Beta
×

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!

FreeSBIE 1.1 Screenshot Tour

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the cuteness-and-light dept.

Operating Systems 40

linuxbeta writes "FreeSBIE is a FreeBSD LiveCD, or an operating system that is able to load directly from a bootable CD, without any installation process, without any hard disk. It's possible to use the BSDInstaller to install FreeSBIE on your hard drive, and then turn it into FreeBSD 5.3-STABLE by means of cvsup. At OSDir we installed FreeSBIE 1.1 and grabbed a series of great screenshots of this slick FreeBSD OS."

cancel ×

40 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uh-huh (2, Interesting)

Rie Beam (632299) | more than 9 years ago | (#11144356)

"LiveCD, or an operating system that is able to load directly from a bootable CD, without any installation process, without any hard disk."

I'm sad to report that the above statement was half the summary.

BSD? LIVE? (-1, Troll)

WiKKeSH (543962) | more than 9 years ago | (#11144707)

FreeBSD LiveCD?
Surely someone hasn't been listening to netcraft.

Funny. Laugh.

xfce4....as heavy? (3, Interesting)

endx7 (706884) | more than 9 years ago | (#11144983)

Wow, FreeSBIE must be trying for lightweight if they consider xfce4 to be heavy.

I mean, if you are going to talk about heavy you have to talk about gnome or kde :P

Re:xfce4....as heavy? (3, Interesting)

setagllib (753300) | more than 9 years ago | (#11145109)

It's pretty heavy given its lack of functionality. For most uses, Fluxbox with a pager and use of ~/.gtkrc[-2.0] is enough, but at less than a tenth the size. A large part of its size is its image-based themes though.

I tried GNOME 2.8 before and was heftily disappointed. It has about a third of the functionality of KDE but with about ~30MiB extra compressed source to download. If it wasn't for its less-evil-than-Qt license it would have no merit at all.

Re:xfce4....as heavy? (1)

Santana (103744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11149618)

And Qt is evil because ...

Re:xfce4....as heavy? (1)

setagllib (753300) | more than 9 years ago | (#11155917)

You either need a special license or a legal copy of MSVC++ to use it. In this sense it is even more restrictive than MFC, though admittedly more useful.

GTK is GPL (or LGPL? anyway..) and hence can be used safely for most things, provided you don't use the code itself in a way that would conflict with the GPL. That's okay though.

Re:xfce4....as heavy? (1)

Santana (103744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160905)

I need a legal copy of MSVC++?? How they dare...

Seriously, you're free to develop [trolltech.com] open source software with Qt on MacOS X and UNIX/UNIX-like OSes. So, no, you don't need a special license nor a copy of MSVC++ to use Qt

If you want to develop proprietary software or develop software for Windows you have to buy a commercial license [trolltech.com] of course. And that is not more evil than you wanting to write proprietary software/for Windows.

Re:xfce4....as heavy? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176911)

If you want to develop proprietary software or develop software for Windows you have to buy a commercial license of course. And that is not more evil than you wanting to write proprietary software/for Windows.

I believe setagllib's point is that you can write software for Windows without paying Microsoft to use their Windows API. It doesn't matter what license you license your software under.

But you can't write software for KDE unless you 1) GPL it or 2) buy a license from QT. Stop. Period. No third choice.

Re:xfce4....as heavy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11189287)

GNOME used to be like this until the libs were (loudly) placed under the LGPL.

Re:xfce4....as heavy? (1)

theonetruekeebler (60888) | more than 9 years ago | (#11150219)

It's a fair warning, though---you never know when your LiveCD is going to be used to resurrect a crashed Pentium II that's being used as a print server. My primary computer is a PII/300 laptop with 64MB; the first time I booted Debian/Woody, the system was thrashing so hard that booting back into Windows 98 was something of a relief...

Re:xfce4....as heavy? (2, Funny)

evilviper (135110) | more than 9 years ago | (#11152351)

Wow, FreeSBIE must be trying for lightweight if they consider xfce4 to be heavy.

