Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-18-2011, 03:18 PM
James78 James78 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question PC-BSD or Ubuntu?
So I installed Ubuntu with WUBI & it was installed in windows So, I don't like this it is not on its own partition, Should I install PC-BSD or Ubuntu onto the partition? The .pbi system sounds interesting, but that is the only real difference I know about. Can anyone here post how they differ & are the same. Like in PC-BSD do I have to use the CLI for anything? Plus what about Gnome, PC-BSD is only KDE4, which I used before & it sucks. If it used 3.5 it would be ok, anyway just wanting a basic comparison, I am not wanting to use it for anything special, just browsing on it really. I also have a ASUS H61 - EPU, UEFI BIOS and Anti-Surge Protection - mATX Intel H61(B3) Micro ATX DDR3 1333 LGA 1155 Motherboard (P8H61-M LX) motherboard & a SMC EZconnect g wireless USB card any prob. with them? Plus this will be a singe HDD duel boot system with Win7 x64.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-18-2011, 05:02 PM
tankist tankist is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 61
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default
Upcoming PC BSD 9 will have 4 major DEs: KDE, Gnome2 (not 3!), XFCE and LXDE and several smaller ones.

If you hardware is well supported by FreeBSD core then maybe PC BSD will give you a smoother experience than Ubuntu.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-18-2011, 05:14 PM
Abdul Abdul is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 333
Thanks: 19
Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
Default
I use lubuntu on a netbook and I'm preparing to use PC-BSD on my workstation. I'm quite noobish with regard to both of them, but I'm a newcomer from Windows and I still feel the pains of transition.

There are similarities, but also numerous differences between those OSes.
When it comes to similarities, I think the most important one for you is that you get to choose your desktop environment.
Since PC-BSD 9 there is support for GNOME and several others (Including my favourite LXDE )
Another one is that while theoretically it's possible, I don't think anybody gets around with any of them w/out using CLI. Sadly, almost whenever something breaks (and in my experience things break much more often than on Windows), you need to use CLI. Not an issue for everybody, but good majority of advanced configuration is done via CLI too.

Differences? Quite a few. My subjective list taking into account what you said would be:
-PC-BSD supports ZFS well, which is IMO better then whatever you can get on Linux. That's an important reason why I chose PC-BSD.
-Ubuntu has more GUI configuration tools, so you can get around w/out using CLI for a bit longer.
-Ubuntu hardware support is much better. I can't tell whether it would be OK with your computer, but it requires careful checking. Even more careful then with Linux.
-Amount of software. Ubuntu wins by a huge margin.
-A ton of tiny differences. It's infeasible to talk up all of them, but they are everywhere. You have to use both a bit and get a feeling what makes you feel better.
-Cultural differences. There are different communities. I feel better with BSD folks.

Overall I suggest that you try both for a few days and see what you feel better with.
__________________
touch -- '-rf ~'
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-18-2011, 07:06 PM
fluca1978 fluca1978 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 364
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
Default
There are technical and functional differences between Linux and FreeBSD. All the desktops are supported, and can be installed via package manager or ports. FreeBSD is much more stable and reliable, in particular if you do not use an Ubuntu LTS. FreeBSD has some features much more server oriented, like ZFS, GEOM, pf, .... while Linux and in particular Ubuntu is much more workstation oriented. All the system have a common ancestor, which is Unix, so if you know how to explore man pages, execute commands, do shell scripting, you will be fine in both. If your hardware is supported you will never have to go the command line in both.
After all it is a very general and too much long to answer question. Split the partition in two slices and try both on your computer. When you have chosen the right one for you, erase the other partition and mount it on the survived system and you will get back your disk space! Otherwise ask for a more specific subject to get a good answer.
By the way, I come from several years of Linux and Kubuntu and I am pretty happy with my FreeBSD system. But I have still a lot to learn....
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-19-2011, 08:13 AM
mike4 mike4 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 30
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by fluca1978 View Post
FreeBSD is much more stable and reliable,
What a joke, where did u hear that?

ZFS yes but Linux has other FS like XFS etc.

Biggest difference ist the supported hardware and apps. BSD is only
slowly catching up. If you want an installer where you can choose the desktops you should try openSuse. In fact with Ubuntu the ugliest thing
is the installer...

Both belong to the UNIX family. BSD derives from original AT&T Unix but Linux was written from scratch and alike Unix.



BSD also benefits strongly from Linux OpenSource...

