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!

DesktopBSD 1.0 Final Released

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the devilishly-good-desktops dept.

182

Don Church writes "DesktopBSD is reporting that the 1.0 Final of DesktopBSD was released today for both 32-bit and 64-bit x86 architectures. This cutting edge FreeBSD derivative now includes KDE 3.5.1 and a host of tools designed to make the BSD experience more palatable to novices. The DVD release even includes Amarok, Firefox and other popular software ready to go. They are offering downloads via several mirrors or the official torrent."

cancel ×

182 comments

so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020783)

"even includes Amarok, Firefox and other popular software"

Yeah, well so does my FreeBSD discs and every linux distro in existance. what's so special about that?

Re:so? (0, Offtopic)

tornsaq (961735) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020824)

Quit comparing Linux and FreeBSD.

Linux is a kernel, FreeBSD is an operating system.

Re:so? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020847)

Learn to read, douchebag. OP said Linux distro.

Re:so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021000)

LINUX DISTRO! Stop, you're making me hard.....

fp? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020785)

fp?

Who cares? BSD is Dead (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020786)

_d8b____________________d8b_______d8,
_?88____________________88P______`8P
__88b__________________d88
__888888b__.d888b,_d888888________88b_.d888b,
__88P_`?8b_?8b,___d8P'_?88________88P_?8b,
_d88,__d88___`?8b_88b__,88b______d88____`?8b
d88'`?88P'`?888P'_`?88P'`88b____d88'_`?888P'

______d8b________________________d8b
______88P________________________88P
_____d88________________________d88
_d888888___d8888b_d888b8b___d888888
d8P'_?88__d8b_,dPd8P'_?88__d8P'_?88
88b__,88b_88b____88b__,88b_88b__,88b
`?88P'`88b`?888P'`?88P'`88b`?88P'`88b

BubuntuSD? (-1)

irimi_00 (962766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020787)

BubuntuSD?

Re:BubuntuSD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020896)

RIS?

Re:BubuntuSD? (1)

ilikejam (762039) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022251)

RIS?
I don't get it.

Final? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020789)

As in "final resting place"?

Netcraft confirms (-1, Troll)

miscz (888242) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020793)

BSD is dead

MOD PARENT UP! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021024)

I AM FISH!

Re:MOD PARENT UP! (2, Funny)

Roj Blake (931541) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021087)

Are you Faulkner's Mother?

Re:MOD PARENT UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021424)

No, just a regular moose.

1 comment & already /.'d (0)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020795)

Sigh, guess I'll wait

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020808)

Are they running this server on DesktopBSD? :)

Re:Obligatory (1)

xiao_haozi (668360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020862)

I was trying to get to the wiki link to read about the server features they might have included (packages, etc.)...guess the slashdotting may have answered my questions.... however, on a serious note....i have been playing with the initial release on an old PII with 64mb of ram and was extremely impressed with the stability and responsiveness. Nothing too ground breaking but is definitely a great version for new users of non windows OSes and is relatively nice to run on old hardware at the standard installation level (haven't needed to do much tweaking). However, being a "desktop" distrobution there isn't really much in terms of natively installed server tools, but is quite understandable....just would have been nice for a newer user to not have to try to hunt down the packages or decide which to use.

Re:1 comment & already /.'d (2, Funny)

psykl0n3 (759848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020815)

heh... I guess this flavour of BSD can't quite take a slashdotting... ;)

Re:1 comment & already /.'d (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020831)

Slashdot confirms it: BSD is dead!

Re:1 comment & already /.'d (0)

arvid (266302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020981)

If this is running on DesktopBSD I don't want it.

But, BSD, bytheway, is not dead at all. It just smells funny. ;)

Oh, and even FreeBSD 4.11-STABLE has the actual Firefox available through ports, so I don't get what might be so special about it. And KDE is no reason.

My first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020800)

...is a first post?

Me too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020807)

Yawn.

Ready for the desktop? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020836)

From here [desktopbsd.net] ...

Hardware requirements and support

DesktopBSD is running on any decent i386, AMD64 or EM64T computer. We recommend at least 4 GB of disk space and 256 MB memory for installation, maybe less is possible.

If you want to know if a specific hardware component is supported, please see the FreeBSD Hardware Notes for i386 or AMD64/EM64T.


Most people have a hard time remembering if their CPU is made by Pentium or made by Intel. They won't have a clue whether it's i386 or AMD64.

Re:Ready for the desktop? (2, Insightful)

Chrismith (911614) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020888)

The sort of people who don't know the difference between Pentium and Intel probably aren't going to be installing this anyway, made for novices or not.

