Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 8.0 Release Focuses On Desktop Use

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the fresh-bits dept.

Unix 154

donadony writes "Last Monday PC-BSD 8.0 was released. PC-BSD is based on FreeBSD and uses KDE as its default desktop environment. PC-BSD is designed to make BSD much easier for desktop use. The 8.0 release includes support for 3D acceleration with NVIDIA drivers on amd64 and improvements in the USB subsystem. The PC-BSD team has also developed a friendly package manager system with a simple-to-use GUI tool (see the screenshots tour). For a full list of changes, refer to the changelog."

cancel ×

154 comments

Still freeze with ZFS and moderate load? (1)

TerminaMorte (729622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286356)

I tried the last version of PC-BSD. Was excited to have some ZFS support. Unfortunately it would freeze under moderate (read: 1 VirtualBox VM running) load.

Re:Still freeze with ZFS and moderate load? (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286544)

How much RAM? ZFS loves RAM. I was locking up until I upgraded to 4GB. (I was hoping to go to 8GB but RAM prices shot up).

It makes a rock solid home server. NFS, SMB, CCXstream (XBMC), AFS (It's my time machine disk).

Congrats on the installer. Now you just need to Root on ZFS [freebsd.org] into the installer. (If you have any experience and can follow instructions, it's not hard at all, just long.)

Re:Still freeze with ZFS and moderate load? (1)

TerminaMorte (729622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287250)

I had 4GB of ram on a dual core AMD 2ghz computer.

Re:Still freeze with ZFS and moderate load? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31288278)

Yes, it's still a problem. The freebsd-stable mailing list during January and February of this year has been affluent with discussions amongst administrators regarding how to solve the performance problems ZFS on FreeBSD creates. There are some worthwhile answers but nothing concrete. It has nothing to do with the amount of RAM you have.

Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris do not have these problems.

Re:Still freeze with ZFS and moderate load? (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289538)

I believe the last version was based on FreeBSD 7 and ZFS support was still experimental. The first production ready build of ZFS on BSD is version 8. So I would imagine that it would be less buggy.

Am I the only ignorant one to think... (-1, Flamebait)

afc_wimbledon (1052878) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286358)

Do we need a new version of the Blue Screen of Death for PCs?

Re:Am I the only ignorant one to think... (3, Informative)

CSHARP123 (904951) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286534)

Only difference is, this is not from Microsoft and it works Just out of the box. You do not need to struggle like how you do with Windows. Hope this helps.

Not drowning but waving.... (2, Funny)

afc_wimbledon (1052878) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286870)

You do not need to struggle like how you do with Windows

Mod me troll if you please, but you may think of it as struggling, I prefer to think of it as consulting. If it was easy, who'd pay me for it?

Re:Am I the only ignorant one to think... (-1, Redundant)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288714)

This is not from Microsoft and it works Just out of the box. You do not need to struggle like how you do with Windows

February 23 Microsoft released a little noticed compatibility update for 32 and 64 bit Vista and Windows 7. It makes an interesting read - and the list is by no means exhaustive.

KOTOR now runs like a fine-tuned watch.

Application Compatibility Update for Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008 R2: February 2010 [microsoft.com]

The Windows user is not a geek.

The programs he runs - the programs he buys - are shaped by an entirely different set of needs and expectations.

Windows for him makes a very comfortable fit.

Re:Am I the only ignorant one to think... (1)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289896)

I actually misread the headline as "PC-DOS," which would, sorta be from Microsoft.....maybe IBM was returning to the numbered releases. :-)

Re:Am I the only ignorant one to think... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31286658)

Yes, you are. But this is a linux fanbois site so your comment is not entirely unexpected. Stop writing your own material.

Linux Binary Compatible (2, Interesting)

CSHARP123 (904951) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286414)

Using Linux Binary compatible layer does all the Linux drivers work too or just applications? Does anybody know?

Re:Linux Binary Compatible (3, Informative)

ig88b (1401217) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286498)

Just applications.

Re:Linux Binary Compatible (2, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286530)

I used to use XiG Acclerated X Linux binaries on top of the linux abi on FreeBSD 3.3 back in the day, because the Voodoo3 drivers were better than the 'native' ones for XFree86 where at the time. I wouldn't try sticking network drivers or anything in, but I'm not really a kernel expert. There is an ndiswrapper-type thing for FreeBSD/PC-BSD if you need that for wifi, though.

