD had a similar horror story with Linux. So it comes down to the community & having an enjoyable computing experience for me. And Linux just doesn't make computing enjoyable like BSD does for me.

RobNyc
09-08-2008, 07:41 AM
I dislike KDE4 intensely, but I was wrong to imply that it's crap. It's not crap.
I tried KDE 4.0.x on Linux and I thought it was crap.
But in PCBSD 7.0 beta1, kde 4.1 worked better than what I thought

wm
09-08-2008, 09:31 AM
I could some it up in one word mostly "community" the BSD community is far more friendly and helpful. The issues I had with Linux is mostly that the community was less then helpful.

This is because BSD system is less popular and using it requires more skills, thus its community is more elite, wiser and seems more friendly. When BSD gets as popular as Linux its community will be "diluted" with average-joes that will give "wise" advices and so on.

When internet was born, it was for elite users that were friendly to each others and helped solve problems. Now internet is for the masses and is filled with spam, arguments, etc.

Regarding BSD and Linux relationship: I wonder why those two do not want to cooperate. To share files between them on a harddisk one had to use MS FAT32 partitions. Today ext2 filesystem can be used however without journaling (according to wikipedia). Again, the best solution to have Linux and BSD writable partition with journaling is to use MS NTFS :-)

Frostybeard
09-09-2008, 06:26 PM
I am new to PC-BSD and quite like it. This works quite well and detects hardware quite nicely for such a new OS distro. And this is only going to get better over time. I plan on sticking around and to use this as an OS for everyday use.

I have been a Linux user since about 2003 now. I have used Debian and (K)Ubuntu and some Mandrake (now Mandriva) in the beginning.

I am interested in using an OpenSolaris based distro as well.

I am also interested in doing a Linux-from-Scratch when I have time as a nice learning experience.

I am also interested in possibly someday using a Symbian based distro on PC as well. It is going open source. If Linux can be ported to ARM, then Symbian can be ported to i386.

dna
09-11-2008, 02:11 AM
One reason is that BSD is a true OS while Linux is a front end to a kernel.

Ralph_Ellis
09-11-2008, 03:01 AM
I have used various versions of Linux over the years with a special emphasis on Suse. On another disk I have Suse 11 64bit installed along with Vista. I also have experience with Ubuntu, Vector Linux and Fedora. At one car dealership which had some grotesque Windows 98 boxes, I would replace the operating system with Vector Linux as each one of them died from malware and viruses.
I have also experimented with PCBSD and FreeBSD. They have usually worked well but both had some limitations with hardware and FreeBSD created a lot of configuration work. What has impressed me with the current version of PCBSD based on FreeBSD 7 is:
1) Much improved support for hardware especially USB based external hard drives, Nvidia cards using Compiz-Fusion, more file system support notably XFS (My Suse install is based on XFS.).
I boot my PCBSD from an external USB hard drive. Earlier versions of PCBSD would freeze if the USB hard drive was connected. Various Linux systems would install on the USB hard drive but most would require some special configuration of GRUB to boot. PCBSD runs without any special configuration.
2) Very straight forward setup and configuration of the basic system. Also KDE 4.1 is more stable on PCBSD than my Suse setup. In Suse, I went back to KDE 3.59 because of issues in the KDE4 desktop.
3) Video playback is superior in PCBSD vs Suse 11 - smoother playback, less jerkiness, faster response.
4) The BSD ports system works better than before. I use the DesktopBSD tools to do ports system installs because it is simpler and solves basic problems easily. Building clamav and klamav via the DesktopBSD tools is much easier than a manual ports build.
The latest version of PCBSD is a huge step forward. The design team should be complimented on the detailed work on the PCBSD 7 beta work.

TerryP
09-11-2008, 04:17 AM
One reason is that BSD is a true OS while Linux is a front end to a kernel.

Linux is the kernel

dna
09-11-2008, 10:03 PM
Linux is the kernel

Ah.

Someone has not given me the complete correct information.

Correct me but I was told that BSD was more secure. Is that true?

TerryP
09-11-2008, 11:04 PM
Out of the box, there is nothing that I have seen more secure then OpenBSD.


As to bsd/gnu systems in general, it depends: some Linux distro are crappy with defaults, FreeBSD is fairly conservative but not perfect (ssh on by default for example). For the actual operating systems, it goes a bit beyond the OS. Most people I know usually come up with a "action list" for improving security on distros they use often (e.g. RHEL, FreeBSD)


If you have a suitable critical issue in apache that effects all apache 2.x builds, you may be at risk on any system using an unpatched build of apache 2.x; just like with IIS on various Microsoft systems: the difference between Windows Server 200x and 200y probably won't save your bacon if it's still sitting in the same frying pan.



