PCBSD/DesktopBSD, anyone?

mick.fr

Hi

I was wondering if anyone was using one of these system.
And if yes, what is your feeling compared to a Linux distro?

Thanks

Naikon

While I have only used the standard text version from the BSD website, I setup a 6.2 system a while back which I coupled with an xserver and fluxbox to see how it compares to linux.

Installing the framebuffer console equivilent was a pain, and unlike linux there is no default support for high resolutions and a kernel re-compilation is required. Keep this is mind if you want to work in run level 3 for a bit.
Getting 3D support working was more fiddly than the Linux equivilent though. Should be painless if this distro does what it's supposed to do :P. On the surface, BSD and Linux are hard to distinguish considering they are both free unix-like systems.

BSD is more of a niche than Linux, but PC-BSD looks nice I must say.
The fact the BSD kernel can run linux binaries through the Linux compatibility layer is a plus.
The ports system is a very handy way of compiling and installing apps too.

In the end though, I just went with a stripped down version of Debian etch on the desktop, because it's more widespread and new features and driver support is sometimes better than bsd which is very mature in comparison to Linux and does not have as much support for "toys" like my tv tuner card.:( I am using bsd on a small box now just for routing and a firewall(iptables) and the machine is dead solid.

ntlbell

Naikon wrote: »

am using bsd on a small box now just for routing and a firewall(iptables) and the machine is dead solid.

Why are you using iptables?

PF is where it's at.

mick.fr it depends what you're looking for.

I've used FreeBSD on my desktop since the early 90's and I've never looked back.

I don't think it can be really comparable to most linux distro's.

FreeBSD is a complete mature OS, linux is a kernel thrown together with random applications.

If this is for a personal toy go with Linux, if it's for a solid work station or a server that will be under a lot of pressure go with FreeBSD

djmarkus

Hmm.. i could start an argument, but i wont. We're all one big happy UNIX-Like family.

Khannie

ntlbell wrote: »

If this is for a personal toy go with Linux, if it's for a solid work station or a server that will be under a lot of pressure go with FreeBSD

:rolleyes:

Naikon

ntlbell wrote: »

Why are you using iptables?
PF is where it's at.

I have to look into this, I have used smoothwall before but it was a pain to boot off a fecking card reader or IDE drive, so I just put freebsd 6.2 on a thumb drive and setup a simple firewall with the help of nmap for checking open ports. PFsense appears to have features I might use...
Back on topic though, I have to agree with ntbell. If I was running high availibility services I would probably have to go with FreeBSD based on the fact that they use a very organised CVS system, I mean aren't both systems quite stable and perform well equally?

Mind you, any Unix-like system is a better investment to learn in comparison to windows(not that I "hate" windows, just isn't as interesting to work with usually). I am still a bit of a noob myself, but things like shell use/scripting grow on you over time.
Something like Ubuntu/PC-BSD is a good first step to learn linux, and at least this offer an alternitive than to scare users away with the "intimidating" distros.

Finally, use bsd or whatever system you want. Most knowledge is applicable to any system considering people don't work with the kernel on any real intimate level, so the arguements don't mean too much.
Going a bit off topic, but nothing can touch Plan9 when it comes to putting people off learning new platforms...:D


*The image speaks for itself.

ntlbell

Khannie wrote: »

:rolleyes:

If you have something to say spit it out.

djmarkus

Just curious, have you ever used plan9?

mick.fr

I was just wondering guys, because I know the differences between FreeBSD and Linux generally speaking, and yes NTBELL is right, the BSD Kernel is a lot more stable than Linux.
Now for sure Linux is well more advanced than BSD when it comes to desktop applications and probably games as well.
Although BSD can get KDE/Gnome as well, with all the applications (Almost?) available on Linux, you can use the ports or recompile yourself the whole thing.

But BSD is not for the beginners.

So those 2 big projects, DesktopBSD and PCBSD were started some time ago and the idea is to bring the same desktop experience than Linux, a ready to go OS with all necessary desktop tools.

I personally tried both and liked them very much. But I have to use Windows most of the time, so I am more comfortable using it.

Anyway I also love OpenBSD, another flavor of BSD Unix, this is more a server but it can also receive KDE/Gnome, which I did some time ago. I made some custom CD the last year, that was a interesting experience.

I'd love to do more on OpenBSD, I believe this is a beautiful server OS. Cleaner and stronger than FreeBSD itself.

ntlbell

mick.fr wrote: »

I

But BSD is not for the beginners.

I'm not sure what makes PC-BSD any less for beginners than Ubuntu.

But I'm really not going to delve too much into this as it just ends up in arguments that go around in circles for a few hours and then I get banned.

Naikon

djmarkus wrote: »

Just curious, have you ever used plan9?

Nope:(

Naikon

mick.fr wrote: »

Now for sure Linux is well more advanced than BSD when it comes to desktop applications and probably games as well.

Aparrently, running Linux apps on BSD doesen't incur any real performance loss.
When I was installing quakewars, it mentioned running the game through the compatibility layer in the installation steps for BSD.

ntlbell

Naikon wrote: »

Aparrently, running Linux apps on BSD doesen't incur any real performance loss.
When I was installing quakewars, it mentioned running the game through the compatibility layer in the installation steps for BSD.