Re:Ready for the desktop? (1)

Lxy (80823) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020891)

Most people have a hard time remembering if their CPU is made by Pentium or made by Intel. They won't have a clue whether it's i386 or AMD64

This is true, however:

If you want to know if a specific hardware component is supported..

If you're concerned about a particular piece of hardware, then you probably know what CPU you're running. Your point is moot.

Re:Ready for the desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020898)

My Guess is they won't be using FreeBSD anything in that case.

Re:Ready for the desktop? (5, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020967)

You think this is bad? Microsoft says Vista will need a "modern" CPU [microsoft.com] . That means it should run on a Power Macintosh G5 right? Well, if you click on that link you get to this [microsoft.com] , which in turn gives you links to Intel [intel.com] , AMD [amd.com] , and VIA [via.com.tw] CPU thingies. And what are these CPUs that, say, Intel (I think it says "Intel inside" on my Dell, but doesn't that mean I have a Dell CPU?) has? Well, on "Desktop" [intel.com] platforms (another link) it says I need a "Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 600 sequence with HT Technology and Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology."

I don't know about you but all this stuff about HT Technology and stuff is very confusing. Do I have that?

This just proves that Vista is unready for the desktop. I guess that's why they cancelled it. Har har! Har har. Har, har. *sigh*

Seriously, what exactly is DesktopBSD's website supposed to say? The thing you quote seems reasonable to me, anyone who doesn't understand it is unlikely to find any way of wording it useful anyway, unless it was worded in such a way that'd make it useless to an actual computer professional.

It's not like they'll be installing it. They'll be asking us to do it, as usual.

Re:Ready for the desktop? (-1, Troll)

bombadillo (706765) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020974)

Most people have a hard time remembering if their CPU is made by Pentium or made by Intel.

Even worse the average slashdot poster has trouble sorting out AMD/Intel as well.

Re:Ready for the desktop? (3, Funny)

GT_Onizuka (693787) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021714)

*Wooosh*

Re:Ready for the desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021006)

Well, my dad thinks his computer has 160GB of RAM...

Re:Ready for the desktop? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022191)

Well, some customer at work thought the little green USB-to-PS/2 adapter was an ethernet card.

Go figure.

Re:Ready for the desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021507)

Most people have a hard time remembering if their CPU is made by Pentium or made by Intel. They won't have a clue whether it's i386 or AMD64.

Sheesh, in order to determine whether a piece of software can run on a piece of hardwre, you need to: A) know the hardware requirements, and B) know what hardware you have. This is true for every software.

choice is good, but ... (-1, Troll)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020848)

Choice is good. The OSS ecosystem is healthier with two viable desktop systems to choose from, rather than just Linux. However, my experience has been that FreeBSD is a lot more appropriate for a server than for a desktop machine. Maybe DesktopBSD will help to change that, but I'm doubtful. The big problem I ran into with using FreeBSD as a desktop system was that the ports system wasn't robust enough. The software you need on a typical server is actually a lot smaller and simpler than the software you need on a desktop machine. At any given time, I was never able to run more than about 75% of the desktop apps that I wanted to run. I tried portupgrade, but that often did more harm than good. I'm still thrilled with FreeBSD as a server system, but I've switched my desktops to Ubuntu, and everything Just Works(tm).

Re:choice is good, but ... (2, Insightful)

Necrotica (241109) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020916)

You're comparing apples to oranges. FreeBSD is a single, cohesive operating system. DesktopBSD is a single, cohesive operating system. They are two distinctly different operating systems.

That would be like saying, "I installed Debian stable on my computer and I found that all of the software was out of date. Therefore Genoo must be out of date as well." We both know that's not accurate.

Having not installed DesktopBSD before, maybe they have some new tools for ports for "everyday" users. I have never had problems with ports on my FreeBSD servers, btw - but I also read /usr/ports/UPGRADING before I use portupgrade.

Re:choice is good, but ... (2)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020975)

Having not installed DesktopBSD before, maybe they have some new tools for ports for "everyday" users. I have never had problems with ports on my FreeBSD servers, btw - but I also read /usr/ports/UPGRADING before I use portupgrade.
I've never had any problems with ports on my FreeBSD server, either. The problems I had were all desktop-related, e.g., the latest version of some Gnome library is required in order to run app A, but breaks app B. These are the kinds of rough edges that you don't see as a Linux user, because the developers themselves are all running Linux, and if something breaks, they know right away. Also, I think the level of testing and effort that goes into packaging desktop software on, say Ubuntu and Debian, is an order of magnitude greater than the effort that goes into the same stuff for FreeBSD -- simply because the size of the Linux desktop community is an order of magnitude greater. Of course I'd love to be proved wrong about DesktopBSD, and I admit to not even having RTFA, since it's slashdotted :-)

Re:choice is good, but ... (4, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021032)

BAD MODS!

