×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PC-BSD 7 Released, With KDE 4.1.1

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the repeat-not-dead dept.

KDE 88

Gonzalo Martinez-Sanjuan Sanchez writes "The PC-BSD team is pleased to announce PC-BSD version 7.0! (Release Name: Fibonacci Edition.) This release marks a milestone for PC-BSD, by moving to the latest FreeBSD 7-Stable and also incorporating the KDE 4.1.1 desktop. Users will immediately notice the improved visual interface that KDE 4.1.1 offers, as well as a large improvement in hardware support and speed from the update to FreeBSD 7-Stable."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

88 comments

But...? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25037649)

Does it run Linux?

Re:But...? (3, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25037731)

Does it run a unix-like, desktop-oriented operating system based on FreeBSD?

Nope, definitely doesn't have the same ring to it.

Re:But...? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25038059)

Does it run Linux?

Yeah, just install /usr/ports/emulators/linux_base-fc6.

Re:But...? (2, Informative)

fedcb22 (1215744) | more than 5 years ago | (#25041453)

Get with the times :) Install /usr/ports/emulators/linux_base-f8

Re:But...? (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25043509)

That is not the linux kernel but rather just some userland crap running on the linuxolator. This is not even close to the same thing.

Re:But...? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#25038441)

Sure, just install the linux-base for binary emulation. Occasional user of elfbrand may be required.

Re:But...? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25039133)

Occasional user of elfbrand may be required.

It's brandelf

Re:But...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25038681)

Does it run Linux?

I wish.

I love BSD, but I need machine virtualization such as that offered by Virtualbox. As soon as it's ported I'll probably start running a BSD variant as my primary desktop OS again.

Re:But...? (1)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 5 years ago | (#25041747)

This is a silly question, but have you tried the linux binary compatibility layer? I haven't, but I've been meaning to try since it appears that a native port is a ways off.

Re:But...? (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25043533)

The linuxolator has trouble running modern virtualization environments. Not all the system calls are available to do so. For instance, vmware wont' run after like version 3. VirtualBox is a real pain to port and most other products don't work right.

Yes, but (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25037719)

where's the Bonaccio edition?

Re:Yes, but (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25038181)

where's the Bonaccio edition?

The Bocaccio edition? They stopped supporting that years ago. The last time I saw one, it was installed on a DECameron.

Nostalgia edition? (2, Interesting)

kaaona (252061) | more than 5 years ago | (#25037815)

Looks like 32-bits only. How quaint.

Re:Nostalgia edition? (4, Informative)

bestinshow (985111) | more than 5 years ago | (#25038331)

64 bit downloads on the torrent page, but not the image page. How odd!

http://www.gotbsd.net/ [gotbsd.net]

Also appears to include Linux compatibility out of the box. Will have to give this a go sometime.

Re:Nostalgia edition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25051311)

Those 64-bit downloads are for the old version, not PC-BSD 7.

KDE4... improved? (-1, Troll)

QCompson (675963) | more than 5 years ago | (#25037981)

Users will immediately notice the improved visual interface that KDE 4.1.1 offers

That's about the only "improvement" that KDE4 offers.

Wonderful naming, there (1, Redundant)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25037993)

And nobody will care, because the thing is named "PC-BSD". What is this, 1985?

21st century names are so great. (5, Funny)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25038107)

Right, they should have named it "Hurtling Llama" or "Stoned Hyena".

Re:Wonderful naming, there (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 5 years ago | (#25038771)

Well, it's aimed at the desktop, maybe they could call it "Desktop-BSD". Except that "Desktop" as a word is somewhat anachronistic. Not only are small mobile form factors the flavor du jour, even traditional "Desktop" users are using laptops instead of "desktops".

So, PC-BSD is an operating system aimed at computers which offer a wide variety of services for personal use. The target platforms provide a comprehensive set of services, as opposed to devices like music players or GPS navigators, so they are general purpose computers. They chiefly provide services to one person at a time, in contrast to servers,so they are personal. "Personal computer" is much more descriptive than "desktop", although perhaps "general purpose personal computer" would be more precise.

Computing has historically been like surfing. If you miss one wave you just set up for the next one, although it may come from a slightly different direction. Minicomputers were eclipsed by personal computers, only to reemerge as servers. In information technology, obsolescence in a concept has to be judged modulo the length of a generation.