Re:Linux Binary Compatible (2, Informative)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287766)

The layer is for the ABI, in other words the Application Binary Interface (it's like the API of a Kernel for applications). This is because FreeBSD is not Linux. With Linux the drivers are from within the kernel, or somewhat outside of it with modules.

However... If you want open source graphics drivers (I am sorry... I do not know your level of knowledge/expertice so just ignore what I am about to say if it makes you go like *whoooosh* ;) ) than these are tied into X.org (the graphical foundation upon which the Linux GUI's works) and the Linux KMS (kernel mode setting) (as the UMS, user mode setting, is disabled in most current drivers) and if FreeBSD already has the KMS feature (was planned) then these drivers work out of the box on FreeBSD ;).

Re:Linux Binary Compatible (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289044)

No, binary emulation is for userland, not kernel objects.

Re:Linux Binary Compatible (2, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289122)

I should expand on that, really what FBSD binary emulation is ... is just syscall emulation. You still use all the Linux libraries (some slightly patched to be more efficient on FBSD under the emulated syscall interface, but essentially unchanged and unchanged versions directly from a linux box will work).

The only thing the emulation layer does is tell the runtime linker to use a different syscall interface and a different library path for Linux libs, with some minor patches to the linux libs to make things smoother.

Wait (1, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286504)

The BSD community is no longer beleaguered??

No, i think all 4 of them are OK (2, Funny)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286752)

And doing fine.

 

Re:Wait (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287118)

If you want to nitpick BSD has a higher market share on the Desktop then Linux does. Based on the fact that OS X is based on BSD.

Re:Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31287378)

Yeah, except that it ain't actually BSD except at the kernel layer, and even the kernel layer is forked/merged. It's about as similar to BSD as BSD is to System V. Get over it.

Re:Wait (5, Informative)

flydpnkrtn (114575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287686)

Er, well that's not quite true. It seems there's a lot of confusion in this area...

The OS X kernel is called XNU, and is Mach-based. It's not the FreeBSD kernel.

OS X's userland is called Darwin, is open source, and IS based on a FreeBSD userland (not kernel)

Just sayin'

Re:Wait (2, Informative)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288044)

XNU features a POSIX api, a process model, networking, and various other bits from FreeBSD, although of course much altered from the original. It sort of wraps Mach.

Re:Wait (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290030)

The OS X kernel is called XNU

Great! Now why do I get the funny feeling my Mac is going to automagically get me an all-expense paid vacation to visit Mt. St. Helens?

Re:Wait (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287696)

Except the OSX GUI really isn't an open standard, though there's been some work in that direction by third parties working on an API compatible UI layer. I'm actually hoping to see it gain some steam in the next few years, as remote X11 really isn't such a good thing at today's higher resolutions, and disconnected networks.

Re:Wait (2, Informative)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287876)

Mac OS X is based on NeXT.

What Apple does is that they recycle open source bits for their own use, and they happened to use some BSD stuff, but Mac OS X is by far not based on BSD! Let's start with the fact that Mac OS X has two kernels instead of one... So there you go...

And also, Apple does occaisionally contribute some stuff back to FreeBSD, so in some sense BSD's marketshare is also a bit of Apple's by your definition...

Re:Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31288130)

Do you have a reference for the fact that OS X has two kernels? Also as a previous commenter said the underlying userland of OS X is heavily BSD based, as in the man page for the fork system call says "FORK(2) BSD System Calls Manual FORK(2)" at the top.

No, I think you wanted to nitpick (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288394)

And the original poster just wanted to make a joke.

HTH.

 

Bad Headline (4, Insightful)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286676)

Every PC-BSD release focuses on desktop use. It's a desktop distribution.

Re:Bad Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31288676)

Now, if only they'd focus more on laptop/battery usage issues... (Plus, not everyone wants to run bloatware --KDE)

Re:Bad Headline (1)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288920)

Actually, there are a lot of problems with PowerDevil and the current Nvidia driver.
It'll run forever with the VESA driver, or text only, but that's no fun :D

You can, of course, enable powerd manually (it's installed... just change enable_powerd="NO" to enable_powerd="YES" in the rc.conf)

But in my testing, this resulted in a plain black screen. What I do is much less user friendly. I change the CPU speed based on a script whenever it goes on battery.

This is something that *really* needs to be fixed.