This is just a baseless troll, without any real information.

At any given time, I was never able to run more than about 75% of the desktop apps that I wanted to run. I tried portupgrade, but that often did more harm than good.

WTF? I can't remember the last time I saw FreeBSD ports break. Not even a SINGLE package. They ALL compile and install perfectly every time. Hell, I've UPGRADED my system from FreeBSD version to version, never bothered uninstalling the old ports, and everything continues to work fine. I've never seen ANY other OS handle upgrades remotely as gracefully.

Besides, even if you did have a problem with compiling from ports (which I have a very hard time believing), why didn't you just install from the binary packages, instead?

I can't believe this is anything other than another anti-BSD troll.

Re:choice is good, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021319)

Lots of ports break on AMD64 (all the free Lisps, for example). In all cases I've seen it's been because the package didn't (yet) work on AMD64, so the ports tree can't be blamed, but still they don't _always_ work.

Re:choice is good, but ... (3, Informative)

ps3udonym (874835) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021773)

Sorry, that is just wrong. Free is a not bad system, but I have seen more than a few broken ports problems. One of the big issues is binary drivers and programs in the ports tree that require signing licence agreements. Installing OpenOffice I had to stop and download three different licences before it finally puked and just wouldn't install. Realplayer doesn't run nativly and has to use Linux Binary compatiblity mode, Flash is a program that just doesn't work. The alternatives cause Firefox to crash randomly. These are problems in ADDITION to the installer. It has been a while since I installed Free but we stopped using it a while ago due to one of the worst installers I have EVER seen. It wouldn't resolve DNS correctly and if you made a mistake, you are starting ALL over again. After 6 people (all OBSD people, so we are not talking n00bs) tried and failed to make the installer work correctly we took all our FreeBSD disks and threw them out the 18th floor of my friend's appartment building. Lastly, when I tried to boot up the computer behind my firewall without passing defining a local domain suffex it would hang on the sendmail script for 10 to 15 min before continueing on with the boot. While these issues may have been fixed, what I saw was a dev team more instrested in programing SMP into the kernel then fixing the existing problems with their installer or their OS. Until that attitude changes, I will not be using FreeBSD again anytime soon. Just my 2 cents, sorry about the spelling =P Peace

Re:choice is good, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021843)

fucking n00b

Re:choice is good, but ... (2, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022083)

Installing OpenOffice I had to stop and download three different licences

That much is true, only because it has Java as a dependency. I can't see how that would cause it to fail to compile. Anyhow, you can always disable Java (hence the license agreements) with "-DWITHOUT_JAVA".

Realplayer doesn't run nativly and has to use Linux Binary compatiblity mode,

Yes it does, but it still works just fine (just takes a while to install all the Linux base libs). If you don't want to do that, you can always install MPlayer/Xine, which will run natively, and use the Win32 DLLs.

Flash is a program that just doesn't work.

It had it working just fine back when I needed it. Then I got annoyed with all the ads and animations and uninstalled it all-together.

The alternatives cause Firefox to crash randomly.

Yes, that much is true. The open source flash libraries are terribly unstable, but that has NOTHING to do with FreeBSD, as they exhibit the same behavior on Linux.

It has been a while since I installed Free but we stopped using it a while ago due to one of the worst installers I have EVER seen. It wouldn't resolve DNS correctly and if you made a mistake, you are starting ALL over again.

What the hell? The FreeBSD installer is basically a step-up from the Slackware installer, and a hell of a lot better than the limited and bare-bones OpenBSD installer. You can always abort whatever step you're on, go back to the main screen, and start that step again. I have no idea where you're getting the idea from that you are somehow stuck with your mistakes.

Lastly, when I tried to boot up the computer behind my firewall without passing defining a local domain suffex it would hang on the sendmail script for 10 to 15 min before continueing on with the boot.

First legitimate complaint I've heard so far... Yes, that minor issue is very easily worked-around.

Re:choice is good, but ... (1)

Neil Hodges (960909) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021823)

Actually, I tend to prefer FreeBSD, but have never gotten gst-ffmpeg (for GNOME) or mplayer in ports to compile; and since I'm on a source-built machine, it won't let me fetch a package.