In fact some apps that run in compat mode have been known to run quicker on FreeBSD than on native linux.

Amusing.

djmarkus

What about solaris, I would nearly say it was more stable than *Bsd(more enterprise users, thats for sure). And they after all are trying to be more desktop frienbly these days.

mick.fr

ntlbell wrote: »

I'm not sure what makes PC-BSD any less for beginners than Ubuntu.

But I'm really not going to delve too much into this as it just ends up in arguments that go around in circles for a few hours and then I get banned.

I meant BSD generally speaking.
I pointed later in my response those 2 specific distros are more like Linux, ready to go.

mick.fr

Naikon wrote: »

Aparrently, running Linux apps on BSD doesen't incur any real performance loss.
When I was installing quakewars, it mentioned running the game through the compatibility layer in the installation steps for BSD.

Running Linux apps on BSD is handy, but really for a good integration, they can simply be recompiled under BSD. They this is not Linux emulation anymore.
You can even compile Windows DLL on BSD if you want...

mick.fr

djmarkus wrote: »

What about solaris, I would nearly say it was more stable than *Bsd(more enterprise users, thats for sure). And they after all are trying to be more desktop frienbly these days.

Java Monster machine no thanks, not for me :-) Their desktop engine looks alright, but this is a beast.

djmarkus

Dont use JDS, CDE FTW!

mick.fr

djmarkus wrote: »

Dont use JDS, CDE FTW!

I was talking about this
http://www.sun.com/software/javadesktopsystem/

djmarkus

So was i, JDS=java desktop system. CDE is also available on solaris:
http://www.nongnu.org/skencil/screenshots/0.6.16-solaris8-cde.png

mick.fr

djmarkus wrote: »

So was i, JDS=java desktop system. CDE is also available on solaris:
http://www.nongnu.org/skencil/screenshots/0.6.16-solaris8-cde.png

Ah sorry I thought you meant it was not using JDS but CDE.
My bad mate.

Naikon

Fluxbox ftw!

mick.fr

Naikon wrote: »

Fluxbox ftw!

Yep seen this thing the last year, I quit like it.
How does it work, on the top of KDE/Gnome, or just on the top of X?

kaki

Cough

Naikon

mick.fr wrote: »

Yep seen this thing the last year, I quit like it.
How does it work, on the top of KDE/Gnome, or just on the top of X?

It's very similar to other window managers like iceWM and afterstep.
It runs alongside the xserver, so no gnome/kde libraries are generally needed unless you want them.
The difference compared to say gnome or kde, is that it generally consumes less resources like memory.

Naikon

kaki wrote: »

Cough

¬ =" "?
At least their documentation is very good...

mick.fr

kaki wrote: »

Cough

Alright and what is your point?

mick.fr

So in your opinion, what would be the most reliable and serious X GUI engine for a OpenBSD, a part from KDE/Gnome?

Naikon

mick.fr wrote: »

So in your opinion, what would be the most reliable and serious X GUI engine for a OpenBSD, a part from KDE/Gnome?

Depends really, the commercial Unix systems have used CDE for years I believe. Really doesn't make a difference as long as it has a small..minimalistic design. Thats just my opinion though Personally I like flux the best because it forces you to use the shell for most tasks which is handy for learning. Not as fancy as XGL or Gnome ect but gets the work done efficiently.
Although I have read Linus Torvalds likes KDE on his workstation...:rolleyes:
Really depends on your preferance tbh.

kaki

I don't tend to have many points.

I have opinions. Maybe a little bit of basic knowledge of what I'm on about.

Don't mind me. Please continue.

*Bows out of the room*

djmarkus

I really find kde by far the best for my needs at home and at work. Klipper and Katapult make my work so much easier

Naikon

As to the most reliable/secure?. No xserver tbh.
High availibility machines don't need them at all I guess.
Not as suitable for the desktop mind you.

Naikon

djmarkus wrote: »

I really find kde by far the best for my needs at home and at work. Klipper and Katapult make my work so much easier

I have to admit though, KDE is much nicer to work with than Gnome if I don't mind saying so.
I still stand by fluxbox though:) (at least for the present)

Khannie

ntlbell wrote: »

If you have something to say spit it out.

I think the rolleyes said it all thb. I think you were looking for a fight with your BSD superiority tripe.

ntlbell

Khannie wrote: »

I think the rolleyes said it all thb. I think you were looking for a fight with your BSD superiority tripe.

Not at all.

He was asking for personal opinions/experiences based on mine that's my opinion.

Rolley eyes do nothing but look for a fight.

So roll them and just don't post it's real easy.

Khannie

You'd swear FreeBSD was the best thing since sliced bread and that every linux disto was just a toy incapable of running as a decent backend server. The reality is that linux has made serious inroads at the corporate backend over the last 5 years. Pretty sure (without googling) that its growth rate at the backend far exceeds that of FreeBSD. If linux were something that should be used "for a personal toy", there are a lot of people out there that you think you're a lot smarter than.