Re:Bad Headline (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288964)

I read it as essentially, "PC-BSD 8.0 Released: Tagline about wtf PC-BSD is", or perhaps even "PC-BSD 8.0 Released: Why not just use FreeBSD?"

Been testing it (3, Informative)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286780)

And this is a BIG improvement over version 7. Still some bugs to be worked out, but it's got far better integration with the PBI installer (similar to synaptic), a very good GUI installer, and the very latest nvidia drivers.

Very nice, very well executed. They turned it out pretty fast too.

Re:Been testing it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31287100)

How is this a Troll? I haven't tried 8.0 yet, but am looking forward to trying on my newish laptop I have just acquired.

My older thinkpad didn't like the earlier releases of PC-BSD.

Re:Been testing it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31287324)

BSD users, just like Solaris users, are completely unreasonable. Offer some moderate praise, and be prepaired to get yelled at and called a troll at minimum. You've got to praise it like it was the second coming of Christ to make most of them happy, and even then you shouldn't be surprised if some of them still weren't happy. This stupid, smug and conceited attitude is a huge turn-off for sane people, something they can ill afford if they want to stay relevant.

Re:Been testing it (4, Interesting)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287800)

Anything complimenting BSD on /. tends to get an initial troll mod I've found. It's amazing how much hate Linux users have for it.

My experience is quite different from the above AC (of course, both are anecdotal, take your grain of salt - and mine are with FreeBSD, not BSD in general). FreeBSD users tend to be pretty laid back, if it isn't working, they recognize it. They may not care, they don't need it, or they may be working on it.

Linux users tend to get up in arms if you don't treat FreeBSD like the second coming of satan for taking away a small amount of their user base and development power, when Linux is obviously the true and correct solution.

Re:Been testing it (2, Interesting)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288286)

There's this saying, "Linux is for people who hate Microsoft, BSD is for people who love UNIX."

It's tongue-in-cheek and very debatable, of course. But isn't there an undercurrent of truth in it, that BSD fans on average are driven by a positive force, and linux fans on average are driven by a negative one?

I'm ASKING, not trolling. FYI, while I conceptually prefer BSD, in practice I'm using linux.

Re:Been testing it (5, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288758)

Linux, particularly the GNU/FSF types, tend to be more ideologically motivated, I find, and I think most of the hate against Free/Net/Open BSD is hate against the BSD license because it doesn't fit into their framework of how the world should be. They're the ones that are going to be on about "software freedom" and all that, rather than "this works, let's use it."

Case in point, I mentioned above that I actually paid money for a commercial X server about 11 years ago. If BSDi BSD/OS hadn't been $1000, I'd probably have bought the "commercial" BSD, too. However, FreeBSD tended to get most of the worth while improvements rolled back from BSDi, and it only cost me like $30 to order it on CD-ROM (the dark days of dial-up and all that). My current company uses FreeBSD as the basis of our product to avoid GPL issues, as does Juniper and others. The FSF-types, of course, aren't going to be down with that and look at it as "theft" (never mind the fact that I know my company, and possibly Juniper as well, have committers on the pay roll) or something.

I think it has to do with the fact that Linux is more readily obtained and there has been a concerted effort to recruits new users. Its sort of like the Mormon Unix, in a way. What this means in practicality is that there is a large portion of the user base that has the "zeal of the convert" -- I'm not going to say that I didn't feel that way when I was 12/13/14 years old and was first starting out, but it's a real thing. As Theo once said, 'bsd is for people who love unix; linux is for people who hate microsoft.' That's kind of a classic troll, but its kind of true, too, to an extent.

I think that the type of people who are into BSD are generally older, have more experience in the industry, and are less ideologically driven in their OS choice than say, high school kids who saw pretty screen shots carefully crafted to look like something out of 'swordfish' or 'the matrix' an want to be 'l33t'. That's not to say that there aren't a lot of professional, neutral-minded Linux people, but then that's going to be the difference between the RHEL/CentOS-type of users and say, Mint (which I've tried and used before and I don't hate it, but let's face it -- we're not putting that on a production server any time soon).

BSD and Linux have their places, as do Windows and MacOSX. I (obviously) prefer BSD to Linux (though I've worked as an admin on a CentOS farm before), and Mac to Windows (though I didn't really have any problems with Vista 64 Ultimate as a desktop OS, just the command line was still for crap), but I can use the other and often do, and I'm at a point in my life where just getting the work done with the minimum headache is more important than what tool i use to get it done. From what I know of Linus, he seems to be of similar mind, too.