Re:Wonderful naming, there (4, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25038855)

Well, it's aimed at the desktop, maybe they could call it "Desktop-BSD". Except that "Desktop" as a word is somewhat anachronistic.

And it is already taken. [desktopbsd.net]

Re:Wonderful naming, there (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25040151)

And how is any of that relevant in any way?

Re:Wonderful naming, there (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 5 years ago | (#25040913)

He explained that this isn't a desktop OS, but a personal OS. Then he broke down what personal computing has meant through the short history of computing.

I think we all know what KDE gets associated with in the Linux world, and it makes sense to clarify that PC-BSD has more mature, realistic goals than 'to replace Windows on the desktop.'

Re:Wonderful naming, there (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25044247)

And once again, how is that relevant to the issue of "PC-BSD" being a horribly, fatally bad name?

Re:Wonderful naming, there (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25063387)

Yabbut, you can put anything in the name with "BSD" and it's just fine thanks. Those of us who program these things simply go "phew".

Besides I like the name. It tells me it's BSD that's been tweaked for a PC. So maybe there's a chance sound, flash and my camera will work.

Re:Wonderful naming, there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25050323)

The poster you are replying to will not understand what you said as he is clearly mentally retarded.

What does KDE get associated with in the Linux world? Bloat?

Re:Wonderful naming, there (2, Funny)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#25039915)

What, you would prefer Pornographic Puma?

Or perhaps Vomiting Vole?
Infectious Iguanadon? (presumably obsolete before release)
Twisted Tapir?

Yeah, these are MUCH better. For certain definitions of "better."

Re:Wonderful naming, there (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25040135)

The fact that there are worse names does not make this one good, you know.

Re:Wonderful naming, there (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066893)

Don't know if you'll read this days later or not, but now I'm curious. What would a good name be? What's bad about pc-bsd? Why are functional names bad? What are the alternatives to either functional or sassy? I guess "meaningless" is an option (Vista) too.

Re:Wonderful naming, there (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25041341)

And nobody will care, because the thing is named "PC-BSD". What is this, 1985?

Close, I think it's 1984 these days. :-(

Re:Wonderful naming, there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25044335)

I love all the posts here about names of *nix projects. It's what I call the "cat shit standard". When somebody has time to complain about cat shit in their garden, you know life is going pretty good for them.

Rock on PC-BSD team! With Mandriva and all the *buntu projects we've got broad choices for finished user-friendly open OSs

Feel free to add other good *nix distros to that. Mandriva and the *buntus are just the ones I've been staying most current with. The point is this PC-BSD release has underlined a watershed moment for open source projects.

Re:Wonderful naming, there (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25045465)

Unfortunately, it has nothing at all to do with things being good for them. I have never tried PC-BSD, so it's not like I am complaining about the name because everything else is good. I haven't even gotten to anything but the name because the name is so bad that it just jumps out at you the first time you see it.

And if your name scares people away, it doesn't matter how awesome your product is, because people aren't going to find out.

Re:Wonderful naming, there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25052089)

You're right, because iBSD or BSD Vista would be so much better. No one is going to download now.

Huh? (5, Funny)

bepe86 (945139) | more than 5 years ago | (#25038209)

7 comments, and no "BSD is dying"-troll yet? Slashdot confirms it, "BSD is dying-troll" is dying.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25043393)

It's a beautiful death.

Fibonacci edition? (4, Funny)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 5 years ago | (#25038397)

So the minor versions go 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13...?

("One... two... FIVE!" "Three, sir!" "Three!")

Re:Fibonacci edition? (1)

jomiolto (1092375) | more than 5 years ago | (#25038557)

It starts with two ones. Why does everyone always get that wrong :(

Re:Fibonacci edition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25038659)

it starts with 0 and 1
Why does everyone always get that wrong :(

Re:Fibonacci edition? (1)

jomiolto (1092375) | more than 5 years ago | (#25038735)

Right you are, and it's not the only mistake I made in my post -- I'm feeling rather numb in the skull at the moment. (It would be "interesting" to have two different 7.1 versions, though ;)

Too soon for KDE. (-1, Troll)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25038843)

Especially for something as solid as BSD. If I'm going to use *nix for my desktop, I want something usable.