Other than this one instance, FreeBSD has been great as well as fast with the proper optimizations in make.conf.

Re:choice is good, but ... (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022005)

Actually, I tend to prefer FreeBSD, but have never gotten gst-ffmpeg (for GNOME) or mplayer in ports to compile;

That's insane. I've never seen anything like that, and I've certainly compiled MPlayer dozens of times. If I did see that, I'd fix it.

How about posting the log of this MPlayer error?

Re:choice is good, but ... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021839)

I haven't used FreeBSD for awhile but occasionally I have had to search for packages because some ports would not compile or would sig11. It was not often but I used FreeBSD as a desktop and installed a ton of software on it.

Re:choice is good, but ... (3, Informative)

killjoe (766577) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021948)

"WTF? I can't remember the last time I saw FreeBSD ports break. Not even a SINGLE package."

Ah come on now. I have run freebsd servers for years and I can tell you from direct experience that there have been numerous times I could not get one port or another to build. The one I remember being pissed off the most was net-snmp for a while. I waited for months and emailed the author but it still didn't get fixed so I had to compile from source (something I do not like to do as a matter of course).

With all those ports there are bound to be defects at some time or another. I also remember I had problems with sablotron for a while too.

Re:choice is good, but ... (1)

SpinJaunt (847897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021099)

Ahem. That isn't a very constructive criticism. Yes, people that use FreeBSD know that is more appropriate for a server, although that hasn't stopped me amongst others from successfully using FreeBSD on a desktop/workstation.

And if you had such problems, what was wrong with the mailing lists? irc? forums? etc.

The ports system like anything else; yum, rpm, emerge, pkgsrc, etc. all have there gripes, and how are such things supposed to get better for you --and others-- when you do not tell anyone at the time with the required information; that is like going to the doctor and saying I feel ill and not giving any symptoms that are needed for diagnosis.

You get what you pay for in the Open Source Software and/or Free Software world, a lot of what you use is done with peoples unpaid spare time. People like you make us wonder why we bother.

Re:choice is good, but ... (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021325)

Knowing a bit about what you're doing is fairly important with ports, especially when dealing with complex upgrades like Gnome [freebsd.org] ; dependency tracking's a lot less anal than apt/dpkg. This is good when you've got something installed from outside ports, and works nicely when you just want to pick and choose a few things to update (say, after running portaudit [freebsd.org] or tracking an interesting update on FreshPorts [freshports.org] /commit [freshbsd.org] logs [freebsd.org] ).

Geeky FreeBSD users need a desktop too, and now we have three variants to choose from; FreeBSD, PC BSD and DesktopBSD. YMMV; just because it's aimed at desktops doesn't mean it's aimed at yours or your mother's.

Ports not robust???? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021686)

Then you wernt using them correctly..

Re:choice is good, but ... (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022248)

Well I'm quite new to FreeBSD, but I already can tell you that if you got a problem with the ports, pkg_add -r! Personally I always download the packages anyways, mainly because I run it on a Pentium 133, and cuz it's simpler.

And as inexperimented to various unixes as I am, I've had such a though time with various Linuxes to get to install the software I wanted (eh, I'm a n00b!), as I never had any software resisting me yet in FreeBSD

Review & screenshots (2, Informative)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020865)

DesktopBSD review [gnuman.com]

DesktopBSD is a distribution that is geared towards being a friendly and easyDesktopBSD intro BSD operating system based on FreeBSD. BSD is some might say is a closer relative to Unix than Linux is. BSD is more geared towards servers and workstations but, not DesktopBSD. DesktopBSD is supposed to be aimed towards user friendliness that people might not even find in a user friendly Linux distribution such as Xandros or Linspire, but is quite powerful enough that you can adapt DesktopBSD to your liking.

Installation of DesktopBSD is quite easy with its graphical interface. It gives you the option of what you want to choose when installing, whether you have another operating system installed say, Windows or Linux and you don't want to overwrite it or ruin the way it boots from your computer.

[...]


RC3 screenshots [osdir.com]

Re:Review & screenshots (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021053)

One thing to say...

About fucking time! Good on the team (can't see the site, /.'d still) but I know I'm a going to be moving away from my Linux installation GUI's, and finally to the BSD desktop (Can't convince users to install BSD as a desktop OS, and now I can :) )... Good work team!

Re:Review & screenshots (2, Interesting)

DanielSeuffert (713394) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022144)

Thank you for your kind comment. We wish you a lot of fun, please visit our forum after the slashdotting and give us feedback if you want. We apologize for the inconvenience, our server is under extreme high load. Best regards, Daniel Seuffert

me thinks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020866)

..the term desktop is in relation to the hardware that is running the site...any other pages with info on this?