Re:Been testing it (1)

pgmrdlm (1642279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288888)

Thank you for the observation. I totally agree. i have found that linux users don't even want to acknowledge FreeBSD. And no, I do not mean all linux users. But when I see or have been object of that type of flaminging from them, my retort is always: Linux is a Unix want to be, I use the real thing. I then point out the security history of both branch's. FreeBSD has a much better security history then Linux. OpenBSD puts all of them to shame. chuckle, I also point out that FreeBSD was here LONG before Linux was even a thought process that hadn't even made it to paper. let alone code.

Oh well, not all linux users are like that though. I know a large number of them that always are trying different flavors. Thats why they run VM.

Again, thank you for the observation.

Re:Been testing it (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289046)

Actually, FreeBSDs direct (not just idealogical) ancestors were here long before Linux. FreeBSD itself is younger than Linux.

And you are right, not all Linux users are like that, but I felt like putting my two cents in after Mr. AC who also commented on the same post.

Re:Been testing it (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287818)

Actually PBI isn't much like synaptic at all... it's more like sandboxing, where each application has all of its' dependancies. The hard part is there wasn't much in place for dependence on packaged frameworks like Java, Mono, Python, Ruby etc, in order to have some things centralized for applications that run under these environments. This may have changed, to be honest the last time I really looked into it was around PC-BSD 5-6. I had it as part of my tagline/summary for a while. I honestly like PC-BSD a lot, and wish it all the continued success. It's a much nicer experience to a working BSD desktop than the FreeBSD installer. And once you get it installed, and get ports/packages up and running, you don't even need to use the PBI system if you don't want to. It's a great jumpstart to a FreeBSD desktop even, and shares the same target platform. If the hardware support were just a tad bit better, I'd probably be using it as my main OS. I'd have to convert all my VMWare images' drives to fixed size, single file and adjust the in-vm drivers but it could work out well.

Re:Been testing it (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288322)

To be fair, it doesn't really take very much to deliver a better impression than the stock FreeBSD installer. True, it works well enough, but a "You're done, please reboot" screen would be nice.

Re:Been testing it (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289124)

You should have seen the 5.x installer.

The "new" installer, is rather comfy and user friendly in comparison.

Re:Been testing it (1)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289416)

Well, the synaptic analogy is for the Linux guys :D

I couldn't agree more with the 'getting to a desktop' part. There are some gotchas and some non-intuitive steps to getting KDE or Gnome running on a BSD box (like installing X11, configuring /etc/ttys and whatnot). So PC-BSD is very good at being a clicky-clicky come back later to a desktop kind of thing.

I still prefer the FreeBSD vanilla, just because I don't care for KDE, but I very much respect what they've done.

Sweet! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31287360)

It's finally the year of the BSD desktop! I knew this day would come.

Re:Sweet! (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288548)

ROTFL!

UVC Webcam? (1)

venkythegeek (860551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287364)

Still doesn't support UVC webcams

Re:UVC Webcam? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31287486)

And hopefully it never does. The world doesn't need to see you diddling your three inch member.

Re:UVC Webcam? (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287940)

The world needs to see his 'member' just as much as it needs your extremely anti-social post...

Re:UVC Webcam? (1)

Neil Hodges (960909) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289366)

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , both NetBSD and OpenBSD have UVC kernel drivers, while FreeBSD is able to make use of Linux's UVC drivers by running them in userspace.

that link is wrong (3, Informative)

tresstatus (260408) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287466)

not to point out the obvious, but when you go to the change log link from the summary, you actually wind up going to http://www.unixmen.com/content/view/151/11/ [unixmen.com] which tells you how to install nagios. here is a link to the pcbsd 8.0 changelog... http://www.pcbsd.org/content/view/151/11/ [pcbsd.org]

PBI files (4, Interesting)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287648)

One of the nicest things about PC-BSD is the whole PBI idea, which are basically like .pkg files on OS X. When installing apps via PBIs, you get all the dependencies in one shot, which means you don't destabilise your whole system when installing from a central repository where app A requires a library version that breaks apps B, C, D.... This is particularly true when you want to use third party repositories.

PBIs are simply downloaded and installed from places like http://www.pbidir.com/ [pbidir.com] , the process is graphical, and they are easily uninstalled without fuss.