No, xfce4 just simply is heavy, I'm afraid. The fact that there are elephant-sized window managers out there doesn't make a horse lightweight.

If you've been using XFce for long, you know that it used-to be FAR lighter. Before the switch to GTK-2, the panel + window manager used up about 6MBs of RAM, and was incredibly fast. Some of it is the fault of XFce4 including many more eye-candy features, but it's mostly GTK-2.

I wrote a review of FreeSBIE over (1)

p.rican (643452) | more than 9 years ago | (#11161084)

here [osnews.com] .

Re:xfce4....as heavy? (1)

R.Caley (126968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11217633)

I mean, if you are going to talk about heavy you have to talk about gnome or kde :P

  • twm => Heavy
  • xfce4 => Elephantine
  • kde => Degenerate
  • gnome => Singularity

*BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11145263)

It is official. Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save *BSD at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Re:*BSD is dying (3, Interesting)

ic0wb0y (728958) | more than 9 years ago | (#11147982)

If any other OS had been as dead as FBSD, it would really be dead. FBSD can survive a nuclear attack. When all other OS's die, BSD will still be chugging. What can kill it? Invenstors can't pull out. Stock can't decline. Marketers can't abandon it. Idiots have never even used it in the first place, so abandonment can't be a factor. Writers have tried to contribute to it's demise but have been unsucceful. OS wars haven't made a dent in it's armor. BSD may not be a gleeming superstar, but it is the salt of the Earth. Amazing Kreskin will be long dead and forgotten but BSD will remain its cosmogonic self, and still catching flak just like all the other Gods have since the dawn of man.

Re:*BSD is dying (1)

Mal1 (840177) | more than 9 years ago | (#11150697)

Well said.

Re:*BSD is dying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11237455)

you do realize that you are responding to a troll which is so old that it is a joke, right

Why screenshots from an OS? (3, Insightful)

jotaeleemeese (303437) | more than 9 years ago | (#11145442)

That is rubish. Most likely they are screenshoots of the window manager.

If one is talking about the advantages and disadvantages of an OS one should talk about what the OS does better and what the OS has still to achieve.

I am sick and tired of the fanboys of eye candy "reviewing" an OS based on how "nice" the window manager looks (who cares if the window manager itself is a PITA to configure).

Re:Why screenshots from an OS? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11145570)

this wasnt a review of an OS, but of the packaging of an OS and how it looked and what was included. the screenshots were very relivant and they accomplished exactly what they set out to do.

as far as the superiority of FreeBSD... well if you dont know its because you havent used it. you know that whole "build it and they will come" thing? they werent talking about you i guess. :D

p.s. just for the record, it IS superior. ;|;;

Re:Why screenshots from an OS? (2, Informative)

ShogZilla (136264) | more than 9 years ago | (#11145850)

That is rubish. Most likely they are screenshoots of the window manager.

Screenshots 1-5 are of the bootloader and subsequent setup - no WM to be found. Admittedley, from that point forward it's all X+WM.

Re:Why screenshots from an OS? (1)

Spoing (152917) | more than 9 years ago | (#11146216)

  1. That is rubish. Most likely they are screenshoots of the window manager.

Look at the *other* screenshots listed on the osdir.com site. [osdir.com] Most of them are also of the WM & or WM+desktop.

If you don't like that, you can take them up on the offer of replacing them with other shots; " We love screenshots! Got a new release to show us? Ping us where to pick them up!".

Either way, I *DO* like the screenshot previews...they are SCREENSHOTS not detailed OS comparisons.

*BSD - a litany of failure (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11145492)

So why now? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personae?

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

Re:*BSD - a litany of failure (2, Insightful)

Spoing (152917) | more than 9 years ago | (#11146264)

  1. So why now? Why did *BSD fail?

None of the major BSDs -- Free/Net/Open -- have failed. I'm sure that in raw numbers -- not counting OSX -- more people use the BSDs now than in the past.