No Site Mirrors (1)

tecker (793737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020924)

MirrorDot and Corel Casche are out as the page is giving a database error and they snapped that. Maybe it will be up later.

Nothing to see here (for now).

Slashdot confirms: DesktopBSD site is dying (1)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021423)

Respected Slashdot users made a prediction today: DesktopBSD the desktop ready and user friendly port of FreeBSD is dying! The website, reportedly run on IIS, crashed at 3 minutes past being posted to Slashdot.org this afternoon.

Remember that Slashdot confirms DesktopBSD's site is DYING!

This looks promising for a Desktop BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020941)

This looks very promising. Lately, FreeBSD as a desktop has been plagued by missing libs and lack of maintainers for certain applications requiring a lot of configuation, most of the time, using -current worked to fix a lot of these issues, but not always. I hope DesktopBSD addresses these issues. Without bsdforums, a lot of new users would have been helpless, heh.

Re:This looks promising for a Desktop BSD (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021583)

Lately, FreeBSD as a desktop has been plagued by missing libs and lack of maintainers for certain applications requiring a lot of configuation, most of the time, using -current worked to fix a lot of these issues, but not always.

I typed "portinstall kde3" on a FreeBSD system last week, and it resulted in a fully installed, ready-to-use KDE 3.5.1 system. What exactly did you find it to be missing or broken?

Obligatory... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020952)

BSD IS DEAD

BSD is alive and well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021315)

... and living in Miami.

It's dead, Jim... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15020970)

Mirrordot cache: http://mirrordot.org/stories/e7cd62fa4b24ca2788721 1c05d686136/index.html [mirrordot.org]

And Coral Cache:
http://www.desktopbsd.net.nyud.net:8080/index.php? id=43&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=15&tx_ttnews%5BbackPi d%5D=55&cHash=cddb1e432f [nyud.net]

When will slashcode be modified to automatically use the cached pages? Harumph! </SARCASM>

Muwahahaha

Re:It's dead, Jim... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021422)

When will slashcode be modified to automatically use the cached pages? Harumph!

Because they would get sued into oblivion in no time at all for copyright violation?

Oops, I forgot, copyright law only applies to mere mortals.

If it is any consolation to you... (0)

irimi_00 (962766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15020999)

i found this hella insightful.

An Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021031)

Hi there!

I'm a frequent reader of Slashdot and it seems like a lot of stories are run which are version change announcements of various Open Source projects.

Have you considered starting a separate website for nothing but software update announcements like this? That way people interested in such things can stay fresh on the latest in software announcements, and this site can concentrate on meatier topics.

Otherwise, great job!

Signed,

Anonymous Coward

Re:An Idea (1)

hatrisc (555862) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021280)

it's called freshmeat [freshmeat.net]

Re:An Idea (1)

ickoonite (639305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021668)

Are you incredibly stupid, or...?

Read the grandparent again. Then read it again. Read it maybe three or four times more. Pay particular attention to font weights.

Then make your comment again.

*sigh*

iqu :|

Re:An Idea (1)

sgbett (739519) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021834)

My hat has trouble replying to my business. I find it soon passes.

BSD could beat Linux to the desktop (3, Interesting)

teslatug (543527) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021080)

FreeBSD could still beat Linux to the desktop just because it's standardised on what comes with it, and you could release packages for it a lot more easily. What's lacking is hardware support (which is even more miserable than linux), and desktop performance. If they worked on desktop performance, I think they could easily get drivers by porting them from Linux. I wouldn't mind running FreeBSD on my laptop if only they'd get the performance right. I have actually dual booted FreeBSD and Linux on the same box, both running the same version of KDE, and FreeBSD is just dog slow compared to Linux, which isn't that fast to begin with. Sure KDE can be a hog, but it's either more of a hog on FreeBSD or FreeBSD just doesn't pay attention to a desktop user's needs.

Re:BSD could beat Linux to the desktop (1)

Baki (72515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021217)

Maybe KDE is an exception here (I think there is this preloaded shared libraries which seems to help, is it disabled in the FreeBSD port?), but generally FreeBSD is not slower than Linux on the desktop.

Under some load and disk-I/O I think that FreeBSD remains much more responsive than Linux.

Re:BSD could beat Linux to the desktop (3, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021792)

Are you sure that applies to FBSD 5.x and above?