Re:PBI files (3, Informative)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287796)

I'm a huge fan of the PBIs and I think they're a really good way to quickly install objects that would otherwise require ports and complex dependencies.

The best part is they don't interfere with each other, unlike some of the apt-get/yum type packages. For the most part they encapsulate everything that would have been in the ports build.

When the PBI is updated, you get a notification and can just clicky click to upgrade it (without trashing the rest of your system just because Gimp 9.9 requires some lib that everything else hates)

Easy to make too - just get the PBI installer, and then build them from the existing port. Porting still remains an exercise for the reader ;)

Installing Firefox, Quake, America's Army, Rhythmbox or Gnome like this is awesome. I hope that it takes off as a model.

Re:PBI files (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288082)

Well, like I said, OS X uses a similar system already. Unfortunately, similar efforts on Linux never went anywhere, so users are locked into the vendors' repositories, unless they are knowledgable/brave and use third party ones.

Weirdly, it's these same people who often complain about iPhone lock-in with the app store...just saying.

Re:PBI files (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288502)

Wait wait... downloading and installing a deb from a third party requires knowledge and bravery (apparently it's very scary to click the download link, then 2x click the package in Nautilus and say "yes" when it asks if you want to install it), but using a PBI is all beauty and light?

Interesting.

Re:PBI files (1)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288762)

ROFL

I think the point is that PBIs are internally consistent, whereas a deb or rpm can make system-wide changes.

If I install a deb that upgrades something in /usr/lib without intending to, other apps may have issues.

Re:PBI files (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290234)

ROFL

I think the point is that PBIs are internally consistent, whereas a deb or rpm can make system-wide changes.

If I install a deb that upgrades something in /usr/lib without intending to, other apps may have issues.

So a PBI ships with *all* it's dependencies? Isn't that, you know, horribly inefficient? What about system libraries like glibc, libstdc++, etc?

Re:PBI files (1)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288844)

The problem is that the 3rd party package has to be correctly constructed and play nice with other packages in the repository. I've had all sorts of problems with this using the OpenOffice.org from PPA. It does weirdness with the language packages and after installing from the PPA it would be impossible to get localization configuration to believe the languages were properly installed. The same thing can happen where a system breaks because a non-repository package writes a file and suddenly you can't install other packages that need to put a file there. Self-contained bundles alleviate these problems since its impossible for 3rd party packages to trample over things the system may need.

Re:PBI files (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289258)

It does when somebody updating a new library doesn't bother to double check that all the function calls for the old library work the same way in the new library, and your .deb requires the updated library.

Now if you need to update the software dependent on that function that was changed you're hosed and you'll have no idea what caused it.

It happens, and it's a pain in the ass.

Re:PBI files (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289590)

Yes, but if your distribution is sane (ie is Debian) and you're sane (ie not using Unstable), you won't have a version of Gimp that requires libraries that the rest of your distribution can't use, unless you try to get it from somewhere else.

Re:PBI files (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289644)

And as I understand it, the idea of PBI is to simplify the case where "you try to get it from somewhere else".

+1 PBIs rock. (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288164)

As a mostly Mac and Windows user I adore PBI's. Don't get me wrong a package manager is good stuff too, but PBI's are very farmiliar to those of us tied to non-free OS's. Free-BSD really is a great OS frankly, if only it had games!

Limited selection of PBIs (1)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288552)

I've tried PC-BSD a couple of times and liked it but I've never stuck with it. The lack of a PBI to install a proper usenet newsreader has always been the deal-killer for me.

Re:Limited selection of PBIs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31288858)

The average usenet newsreader nowadays is a web browser. If you really need an app from the early 90's, then I recommend using a 90's build process.

Re:Limited selection of PBIs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289754)

The lack of a PBI to install a proper usenet newsreader has always been the deal-killer for me.

Oh, please... If "cd /usr/ports/mail/slrn && sudo make install clean" is too much work for you then maybe you should seriously reconsider this whole "computer" thing and go buy an iPad!

Re:PBI files (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31288754)

Hurray for 1000 copies of zlib that all have to be updated separately! So convenient!

Re:PBI files (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289202)

What? Just because the package is included doesn't mean it gets installed. A shared library installed by one app is still used and shared by other apps.

This is no different than Windows games including the directx installer and running it as part of their own install. After the first install, the rest of the games you install that also install directx only update it if they are newer or have special versions of the files, you don't install a new copy every time.