The BSDs are Unix/Unix-like, and as such are useful to anyone who knows *nix. As a Linux/Solaris/Windows guy, I would neither have a problem with specifically suggesting FreeBSD or using it myself.

oh the joy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11145536)

ive seen a few BSD based live CDs, but this ones nice. ive been using it for a few days and i must say that the maker(s) put a lot of thought into it. the best thing about this CD is that its really nice to use as a desktop, which makes it unique in the BSD world.

i have one complaint though, and its relatively minor.

i would preferr a larger kernel with more devices compiled in. dont get me wrong, the hardware support is comparatively good, but out of a few obscure pieces that i have one wasnt recognized. i was able to load a module though so its okay =].

i would like to recommend also that they create a quick utility for adding packages to a post-boot running system, similar to what trinux used to do. it wouldnt take much effort, although maybe some bandwith =].

Images slashdotted, here is a mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11145618)

BSD screenshots [custommade.com]

omg I got 14th post!! (1)

Comrade_X (828470) | more than 9 years ago | (#11145737)

Omg i got 14th post now i could join GNAA

What is that? (2, Interesting)

numbski (515011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11148066)

In the upper right hand corner of the desktop?

I've been looking for something similar to Mac OS X's GeekTool [tynsoe.org] for X11, but hadn't found anything yet. That looks like what I'm looking for.

Anyone know?

Re:What is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11148411)

Torsmo [sourceforge.net]

Re:What is that? (2, Interesting)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#11149547)

I have xrootconsole displaying the contents of the syslog, but it doesn't handle a log swtich over well. If you use KDE there is superkaramba, for Gnome I assume gDesklets can do the same thing.

I would also like to know what that thing in the top right was aswell though.

Re:What is that? (2, Informative)

Raagshinnah (670749) | more than 9 years ago | (#11178195)

I would also like to know what that thing in the top right was aswell though.

That`s torsmo [sourceforge.net] .

Re:What is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11162707)

torsmo

Re:What is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11177169)

torsmo I think (http://torsmo.sourceforge.net/)

Re:What is that? (1)

SnoBall (778388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177641)

The montior happens to be called Torsmo [sourceforge.net] and it paints itself to the root window of X11, which is nice and nifty ( you can get it to ... blend in.)

You can see more screenshots here [lynucs.org]

~SnoBall

A *BSD Carol (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11154517)

"Spirit," said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, "tell me if *BSD will live."

"I see a vacant seat," replied the Ghost, "in the poor chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, *BSD will die."

"No, no," said Scrooge. "Oh, no, kind Spirit! say it will be spared."

"If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race," returned the Ghost, "will find him here. What then? If it be like to die, it had better do it, and decrease the surplus operating system population."

Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief. It was sad to see any operating system die, even one so obviously flawed and useless as *BSD.

God bless us, every one.

Different? (2, Insightful)

cuteseal (794590) | more than 9 years ago | (#11157291)

How is this different to the hundreds (ok I exaggerate) of other "boot off a usb keydrive / cd rom" distros out there?

Re:Different? (1)

andreyw (798182) | more than 9 years ago | (#11175231)

Its FreeBSD? The only distro of FreeBSD is (duh!) FreeBSD, lol. RTFA.

Re:Different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11187986)

Fooey. Debian are making a FreeBSD distribution. Numbnuts.

Re:Different? (1)

Filmwatcher888 (595369) | more than 9 years ago | (#11254719)

This is the first one for FreeBSD.

About non RTFMing bastards like me... (0, Flamebait)

El Icaro (816679) | more than 9 years ago | (#11173382)

What software does it contain? Its probably much faster than knoppix and it surely has apache and tons of networking software. Does it contain some sort of an office suite? Id be much more confortable with a quick, light an secure system than a (sorry, but I consider it true) bloated knopppix cd. Im also considering slax but it doesnt have captive ntfs. So, whats the software its made out of?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?