I used to be a FBSD fanatic. 5.0 turned me off and 6.0 made me leave. Its I/O and threading is slower than 4.x and its much less stable not to mention my hardware worked fine with 4.x but has issued with 5.x and higher. Strange indeed?

Linux has improved with low latency timers in the kernel which make it alot faster than earlier versions. Version 2.4 and FBSD 4.x it was a no brainer on which was faster and that was FBSD. But times are changing.

I still have hope in the dragonflyBSD project.

Re:BSD could beat Linux to the desktop (1)

SpinJaunt (847897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021285)

freebsd% top -Ctn
last pid: 98440; load averages: 0.13, 0.25, 0.21 up 19+03:57:19 23:10:45
91 processes: 91 sleeping
 
Mem: 236M Active, 107M Inact, 100M Wired, 46M Cache, 60M Buf, 2696K Free
Swap: 1025M Total, 1025M Free
 
  PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME CPU COMMAND
63699 spinjaunt 5 20 0 50048K 32604K kserel 1 77:43 6.74% knode
87187 spinjaunt 4 20 -76 34332K 10800K kserel 0 54:02 0.00% artsd
90628 spinjaunt 4 20 0 108M 81940K kserel 1 52:46 0.00% amarokapp
37428 spinjaunt 1 76 0 187M 69600K select 0 33:43 0.00% Xorg
62469 spinjaunt 1 76 0 28364K 15608K select 0 20:15 0.00% kdeinit
51299 spinjaunt 1 76 0 32352K 19248K select 0 9:11 0.00% kdeinit
59972 spinjaunt 1 76 0 33852K 19956K select 0 8:10 0.00% kdeinit
  6510 spinjaunt 4 20 0 61148K 40188K kserel 0 6:03 0.00% kopete
62946 spinjaunt 1 76 0 53684K 36752K select 0 1:38 0.00% akregator
51876 spinjaunt 1 76 0 3508K 1548K select 1 1:34 0.00% gam_server
58329 spinjaunt 1 76 0 28476K 16836K select 1 0:52 0.00% kdeinit
60522 spinjaunt 1 76 0 26056K 14496K select 1 0:49 0.00% kdeinit
64335 root 1 76 0 1336K 520K select 0 0:43 0.00% moused
59160 spinjaunt 1 76 0 29792K 17788K select 0 0:24 0.00% kdeinit
49588 spinjaunt 1 76 0 23840K 12040K select 1 0:10 0.00% kdeinit
56732 spinjaunt 1 76 0 25384K 13608K select 0 0:05 0.00% kdeinit
48887 spinjaunt 1 76 0 24844K 12872K select 1 0:03 0.00% kdeinit
57047 spinjaunt 1 8 0 1384K 620K nanslp 0 0:02 0.00% kwrapper
not that much of a hog really :)

Re:BSD could beat Linux to the desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021332)

Yeah, 'cause its super simple to port device drivers from linux to freebsd (or any other os for that matter).

Re:BSD could beat Linux to the desktop (1)

Poppler (822173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021345)

I dual boot Linux and FreeBSD on my laptop. I use Gnome with both and don't notice any difference in performance. In fact, one of the things I like about FreeBSD is the faster boot time; it is my OS of choice for old laptops for that very reason.

Re:BSD could beat Linux to the desktop (1)

Illbay (700081) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021534)

FreeBSD could still beat Linux to the desktop...[but] what's lacking is hardware support (which is even more miserable than linux), and desktop performance...

Hm. Wanna run that by me again?

Re:BSD could beat Linux to the desktop (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021659)

Sure KDE can be a hog, but it's either more of a hog on FreeBSD or FreeBSD just doesn't pay attention to a desktop user's needs.

I recently switched my work desktop from FreeBSD to Gentoo because of a harddrive failure and the need to try something different. I think you're at least partially right: KDE "felt" much more responsive under Linux than FreeBSD, even under the same hardware, compiled with the same compiler version, and using similar CFLAGS.

However, I think that's partly because FreeBSD has traditionally been optimized for throughput instead of interactivity. On idle systems, Linux seems to respond more quickly to user input. However, the FreeBSD system seemed to stand up better to high loads than Linux ("how on earth did my load average get up to 10? It's been there for how long?") without becoming jerky or noticeably less responsive.

I have zero real evidence to support this idea, but personal observation makes me think I'm basically right. Maybe you were seeing the same low-load behavior but didn't notice the corresponding high-load advantage?

Re:BSD could beat Linux to the desktop (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022009)

I think they could easily get drivers by porting them from Linux


No. Linux drivers are typically licensed under the GPL, which is incompatible with BSD, so porting will be largely impossible.