For what it's worth: For a lightweight backend box I'd seriously consider FreeBSD but ultimately I'd find it difficult to justify it over (for example) centos server given my own linux experience level. Also, experience with linux is worth real actual money in my experience. Especially experience with RHEL (or centos). I haven't seen too many jobs looking for FreeBSD experience.

Blowfish

mick.fr wrote: »

Anyway I also love OpenBSD, another flavor of BSD Unix, this is more a server but it can also receive KDE/Gnome, which I did some time ago. I made some custom CD the last year, that was a interesting experience.

I'd love to do more on OpenBSD, I believe this is a beautiful server OS. Cleaner and stronger than FreeBSD itself.

I love it too, however it's biggest problem is that the extra security measures have a performance impact meaning it's not scalable enough to be used as a large scale server.

As a home server/firewall it's fantastic though.

mick.fr

Blowfish wrote: »

I love it too, however it's biggest problem is that the extra security measures have a performance impact meaning it's not scalable enough to be used as a large scale server.

As a home server/firewall it's fantastic though.

Well yeah but the security features (Well more than integrated into the OS) it has will impact the CPU if they are used.
Like any other OS such as Windows Server.
I would disagree with your "home use" statement since OpenBSD is or has been used by many corporates companies, including Microsoft for years. Adobe as well.

mick.fr

Khannie wrote: »

You'd swear FreeBSD was the best thing since sliced bread and that every linux disto was just a toy incapable of running as a decent backend server. The reality is that linux has made serious inroads at the corporate backend over the last 5 years. Pretty sure (without googling) that its growth rate at the backend far exceeds that of FreeBSD. If linux were something that should be used "for a personal toy", there are a lot of people out there that you think you're a lot smarter than.

For what it's worth: For a lightweight backend box I'd seriously consider FreeBSD but ultimately I'd find it difficult to justify it over (for example) centos server given my own linux experience level. Also, experience with linux is worth real actual money in my experience. Especially experience with RHEL (or centos). I haven't seen too many jobs looking for FreeBSD experience.

Well this is also because of the commercial interest of Linux.
Many companies as you know started to professionalize Linux a good couple of years back such as Redhat, Novell.
I am not aware of any "server" distro based on FreeBSD that has the same commercial penetration that Redhat/Novell.

In the first place I do not know what made companies choose Linux over BSD since it was a way more solid OS, and probably still is today.

sobriquet

mick.fr wrote: »

In the first place I do not know what made companies choose Linux over BSD since it was a way more solid OS, and probably still is today.

Plenty of companies did - Hotmail pre the windows buyout, and AFAIK much of Yahoos infrastructure still runs on it. When they kicked off in the mid 90s I'd imagine it was the better option. Whether today you can state one or the other is superior is pretty tricky, Linux is a multiheaded beast, and distros like Debian Stable are reputedly rock solid. I'd add something more inflammatory here but I left the JP-8 at home.

ntlbell

Khannie wrote: »

You'd swear FreeBSD was the best thing since sliced bread and that every linux disto was just a toy incapable of running as a decent backend server. The reality is that linux has made serious inroads at the corporate backend over the last 5 years. Pretty sure (without googling) that its growth rate at the backend far exceeds that of FreeBSD. If linux were something that should be used "for a personal toy", there are a lot of people out there that you think you're a lot smarter than.

For what it's worth: For a lightweight backend box I'd seriously consider FreeBSD but ultimately I'd find it difficult to justify it over (for example) centos server given my own linux experience level. Also, experience with linux is worth real actual money in my experience. Especially experience with RHEL (or centos). I haven't seen too many jobs looking for FreeBSD experience.

As I stated to mick I specifically said I didn't want to get into this too much.

Your argument is a bit like kids arguing over music.

Popular is best.

Ok so the spice girls are one of the best bands in the world, Windows is the most secure stable OS ever written.

This is exactly why I don't get into it.

I'm basing my opinion on years of professional experience in production environments all over Europe from large ISP's to huge e-commerce sites.

Toy was the wrong word sir, I'm sorry.

Khannie

sobriquet wrote: »

When they kicked off in the mid 90s I'd imagine it was the better option.

I'd say there's no doubt about that.

sobriquet wrote: »

Whether today you can state one or the other is superior is pretty tricky, Linux is a multiheaded beast, and distros like Debian Stable are reputedly rock solid.

I've never used debian stable myself, but I am told it's rock solid by people I consider to know their stuff. The nature of my job means that I use RHEL a bit. It's pretty rock solid too. Never had it actually crash. Same applies to solaris too. Just checked the uptime on one of our (heavily used) servers and it's 250 days. Not bad at all.

mick.fr

I would have imagined 10 years ago a BSD was probably a better option than a Linux distro. Especially with the licensing type Linux is tied with.
Berkeley license is a lot more opened (Because there is no restriction).
But I may be wrong. This whole "open source" thing made a lot of noise back at that time (Well a bit older than 10 years...), I suppose they (The different developers, including Torvalds) had better resources than they might have had with BSD. Back at that time, there was almost only one BSD flavor (More or less, many of them splitted a bit more than 10 years ago now...)