Have you used computers very long or are you actually new to how shared libraries actually work?

Re:PBI files (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289414)

PBI Features

        * Completely graphical extraction & installation process.
        * Advanced scripting support - Use shell-scripts to control the installation process.
        * Corruption detection - Ensures that a user's downloaded PBI is intact.
* Library auto population - Grabs all the library files a binary may need for operation during the creation process.
        * Icon Management - Allows developers to set icons for both the desktop & K-Menu.
        * Program Error Detection - If a PBI installed binary fails and silently outputs a stderr / stdout message, this is captured and displayed in a GUI for troubleshooting.
        * Easy Removal - PBI's can be removed through the "Remove Programs" system utility.

I've been using computers long enough to know that ideas like PBI are very old and very stupid. I suspect you are a newbie to Unix, and no doubt consider yourself a l33t h4ck0r, which is why you will almost certainly be rooted sooner or later by someone who notices you are using an OS that doesn't take security seriously.

 

Re:PBI files (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288800)

Sounds like you get a lot of redundant libraries that way. Why not just go back to statically linking everything if you're going to do that? The proper solution is to support multiple versions of a library in your package manager. I don't know why package managers don't do that.

Re:PBI files (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289352)

And a big library is, what 100k? Maybe?

Seriously, redundant libraries were a big deal 15 years ago, now it's just smart.

Repeat after me: Redundancy is a good thing, not a bad thing.

The proper solution is to support multiple versions of a library in your package manager. I don't know why package managers don't do that.

Because it's freaking hard to get right. See all of Microsoft's efforts to deal with this, it's the #1 flaw of the dll system (any shared library system, actually) and it has been from the start, the system used in .Net is their best effort so far - it uses manifests for each library to track and point software to the correct version.

Re:PBI files (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289488)

We've had this for well over a decade in FreeBSD, it's called Ports. It may not be GUI, but going cd /usr/ports/whatever/i/want make install clean isn't that hard.

Re:PBI files (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289874)

Ports does dependency resolution, etc. PBIs do not, because they don't have to.

Why BSD? (1)

ivanwyc (1649687) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287846)

Why we need the BSD kernel for desktop? While the Linux kernel has the best hardware support coverage among all open source kernels, I am curious what's the reasons behind to pick BSD for a desktop oriented distro.

Why Linux? (2, Interesting)

r_benchley (658776) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288234)

Why do we need Linux for the desktop? While Windows has the best hardware support coverage among all operating systems, I am curious what are the reasons behind picking Linux for a desktop oriented operating system.

Re:Why Linux? (2, Funny)

ivanwyc (1649687) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288630)

Simply because windows is not free. And I don't want to reboot my computer as frequent as I change my underwear.

Re:Why Linux? (0, Redundant)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289804)

Simply because windows is not free. And I don't want to reboot my computer as frequent as I change my underwear.

My desktop PC running Windows Server 2008 R2 has months of uptime. It'd be longer, but I tinker and reboot it on whim.

Where does your underwear say about your uptime?! :P

Re:Why Linux? (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288870)

While Windows has the best hardware support coverage among all operating systems

That's not true. Linux supports a much greater set of hardware. Since we're not at the mercy of the vendor to keep their drivers updated, Linux is often able to support old hardware that new versions of Windows won't. Not to mention all the architectures Linux has been ported to.

Re:Why Linux? (1, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289376)

Having a driver available and having support are two different things.

First off ... XP which is still effectively a production OS at this point, much against MS's wishes, is almost 10 years old. At this point, if you have hardware that won't work with XP because its too old to have XP drivers, its likely that it won't work with Linux either because the hardware has probably failed due to old age. Its also highly unlikely to be useful hardware today. I have a Gravis Ultrasound that still works, and I can't use it in Win7 cause I don't have drivers ... but I don't care because the $10 onboard sound chip is about 3 times better at this point.

FreeBSD used to have a much larger set of kernel drivers available. Then they came to a realization. Yea, we make the drivers compile and not interfere with the rest of the kernel, but no one has actually tested half this crap in years. Come to find out, a lot of the drivers didn't actually work because no one had used the new versions in the newer releases in so long that no one had noticed its been broke for years. What'd they do? Marked a bunch they knew were common as keepers, marked everything else as BROKEN and waited for someone to notice, a couple versions later, they removed all the BROKEN tagged drivers cause no one was using them.