Maybe you should understand what you're talking about before posting. Oh, wait, this is /.

Re:BSD could beat Linux to the desktop (1)

j79zlr (930600) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022272)

Uh, there is plenty of GPL licensed software in FreeBSD. I don't know, maybe you've never head of Xorg or Samba for example.

Interesting (1)

360fusion (922660) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021101)

Gosh, now 99.98% of the people who comment are MIA constantly clicking refresh!

Lets hope the distraction is large enough that we get less story dupes...

Multiple OS's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021105)

Is there a fairly easy way to install this onto a PC already running Windows XP, keeping the XP installation the way it is? ie not reinstalling apps and backing up files.

I assume I would be able to select which OS to run at startup.

Thanks!

Re:Multiple OS's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021338)

did you just fall off the turnip truck?

Re:Multiple OS's (1)

DanielSeuffert (713394) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022189)

Option A: You have enough space on your disk(s) Option B: You use Partition Magc or something similar to free some space Yes, you can use the FreeBSD-bootloader, GAG, Grub etc. for multiboot. - Daniel

There are two major issues with BSD and the deskto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021108)

There are two major issues with BSD and the desktop.

1. Technical which more competant people than I have commented on.

2. Business is war and this is part of the war of Free (as in speach) Open (as in can read the source code) Source Software fight with closed priperitory software. Linux comes under one license. Major distributions are scatter across the globe. Read many political and judical systems. The various desktop BSDs are another front. Difference license. Different history. Different source location for the distributions. No way can MS fight and win all these fights. Impossible. Too many different sets of circumstances.

Re:There are two major issues with BSD and the des (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021408)

Lol at your spelling!

PC-BSD (2, Insightful)

Snowgen (586732) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021168)

I wonder how this differs from PC-BSD [pcbsd.org] .

They managed to ship earlier despite a later start. I'm not sure if that's good or bad.

Re:PC-BSD (1)

water-and-sewer (612923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021850)

My own rather inadequate trial and comparison story here: http://therandymon.com/content/view/87/79/ [therandymon.com] . I had bad luck with Desktop BSD's hardware support, which gave me trouble with a network card more than one Linux distro has choked on too, for some reason. Overall I am impressed with the BSDs and intend to keep trying them out. It's impressive from a Linux user's point of view how everything fits so well together and is so well integrated. After years of Linux' organized chaos, it's a nice change. I remain on Linux for the moment, but it's only a matter of time ...

Try it before you bash it... (4, Informative)

shrapnull (780217) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021281)

Before we get into the usual banter about BSD, Netcraft, or whatever they've confirmed recently, I have to say that I use BSD more now then ever.

It would never have dawned on me to bother with trying BSD as a desktop until I had some extra cash in the account and setup a system for network monitoring and packet scanning. With the bulk of the load being network-based, I figured this might as well be my desktop system too to garner more bang for the buck. This, mind you, after having used GNU/Linux and Windows for years and relegating BSD to beige server boxen only.

That was a about a year ago. Today every PC I own runs FreeBSD as the primary desktop.

It's not without it's issues when you install from the standard FreeBSD disks. I had to compile OOOrg from ports using flags (with cups, kde), and I had to install the linuxflashplayer-wrapper and tinker with it for a while to get it running...so yes, there are dozens of "little" things that keep this from desktop adoption.

If a distribution such as DesktopBSD can create prepackaged desktop installations with a preconfigured flash-player, OOOrg, etc...I don't see why many people wouldn't at least try it out. The package management from a desktop user perspective has been great (I prefer it over apt, yum or portage), I have no failed installations due to -cpio bad magic, checksig errors (when I know the keys are installed), etc...

Be prepared though, with this install you get a basic desktop. There is still much work to be done, but this is a nice start from a group of guys I can totally relate to.

Re:Try it before you bash it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021564)

I had to compile OOOrg from ports using flags (with cups, kde), and I had to install the linuxflashplayer-wrapper and tinker with it for a while to get it running...so yes, there are dozens of "little" things that keep this from desktop adoption.

Yeah right. I wouldn't call compiling OO.org from ports a "little" thing.

Re:Try it before you bash it... (1)

Ekarderif (941116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021643)

cd /usr/ports/editors/openoffice.org-2.0
make install && clean

Tools, eh? (1)

speed_of_light (930261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021329)

. . . a host of tools designed to make the BSD experience more palatable to novices

Like Jenna Jameson wallpaper?

wow (1)

stinky wizzleteats (552063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021331)

BSD now ships a more recent cut of KDE than Gentoo does. Wow. Never thought I'd see that.