Re:Too soon for KDE. (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 5 years ago | (#25040049)

KDE 4.1.1 may not be as mature as >3.5.9, but it's certainly usable. Apart from Dolphin being something of a joke (horribly slow, but for all I know that might be a local or Debian problem; I don't even use it), I haven't had any trouble with KDE for a month or so. It's not a bad desktop.

Re:Too soon for KDE. (1)

3p1ph4ny (835701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25041153)

<shamelessplug>

I recently wrote a short comparison of KDE 3.5 vs 4.1 [tycho.ws]. It's targeted primarily at Kubuntu users (who will be forced to upgrade to 4.1 with the release of Intrepid Ibex), but others at /. may find it useful.

I've only been using 4.1 for about a week, though, so it's really just my initial impressions.

</shamelessplug>

Re:Too soon for KDE. (1)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046341)

From what I understand, KDE isn't going to have feature parity when 4.2 hits. Hopefully by then things will mesh again and the all the ports of the apps I use will be done. Hopefully by then plasma will be able to be themed such that it, you know, fits in with the rest of the applications. C'mon, it's kind of ridiculous that plasma doesn't pick up the KDE theme. I like the flexibility of KDE, but when you can theme every little damned thing, I call BS.

Rant over.

Re:Too soon for KDE. (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25050085)

I think the point wasn't so much that KDE4 is lacking, although my recent spin of ibex showed a few limitations compared to hardy (some kde some kubuntu), but that BSD has a reputation for a throughly inspected, very stable environment and KDE4 hasnt been out long enough for it to be either.

Re:Too soon for KDE. (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 5 years ago | (#25051851)

BSD's reputation is based partly on the fact that not many people use it. It's mostly hearsay. The FreeBSD 5.x series is a good example of a not very stable or thoroughly inspected environment, as is NetBSD on some so-called "supported" platforms (I'm talking about Mac-PPC here).

Re:Too soon for KDE. (1)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 5 years ago | (#25053935)

The FreeBSD 5.x series is a good example of a not very stable or thoroughly inspected environment, as is NetBSD on some so-called "supported" platforms (I'm talking about Mac-PPC here).

while I agree that FreeBSD 5.x was effectively a beta release at best, I disagree with your opinion on NetBSD. Speaking as someone who runs NetBSD and Linux on a PowerPC Mac (G4 Powerbook), I can assure you that while installing NetBSD was painful, it runs faster than Linux as well as being just as stable. I also run NetBSD on sgi-mips, sparc, vax and alpha. The only one that has stability problems is my Alpha when I tried to use an IDE hard drive (SCSI works fine). In comparison, I've never managed to successfully install Linux on the SGI or Vax, although on Sparc and Alpha it installs and runs fine.

Re:Too soon for KDE. (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054265)

My experience is different. Installation wasn't that difficult, with the exception of OpenFirmware (OldWorld), but that's Apple's fault. Drivers were left out and needed a kernel recompile, were marked experimental and you notice they really are. Poor driver support in general, and drivers under development didn't even compile. Same for much of the third party software in pkgsrc. No, it didn't crash often, until I tried to make it usable. But this is ancient hardware, and NetBSD didn't support it in any way properly.

Still no VM host... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25038991)

Wake me when you can run VMware or VirtualBox under BSD. Until then, it's useless to me.

Re:Still no VM host... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25041007)

QEMU...

Re:Still no VM host... (1)

rufus t firefly (35399) | more than 5 years ago | (#25041729)

Wake me when you can run VMware or VirtualBox under BSD. Until then, it's useless to me.

The source is available [virtualbox.org] for VirtualBox's "OSE" version. If someone felt so inclined, they could port the *BSD-specific bits to work. I'm assuming the major work would be in the kernel module, but if you want it done badly enough, you could do it.

BSD ? Bones said it best . . . (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25039593)

"It's dead, Jim."

Welcomed Release (3, Interesting)

foldingstock (945985) | more than 5 years ago | (#25040175)

Its nice to see a PC-BSD release based on FreeBSD-7.0.

Personally, I rather like the PBI concept. I got a little frustrated when setting up Firefox v3 on Ubuntu*, due to having to upgrade loads of libraries just to use it, which in turn caused many packages to become unusable unless they were also upgraded. I don't want to do a full OS upgraded just to use a web browser.