While you may find having a bunch of drivers available impressive for your e-penis, its not really that impressive or relevant in context.

To say that it supports a much greater set of hardware is just stupid. It doesn't. At best, it supports what windows has supported in the past. It may occasionally support a few custom pieces of hardware made by some very Linux specific companies, but those are so rare as to be dwarfed by the same number of windows specific hardware devices released yesterday. It may have drivers for old hardware that Windows had and no long does, but its never had support for all of the devices that Windows has, not unless you consider the state of 3D hardware acceleration in Linux to be acceptable. Just for reference, its not.

Linux may have a lot of drivers, but its STILL playing catchup with Windows, and it doesn't have all Windows drivers, so it can't possibly have a greater set of hardware support.

Nice twisted way to make it sound impressive though.

Re:Why Linux? (1, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289528)

Linux drops support of old hardware all the time. Since drivers are handled by the kernel, if it didn't the thing would become unwieldy.

I'd agree that the single Linux kernel has broader hardware support, but at the same time the latest version of Windows simply won't run on the older hardware Linux can. However, if you use a version of Windows that WILL run on that same hardware, the driver support for that particular class of hardware is much better with that version of Windows than Linux.

If you look at what is not supported by any version of Windows and compare it to what isn't supported by any version of Linux, Linux doesn't look nearly as good.

One big plus though is ARM support in Linux, but it still doesn't make up for all the extraneous hardware Linux doesn't support.

Back on topic though, I think a PBI or DMG style package system for Linux would be a freaking godsend. I'd probably still be using it if that were the case (yeah, I CAN get non-repo repository software to work, and yeah I CAN fix it when repo dependancies break my software, but I don't WANT to, and I'm not going to deal with it).

Re:Why Linux? (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289756)

Since we're not at the mercy of the vendor to keep their drivers updated, Linux is often able to support old hardware that new versions of Windows won't.

But since we often don't have the benefit of protocol specifications provided by the vendor, Windows is often able to support new hardware that new versions of Linux won't. This is especially true of non-PostScript printers and flatbed scanners.

Re:Why Linux? (3, Interesting)

pgmrdlm (1642279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288998)

Security. Go ahead, pass me a .exe file via one of your hacked web pages. Wait, it doesn't run on my unix/linux box. Damn, you can't infect and make my desktop part of your botnet.

And no, i did not mean you. Sorry, just the only way I could think of phrasing that.

i still use windows as my primary desktop, but I am performing more and more tasks from my FreeBSD KDE desktop.

Definatly ALL my email.

Most of my surfing.

I don't game, so what do I care about games.

open office opens ALL the microsoft files that I need.

So, why do I need microsoft and all the hackers that go with it?

Re:Why Linux? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289962)

Why do we need Linux for the desktop?

Good question. I prefer FreeBSD on the desktop, and so do the folks at PC-BSD.

Re:Why BSD? (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288382)

True, the linux wins in mind share, and to some extent therefore also in market share. But the BSDs do provide superior performance, which is very evident in the server market share.

But hey, why not offer server performance for desktops, too? :-)

Re:Why BSD? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288550)

But the BSDs do provide superior performance, which is very evident in the server market share.

And you have modern, meaningful benchmarks demonstrating this to be the case, I presume? I mean, this isn't just nonsense rooted in your personal biases, right?

Re:Why BSD? (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289038)

Well yes, from Netcraft, in spite of the almost mandatory "is dead" joke ... not that I can find the figures for you right now, though.

I didn't intend to be boastful or nitpicky; perhaps I should have rephrased it to something in along "many very large web sites are hosted on BSD systems.

Re:Why BSD? (1)

crazybilly (947714) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288842)

Re:Why BSD? (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288900)

Touché.

Re:Why BSD? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288828)

Audio for one. BSD audio mixes everything in the kernel with no nasty incompatible user space audio servers. Ever had a Linux app refuse to play audio because it was configured for ESD while you happen to be playing something through ALSA? It should "just work" and on BSD it does.

Re:Why BSD? (1)

temcat (873475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289444)

But what about audio hardware support on BSD?

Re:Why BSD? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289004)

Why we need the BSD kernel for desktop? While the Linux kernel has the best hardware support coverage among all open source kernels, I am curious what's the reasons behind to pick BSD for a desktop oriented distro.