Re:wow (1)

pnatural (59329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021621)

Huh? I read the summary and thought to my self, self, aren't you lucky, you just emerged KDE 3.5.2 last night. have yourself a little pat on the back just for being so bloody bleeding-edge. :)

Which Free OS for novices? (1)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021456)

So do I go with Linux [slashdot.org] or Desktop BSD? I'm leaning toward Ubuntu simply because there is more support.

Don't troll this, you damn trolls!

Re:Which Free OS for novices? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021708)

So do I go with Linux or Desktop BSD?

What's your goal? An old saying is that "Linux is for people who hate Windows, but FreeBSD is for people who love Unix". From a novice perspective, there's some amount of truth to that. More browser plugins work out-of-the-box under Linux, and you'll get more video game ports. FreeBSD definitely has its own charms, though, and if you want to learn how to administer a Unix system, you could definitely do worse.

Both are good. I prefer FreeBSD, but that's just me.

I'm leaning toward Ubuntu simply because there is more support.

I kind of doubt that. I haven't had the need to use Ubuntu's support, but can definitely state that the FreeBSD mailing lists are packed with smart, helpful people. I'm not saying that Ubuntu's support is lacking, but that I can't imagine what more you could get from the FreeBSD crowd short of one of them driving to your house and fixing it for you (which is probably possible if you live in a populous area).

Re:Which Free OS for novices? (1)

X3J11 (791922) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021722)

I suggest Slackware (http://www.slackware.com/ [slackware.com] ). While its popularity has declined over the last decade, it's a wonderful distro with a reputation for being somewhat minimalistic (and behind the times, although I would beg to differ). If you're new it's better to get your hands as dirty as you can, in my most humble opinion.

I've used Slack off and on for about ten years now (since 3.0), and tried various other distros both on real hardware and virtual. I always come back to Slack [tm].

Incidently, I've not tried Ubuntu or any of its derivates, and I'm neither trolling nor attempting to incite a distro war. Just stating my opinion.

Re:Which Free OS for novices? (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021851)

So do I go with Linux or Desktop BSD? I'm leaning toward Ubuntu simply because there is more support.


You should go with Linux From Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org] , not only is it easier than those two arcane OSes, it's fresher too (made from scratch with the freshes t ingredients)!
Don't troll this, you damn trolls!

Oh shit, I suppose I should have read that before posting.

FreeBSD on my desktop for 7 years (1)

Nick Barnes (11927) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021725)

I've been running FreeBSD on my desktop for 7 or 8 years now. It's just fine. The main problem has been the usual thing on hacker desktops: managing the dependencies between the 100-200 miscellaneous third-party packages that you end up with (all the GUI stuff, docproj with LaTeX, Apache with some modules, perl plus a couple of dozen perl modules, ditto python, ditto ruby, ditto PHP, ditto SQL, etc). The ports collection (together with the port management tools such as portupgrade) has been very good at this, and it would probably have been fine if I'd been in the habit of keeping it all up-to-date (barring some rough edges such as the docproj meta-package). It's certainly been easier to manage than Windows. I haven't tried keeping a desktop Linux box current (why would I?), so I can't compare with that.

It's been 18 months or so since I cvsupped the core OS. I'll be looking at DesktopBSD as an option the next time I do that.

BSD is dead (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15021762)

It is now official. Netcraft 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 it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: NetBSD is dying

Alpha station (1)

Kancept (737976) | more than 8 years ago | (#15021780)

Will they be releasing a version for the AlphaStation? I have this nice machine here and would like to run that on it...

Re:Alpha station (1)

DanielSeuffert (713394) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022048)

Sorry, but there will be only releases for i386 and amd64 in the near future. Please stick with the upcoming FreeBSD 6.1. Best regards, Daniel Seuffert

The newbie's question (0, Flamebait)

Godji (957148) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022108)

I guess I'll be the one who dares to ask it: What are the key differences between FreeBSD and Linux? (I'm mostly interested in the technical ones.)

To me, a full-time Linux user, FreeBSD remains as that alternative exotic Unix thingy, which (because of Linux's greateness) has no reason to exist whatsoever. Disclaimer: I know I'm extremely wrong here, but I just don't know why and I hope someone will enlighten me in a friendly tone.

To put it simply: Given the existence of Linux, a technically superb and free as in speech OS, why would anyone be interested in FreeBSD [I hope you forgive me ;)]?

torrents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15022322)

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...