With PBI packages, the installation is sandboxed in its own directory, along with the needed libraries. This does take up more space, but in the long run it makes for quite a stable system.


*I like and use Ubuntu. I am not saying PCBSD is better or worse then Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution.

Re:Welcomed Release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25048835)

With PBI packages, the installation is sandboxed in its own directory, along with the needed libraries. This does take up more space, but in the long run it makes for quite a stable system.

How exactly does it make for quite a stable system in the long run?

Let's say ten applications depend on a library for which a security vulnerability is discovered or stability fix is published. We have to upgrade ten applications (provided that ten maintainers are informed about the issue and update their PBIs). No shared libraries actually means much greater memory consumption too. It's not just a matter of disk space.

PBIs, Windows installers etc. are not a solution, they are a problem the Free Unix community solved ages ago.

Re:Welcomed Release (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25097735)

While PBI is interesting, I'm still want a decent package manager. A lot of package managers out there suck, but some are great. There is nothing wrong with the concept of package managers. (Fortunately PC-BSD lets me use ports, so I get the best of both worlds).

Why the obsession with Linux? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25040989)

Very, very often I scratch my head and wonder why there's such an obsession with the Linux kernel when it comes to desktops based around GNOME/KDE. From a desktop end-user point of view (and I'm an end-user), there's little difference between the two. The various types of BSD have great wifi card support, and most printers are supported by CUPS nowadays independently of the kernel. That's just about all I need, to be honest. Everything else I need is provided by software, such as Firefox.

What I like most about BSD is simply that it isn't Linux. It hasn't got the baggage that Linux has. I can mention it in polite conversation without being thought of as a fanatic. There are very, very few BSD fanboys -- people using it tend to be older, and more mature. It doesn't get on Digg, and if it does there will be like 10 comments from people passing the time, rather than debating how Windoze sux!!!!1!

This is a great thing. Perhaps it's just like Linux used to be 10 years ago.

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

goarilla (908067) | more than 5 years ago | (#25041349)

Very, very often I scratch my head and wonder why there's such an obsession with the Linux kernel when it comes to desktops based around GNOME/KDE. From a desktop end-user point of view (and I'm an end-user), there's little difference between the two. The various types of BSD have great wifi card support, and most printers are supported by CUPS nowadays independently of the kernel. That's just about all I need, to be honest. Everything else I need is provided by software, such as Firefox.

What I like most about BSD is simply that it isn't Linux. It hasn't got the baggage that Linux has. I can mention it in polite conversation without being thought of as a fanatic. There are very, very few BSD fanboys -- people using it tend to be older, and more mature. It doesn't get on Digg, and if it does there will be like 10 comments from people passing the time, rather than debating how Windoze sux!!!!1!

This is a great thing. Perhaps it's just like Linux used to be 10 years ago.

linux today has the momentum and the hardware support. i would switch if i could run vmware
and if there finally was full XFS support

i don't want to get into the 'which fs' is best discussion
because i settled on XFS a long while ago and have been extremely happy since

untill XFS is fully supported i won't touch BSD on my home machine
also ... autoconf/automake source code tends to be developped and hence compile cleanly on linux
while in FreeBSD it does require some serious fiddling
another odd point i think, could be wrong about this one
is that a lot of people learned the bash shell and the BSD's & solaris
tend to default to csh or tcsh (i like tcsh but i really loathe csh -- no tab completion ? )
offcorse a chsh can fix that, but most linux users have never had the need for that command and most don't even know it exists
yes one can edit passwd directly
but then you have to use vi instead of vim unless you install it with ports
which requires yet another man lookup etc ...
it's unix but it differs just enough from linux to be annoying to affiliates :D

yes i've tried it and yes i'll play with it more in vmware but right now
my slackware is my most useable and enjoyable system

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

fedcb22 (1215744) | more than 5 years ago | (#25041603)

i don't want to get into the 'which fs' is best discussion because i settled on XFS a long while ago and have been extremely happy since untill XFS is fully supported i won't touch BSD on my home machine

Why exactly do you favor XFS so much?

also ... autoconf/automake source code tends to be developped and hence compile cleanly on linux while in FreeBSD it does require some serious fiddling