FreeBSD makes a great developer's desktop, at least for those of us who know how to do what we need to with the CLI (presumably PC-BSD's raison d'etre is to make that caviat obsolete). Excellent performance, satisfying consistency, and it's a very clean system. Gotta love a system whose kernel is small enough to configure in nano if you want to.

I'd used FreeBSD for servers for years, and switched to it for the desktop after I had problems with Debian while using large, external USB hard drives (wonder if they ever fixed that?). Hardware support is surprisingly good, except for TV tuner cards. I still dual-boot Linux on the laptop though (a customized version of the excellent gentoo-based systemrescuecd), mainly for the filesystem drivers.

Too hard to switch again (1)

wrencherd (865833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288122)

I tried PC-BSD a few years ago (it was based on FreeBSD 5.5 then).

I think it's a good idea, but at the time it seemed like a lot of trouble to learn a new kind of "port system" when I'd already invested a lot in learning FreeBSD's (not that I've ever mastered it or anything).

I know these Ubuntu-like distributions are supposed to make things easier for those starting out, but sometimes it seems like just another learning curve.

Re:Too hard to switch again (2, Insightful)

silverglade00 (1751552) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288374)

It's the same ports system. They just add the capability to use a .pbi file to install a package when you don't want to bother using the ports. This is just another choice.

You can download .pbi file, click, use application.

You can cd /usr/ports/..., make install clean.

You can pkg_add.

If you like using ports, then just think of PC-BSD as getting a desktop up and running quickly without having to manually choose X and KDE during the install.

UNIX vs. Linux? (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288490)

Question - and I'm hoping for an honest answer.

I've been using Linux now (SUSE > openSUSE > Ubuntu) for several years now in both a desktop and server environments. My office still has a few HP 3000 (MPE) servers lying around running applications.

In speaking to other analysts and whatnot, while advocating Linux, the question comes up - why not UNIX?

I honestly can't answer. Can someone tell me why one would choose UNIX over Linux or the other way around? Is there an advantage to one over the other?

Re:UNIX vs. Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31288994)

Linux is Unix. Some versions of it are even POSIX certified, though there's probalby no Unix out there that's 100% SUS compliant out of the box.

As for why you might want one flavor of unix over the other? Solaris and BSD have ZFS and dtrace, AIX runs on crazy powerful POWER7 hardware, Linux has more usermode programs than god can count, and you may pick a vendor based on how well you trust their support...

Re:UNIX vs. Linux? (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289408)

AFAIK, Unix <> Linux. At least that's what the lawyers say. (http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Novell/Novell-377.pdf) Also here: http://www.pcworld.com/article/135959/novell_wont_pursue_unix_copyrights.html

I dunno - just always wondering...

Re:UNIX vs. Linux? (0, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289460)

No, its not, and POSIX does not define UNIX. POSIX is the portable OS interface, it was originally intended for Unix derivitatives, but it does not define what UNIX is. The Open Group defines what UNIX is, and Linux is not in the list.

Interestingly enough, the others you mentioned ARE UNIX, Linux is the only one that isn't.

The difference is simply in the name and licensing of that name, but it still bothers me that Linux fanboys can't get it through there head that you can't call yourself UNIX until you pay the piper. It may be dumb that you essentially 'buy' the right to be called UNIX, but thats just the way it is. Buy the right, or stop fucking trying to pretend you did. Go off on some tangent about how UNIX is retarded because its proprietary or its just a name that you buy or some crap like that ... something thats actually true at least.

SUS and POSIX are identical (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289686)

POSIX is the portable OS interface, it was originally intended for Unix derivitatives, but it does not define what UNIX is. The Open Group defines what UNIX is

POSIX:2001 and Single UNIX Specification version 3 are identical [wikipedia.org] .

Re:UNIX vs. Linux? (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289828)

Go for it if you want, OpenSolaris is well developed. It isn't going to be nearly as flexible, and there isn't nearly the community development behind it, but there's nothing stopping you.

Linux isn't 100% Unix compliant, so a lot of the goodies probably don't work, but it is certainly a powerful system.

I wouldn't really recommend it for desktop purposes though, much less so than I recommend Linux (which is not at all).

I love it (3, Interesting)

not already in use (972294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289192)

I would love nothing more than to see a BSD licensed solution succeed on the desktop, if nothing more, than to prove to FSF folks the definition of irony when it comes to being "free and open."
Load More 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...