Last edited by mike4; 11-19-2011 at 09:23 AM. Reason: added image
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-19-2011, 01:33 PM
fluca1978 fluca1978 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 364
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
Default
When talking about the linux kernel, than yes, it is a great piece of code and is very stable and robust. Other parts of a normal linux distribution are stable too, but you will find that distributions tend to mess up things quite easiliy, producing a system that can become really unstable.
That's why I like freebsd the most: all the distribution is made homogeneous, each command has been designed to work smoothly with the rest of the system. If you install software that comes from the ports, you will be prompted about risks and possible problems, and if not warned it will mean that the software is going to run without producing any potential damage to your system. That is the stability and reliability I was referring to. Of course both systems have a lot in common, with freebsd having a much longer history.
FreeBSD is just a step bahind the support for fancy hardware, but this is due, in my opinion, to the fact that the system is much more server oriented.
By the way, since both the systems are very good and free, you can try which one fits better your needs.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-19-2011, 03:33 PM
windtalker windtalker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Stambaugh, Ky
Posts: 165
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default
ALL systems will have their quirks and philosophies. The more bleeding edge they are the less stable they may become. Arch is about as bleeding edge as you can get and no matter what you do you're going to delve into your terminal starting with the installer itself. The more often a system updates the less likely it is to be stable. I've tried Ubuntu several times out of curiosity. A few updates and I'm opening a terminal to fix something. PCLinuxOS is fairly stable and I ran it about a year before I had to fix something. Debian is stable but it can become a chore just installing what you want into it. To me, there isn't a whole lot of difference workwise between Arch, Debian and FreeBSD. PC-BSD gives me a fair amount of stability on their stable release without all the work of getting the desktop I want on it. I'm running RC! at the moment and it has some flaws and I knew it would. I had been running 8.2 stable and the only hitch I had was with Xsane. I've run every release of windows made and every release had to be reinstalled roughly once a year if not sooner due to things breaking. Linux, BSD's and Windows are man made. They're gonna break sooner or later no different than the light bulb in the fridge going out sooner or later. Those who make the switch from Windows to Linux or the BSD's are going to go through culture shock because all they know is Windows. Linux and the BSD's are very similar yet they're both as different from windows as a motorcycle is from a car. One can't expect the BSD's or Linux to mirror Windows. Windows carries patents. Linux and the BSD's are open source and cannot make a mirror image of Windows due to the patents. All they can do is make similarities. I myself have been running Linux for the last 12 or so years so it's going to be hard to tell me something I don't know about any distro listed on Distrowatch. I've probably at least tried all of them. For any newcomer I personally would have to recommend someone go to PCLinuxOS or here to PC-BSD. There will be terminal time but it should be a minimum. Learning the bash commands isn't hard. A lot of them are easy to remember such as cd is short for change directory. rm is remove. rm -r is remove plus all contents. Don't go spastic and convince yourself it's too hard. It isn't. It's just new and takes a bit of time to learn while unlearning Windows.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-26-2011, 04:01 AM
LeeCrites LeeCrites is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Texas panhandle
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool lived on both sides of the fence... ...coming back.
In 1995 when I first started trying to run a flavor of *nix on a PC, I tinkered about with red hat linux. The pain was overwhelming -- sort of like an abscessed tooth. After two months, I still did not have a stable system to work with. I was no newbie to *nix -- I started working with it in 1981, and was a senior system analyst dealing with a whole suite of various *nix systems.

I decided to give FreeBSD a try (v2). The install was painful, to say the least, but after two days, I was up and running.

I loaded it on my office computers; I ran an ISP using it; I installed it on several client sites; I ran my entire consulting company on it. I developed a system health process on it, with a client process that ran on each client site and a server that communicated with each of them, and kept me up-to-date (via pager messages) when a system was having problems. It was, to say the least, mother beautiful!

I upgraded to 3.0 when it came out; I upgraded to 3.3 when it came out. I helped with what I could -- but mostly, I used it as a very stable and workable system for my clients.

When I installed a client site, their FreeBSD box was their mail server, hosted their web pages, and acted as a backup server for their various other computers (which were mostly windoze based).

I went back to linux due to a client requirement, but maintained my main systems with FreeBSD, not doing another upgrade from 1999-ish to 2006-ish.

I had no hiccups; my clients had no hiccups. I actually lost track of some of my clients because they never called me with problems. When you want to track system stability, the only real yardstick is how long a system will continue to answer all bells, uninterrupted. I have never had a linux system match my FreeBSD experience.

In 2005, I moved to SuSE, then Fedora, and then, finally, to Ubuntu (which is currently what my office and clients are running on). I am tinkering about with my Ubuntu systems about as much as I have to tinker about with the windoze systems. Yes, it is easy to install; yes, it works really nicely; yes, the user interface (GNOME) looks enough like windoze that my clients eased into it without complaint.

So after 6 years (+/-) of no FreeBSD systems (and nearly a dozen years since I did an install), I am looking at going back to it. I am tinkering about with installing PC-BSD on my main work system (a laptop which now runs Ubuntu only).

Most of the reason I'm looking at going back to fbsd is the stability issue. On the Ubuntu sites, there are discussion about "upgrade vs fresh install." Why? Because creeping errors from months of updates and such are only exacerbated by almost random errors after an upgrade. I have one Ubuntu system, for instance, that cannot run Firefox. I can't reinstall it; I can't uninstall/install it -- I will, literally, have to do a complete fresh install to get it working. The others had their own issues, but that one is the most irritating.

I don't have time to waste constantly fixing errors. I need a system that was stable enough to work for 6 years without a hiccup.

After all, the only true measure of stability is how long a system will continue to function, answering all bells, doing everything you need from it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-26-2011, 04:20 AM
harishankar harishankar is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default
As somebody new to PC-BSD I think it is definitely as user-friendly if not better than Ubuntu. And of course, the FreeBSD kernel is super-stable.

I've had problems on Ubuntu and stability before, maybe I was just unlucky. I currently am using PC-BSD on my older laptop and Debian GNU/Linux on my new laptop and both are superb at what they are.

PC-BSD is a really worthy desktop OS. I mean, it even has ibus enabled by default. What a considerate way to acknowledge international users! I cannot understand why some Linux distributions simply ignore their international users and assume that all everybody needs is English. And Linux some distros strip off the internationalization packages as a way to cut down on disk space.

PC-BSD is a really great way to get people to use BSDs -- and I speak as somebody with a little bit of experience with FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD as well.

Last edited by harishankar; 11-26-2011 at 04:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-28-2011, 06:12 AM
fluca1978 fluca1978 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 364
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by LeeCrites View Post
I don't have time to waste constantly fixing errors. I need a system that was stable enough to work for 6 years without a hiccup.
That is the point. FreeBSD comes with this in mind, while most of Linux-s come with the "implement the new cool feature in our next release" without caring too much about stability of previous and already running releases. Both the kernels are great, what makes the difference for us (sysadmins) is the distribution that is built around.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright 2005-2010, The PC-BSD Project. PC-BSD and the PC-BSD logo are registered trademarks of iXsystems.
All other content is freely available for sharing under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.