Not true. I've rarely had a problem compiling things that aren't in the ports tree manually (quite rare, considering there are 19,000+ ports) and those that I did have issues with always failed as they depended on certain Linuxism.

another odd point i think, could be wrong about this one is that a lot of people learned the bash shell and the BSD's & solaris tend to default to csh or tcsh (i like tcsh but i really loathe csh -- no tab completion ? ) offcorse a chsh can fix that, but most linux users have never had the need for that command and most don't even know it exists

You are wrong. FreeBSD defaults to tcsh, and csh is mearly a symlink. Not to mention if they are actually using a shell and not a GUI, they should know what chsh is.

yes one can edit passwd directly but then you have to use vi instead of vim unless you install it with ports

What? You can't edit passwd directly, FreeBSD uses shadow passwords, use vipw. You also don't need to use VI. If you want a simple editor use ee

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

goarilla (908067) | more than 5 years ago | (#25044515)

Why exactly do you favor XFS so much?

best performance on large files that i've ever seen (3 years ago), i also always have been able to recover +99,9% of all the data
when the hd crashed (i had a very flaky hd that was just over a year old -- goodbye warranty :( -- and crashed a lot)

Not true. I've rarely had a problem compiling things that aren't in the ports tree manually (quite rare, considering there are 19,000+ ports) and those that I did have issues with always failed as they depended on certain Linuxism.

i never mentionned ports, offcourse they work they have been edited to ... WORK
i'm talking about all those source code tarballs you can get from every damn sourceforge,berlios or freshmeat
project, you know ... shit that's outside of ports

You are wrong. FreeBSD defaults to tcsh, and csh is mearly a symlink. Not to mention if they are actually using a shell and not a GUI, they should know what chsh is.

i'm not wrong, you just were 2 damn eager to reply ... reread my sentence please

What? You can't edit passwd directly, FreeBSD uses shadow passwords, use vipw. You also don't need to use VI. If you want a simple editor use ee

huh ? the shells get defined in passwd it has nothing to do with shadow (where the hashes of your passwords lie)
and one can edit that directly (root user) although it's not wise !

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

dadragon (177695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25047819)

i never mentionned ports, offcourse they work they have been edited to ... WORK
i'm talking about all those source code tarballs you can get from every damn sourceforge,berlios or freshmeat
project, you know ... shit that's outside of ports

Actually, what the OP wrote was "I've rarely had a problem compiling things that aren't in the ports tree manually". I've also had few problems, as both FreeBSD and Linux have been converging on POSIX standards for the last few years.

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

fedcb22 (1215744) | more than 5 years ago | (#25050735)

huh ? the shells get defined in passwd it has nothing to do with shadow (where the hashes of your passwords lie) and one can edit that directly (root user) although it's not wise !

You can edit it directly, but it will have no effect whatsoever unless you run pwd_mkdb, so please, don't be '2 damn eager to reply'.

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

goarilla (908067) | more than 5 years ago | (#25051329)

pwd_mkdb doesn't exist in linux, one just needs to restart his sessions by spawning a new child from init

you're just putting more weight in my argument that freebsd is just that little much different from slackware to be really annoying
mind you i do had the same grievances with solaris

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

geniusj (140174) | more than 5 years ago | (#25081865)

vipw is the way you're supposed to edit the passwd file - It exists in linux too.. On FreeBSD, vipw will run pwd_mkdb automatically after you exit. The good thing about pwd_mkdb, is it lets you know that you screwed up before shooting yourself in the foot.

pwd_mkdb: * uid is incorrect
pwd_mkdb: at line #4
pwd_mkdb: /etc/pw.mXg864: Inappropriate file type or format

Are you against the crontab(1) command too? :)

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

rufus t firefly (35399) | more than 5 years ago | (#25041813)

and the BSD's & solaris

tend to default to csh or tcsh (i like tcsh but i really loathe csh -- no tab completion ? )

offcorse a chsh can fix that, but most linux users have never had the need for that command and most don't even know it exists

In the same way that most Windows users don't know that the "Command Prompt" exists. It's still not possible in either to do *everything* without delving into using a CLI. In Windows, working with anything but the most trivial Exchange Server features has traditionally required their CLI tools.