As to security among the BSDs, PC-BSD is the most insecure IMHO (pardoning DesktopBSD, since I've never used it) because PC-BSD makes concessions for "ease of use" for what people expect of desktops, like being able to mount a CD-ROM without being the root user, defaulting to autologin/wheel access to the first user created during install, limited poor passwords (due to international issues -- but proper passwords can be set later post install), quick access to editing configuration without a password (e.g. display setup boot option) etc. But most of this stuff makes PC-BSD much easier for regular users to use, without having to change it to "just do what I want and not argue", now if only I could make WinXP do likewise....

dna
09-12-2008, 01:24 AM
How difficult is it to move to either Open-BSD or PC-BSD, and run windows XP inside of that OS?

TerryP
09-12-2008, 04:03 AM
More troublesome then running them within XP, IMHO.


For much more then running office or web surfing, I wouldn't really count on it either. But if that sort of thing is all you need, KQEMU should be enough for you, if one can get XP installed on it. I've only used QEMU with FreeBSD and various Linux distro.


Someone more qualified then I am at that AoR, would really have to comment on your question.

vermaden
09-12-2008, 07:06 AM
FreeBSD is fairly conservative but not perfect (ssh on by default for example).
Wrong, it is not on by default, you are aksed during installation process "Would you like ssh login?" if you say yes here, you will have ssh enabled after reboot.

For much more then running office or web surfing, I wouldn't really count on it either. But if that sort of thing is all you need, KQEMU should be enough for you, if one can get XP installed on it. I've only used QEMU with FreeBSD and various Linux distro.

KQEMU also works on OpenBSD, I have used it on FreeBSD and wrote a HOWTO here:
http://daemonforums.org/showthread.php?t=127

It is usable on AthlonXP 1.6GHz so it will also be on anything more capable of horsepower.

TerryP
09-12-2008, 08:19 PM
Wrong, it is not on by default, you are aksed during installation process

My mistake then, sorry.

Ralph_Ellis
09-16-2008, 03:29 AM
PCBSD is nice compromise between utility and security. It is a workable desktop that would be very hard for a hacker to crack.

OpenBSD is for those who are a little more security oriented.
"Just because your are paranoid, it does not mean that there is not someone following you."
If you can agree with this statement, then OpenBSD is for you.

supercobrajet
09-20-2008, 11:27 PM
...back at 'ya, "Why Linux and not PCBSD?"
10 years ago I might have said no way, Windows is..., but now WINDOWs/M$ is on its way out.
the longer we keep up the linux vs xBSD's vs Solaris vs ...,anyUNIX, then the longer WinBlowz sticks around , and the more WE BOTH PAY for it. -ya they darnwell know it too!

how else can I explain this so you understand 10,000 different ways ?
Well, if I knew how to properly explain this, you wouldn't be asking this allright ?

Sooooo pick anyUNIX, 'cause its already been mandated as THE NetOS of whatever future,
and forget Windows, (MACOSX is already BSD/UNIX based !!!), and enjoy the rest of your life please.

Rick.

rocksolid
09-22-2008, 04:44 AM
BJT's corollary to the Pareto Principle, as applied to PCs: Whether you choose FreeBSD or Linux as your primary OS, you will probably find it more effort than it's worth to try to make it your *only* OS.


Enlightenment is what you get on this forum. BJT you said it. We all love Microsoft Windows when everything else fails one time or other be it a BSD or Linux distro.

I have been trying to use Linux and BSD for almost 16 years now. I only learned a lot about the systems per se. First few years I could not go beyond initial screen because of xconfig problem. So never SAW the read OS. After the advent of modern Linux and PC BSD I can see some desktop at least. but somewhere down the line my resolve to have linux or BSD as "Only" OS is killed by some hardware wall or some software that does not function as easily as its counterpart on windows. But the silver lining is this - I will keep testing them aa I admire the BSD people for what they are doing. As it has ben aready said my others - BSD is lightyears ahead of Linux in terms of depth and quality of documentation, knowledge of forum users etc. Cheers and thanks

TerryP
09-22-2008, 09:05 PM
In my case, when all else fails, I threated to sell my PC to the highest bidder, then she usually stops fussing and gets back to work ;-)



It's crazy!

graedus
09-23-2008, 04:35 PM
In my case, when all else fails, I threated to sell my PC to the highest bidder, then she usually stops fussing and gets back to work ;-)



It's crazy!

I threaten to throw it from the second floor, and works once more.
The first thing I say to people that asks me why their computers don't work as they should is the following:

'cause it doesn't like you!