It wouldn't exactly take a lot of effort to implement bash under *BSD (if it hasn't already been done, cue the reply with the package link), but it's still hardly appropriate to accuse the majority of Linux users of some sort of ignorance because their OS tasks generally don't involve using the CLI.

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

fedcb22 (1215744) | more than 5 years ago | (#25042031)

pkg_add -r bash && chsh -s bash

done. :)

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25042481)


pkg_add -r bash && chsh -s bash

done. :)

Don't do that as root though, since bash is not part of the base system. If something goes wrong, and you are stuck in single user mode, you won't be able to log on.

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

goarilla (908067) | more than 5 years ago | (#25044639)

It wouldn't exactly take a lot of effort to implement bash under *BSD (if it hasn't already been done, cue the reply with the package link), but it's still hardly appropriate to accuse the majority of Linux users of some sort of ignorance because their OS tasks generally don't involve using the CLI.

i've never claimed linux users are ignorant i'm just stating that most linux (CLI) users are happy with bash
and don't need it changed and when they do need it changed they either edit the passwd directly (i did that but it was very inconvient - combination of vi and not vim and qwerty keyboard layout)

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

rufus t firefly (35399) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046775)

It wouldn't exactly take a lot of effort to implement bash under *BSD (if it hasn't already been done, cue the reply with the package link), but it's still hardly appropriate to accuse the majority of Linux users of some sort of ignorance because their OS tasks generally don't involve using the CLI.

i've never claimed linux users are ignorant i'm just stating that most linux (CLI) users are happy with bash and don't need it changed and when they do need it changed they either edit the passwd directly (i did that but it was very inconvient - combination of vi and not vim and qwerty keyboard layout)

You could also just use usermod -s mynewshell username to change that, without having to directly edit /etc/passwd

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 5 years ago | (#25053939)

Someone that's chosen BSD over Linux has already realised that BASH is to shells what high fructose corn syrup is to Americans.

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (4, Informative)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25043737)

So go to the vmware site and request FreeBSD support. There was a forum thread about it actually.

FreeBSD has two built in shells and several editors. I don't see what's so hard about pkg_add -r bash nano if you want to go GNU.

The bash port adds it to /etc/shells so chsh works. Other BSDs include different shells. For instance, OpenBSD has a modified pdksh which is decent. MidnightBSD and MirBSD include mksh. MidnightBSD also has tcsh and ash (/bin/sh is ash in freebsd too)

Dragonfly and MidnightBSD include mined as an alternate editor as well.

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

goarilla (908067) | more than 5 years ago | (#25044535)

it's not hard it's just not slackware or Solaris
and i really missed having a paper issue of the manual :D

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

goarilla (908067) | more than 5 years ago | (#25044551)

what's nano ... i really need vim not vi

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046029)

ok so pkg_add -r vim

I don't see why you *need* vim over vi. Do you have to have colors? I don't mind using gvim from time to time, but it's not required for me to get work done.

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

kungfuj35u5 (1331351) | more than 5 years ago | (#25044267)

Clearly you like "underground operating systems". Where will you go when BSD becomes popular and everybody's heard of it? Plan 9? Enough with the "get off my porch" mentality. I 3 BSD and Linux. Linux for the hardware support, and BSD for the lightweight simplicity, init script style (which slackware modeled itself after), ports system (which gentoo modeled itself after), and ZFS support. Oh and licensing too.

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054063)

Leave Plan9 alone !!

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

kungfuj35u5 (1331351) | more than 5 years ago | (#25058985)

I have a fondness for Plan9 and it definitely has its place in a data center. It's a wonderful system for anything distributed, but you have to admit, a large portion of their user base is the "get off my porch" unix users. I mean, those guys have a ridiculous superiority complex.

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066001)

We don't have a complex. It's just a fact.

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

geniusj (140174) | more than 5 years ago | (#25081913)

Last I checked, Plan9 didn't run properly under VMware, which I think is a requirement for having any success with the geek crowd today :)

Has that been fixed?

Re:Why the obsession with Linux? (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 5 years ago | (#25084145)

Plan 9 works in VMware for long time. There is an issue re. cd-roms such that you have to make a change to the config (disable it iirc).

tbh. the geek crowd is not something we care about :)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...