Hi All, I'm sorry I started a kind of flame war. All I wanted was two things: 1. CD's that installed without being switched in and out dozens of times. That was fixed by the suggestion of using a DVD. I didn't even know the DVD install existed, but will do that next time. 2. Being able to use Sysinstall and not having it crash when a dependency is already present. Sometimes I like to use Sysinstall to install gigantic packages where the compile time is 26 hours, e.g KDE metapackage, and my notebook uses an Intel Core 2 Duo at 2Ghz or thereabout. That is one hell of a long compile time. For this request I will just have to wait for FreeBSD 10.0. Sincerely, Rob On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Mike Meyer <mwm_at_mired.org> wrote: > On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:16:27 -0700 > Curtis Penner <curtis.penner2_at_gmail.com> wrote: > > > BSD has a better overall core OS then the other UNIX flavors. > > I disagree, but that's another debate. BSD is still my desktop OS of > choice. > > > So what is wrong? > > > > It doesn't have the native 3rd party applications. Why? Not enough > > users. Why? Because it is hard to get what you want unless you are tech > > savvy. > > Huh? The ports collection has nearly 19 thousand entries in it. Is > there another OS with *anything* like that? The blastwave folks were > recently bragging that they were going to hit 1800! > > Yeah, if you want *proprietary* tools, you lose. As far as I can tell, > that kills you on three issues: Flash, high-end graphics performance, > and virtualization tools. For pretty much everything else I've run > into, we seem to do ok. > > > When you do a system install it is like jumping back to the 80's. The > > front-end is like something from the DOS days. You have to be tech > > savvy to know what you want to do. You have to search out all the > > variations of the applications (tedious and unnecessary) to get a full > > package -- Examples: Postgres, PHP, etc. To add wireless (very common > > these day), you better set aside as much time or more as doing the > > initial install. > > I find this to be the case on *every* system. I've never managed to > find a system that provided *everything* I needed in an install. So I > inevitably wind up wading through a see of repositories and > dependencies to get what I need. For GNU/Linux, that usually means > installing the tools I need to *build* what I actually > need. Tedious and unnecessary would be a step *up*. > > > Given that the system is rock solid, you think more people would develop > > on it, at least secondarily. But no. Java - go fish. All the > > development environments and features that go with it (Eclipse, NetBean, > > Hibernation, Sturts, and so forth) are painful to get. You feel like a > > rabbit jumping around, and then it most likely doesn't work. That is > > such a turn off. > > Ok, I don't do Java (because I like OO programming and want to keep it > that way!), but I found three of the four things in the ports tree > (assuming that Sturts is actually Struts, anyway). Which means the > packages should be there as well. > > > As for the installs, to get an idea of how to package an install, look > > at the current install packages that are from the Linux side. You don't > > have to copy, but emulate. (Oh, the best out-of-the-box is Apple.) > > I'm not sure the best out of the box is Apple, but I haven't installed > new Sun hardware in a *long* time. But Apple boxes come out of the box > installed - that's hard to beat. > > As for GNU/Linux, the only install that comes close to installing a > usable system is Gentoo. The other all seem to want to compete with > windows, and treat their users like idiots who need every choice made > for them. > > > I have installed Linux, MacOS, HPUX, Solaris, Window (NT, XP, Vista), > > and the BSDs, and I have found the BSDs to be so yesterday that there is > > little in common with the rest. > > Hmm. Which Solaris did you use? SXCE b89 looks an awful lot like a > FreeBSD install, except they do it under X with a GUI (so you need > 3/4ths of a gig just to run the installer) - including progress > messages to an xterm - instead of the console. 2008.05 looks amazingly > like a GNU/Linux install - all pointy/clicky, no choices about what > you want, you get 3 gig of lawn ornaments which I personally had no > use for on the server in question (which is how I came to learn what > an SXCE install looks like). Not to mention that after being > installed, it's slower than Vista even when it's got more than twice > the horsepower underneath it. > > > Porting, so that applications that matter go native, we need more > > installs and more people on the systems. That means more installs to > > laptops. The installs have to be seamless and complete. That mean > > getting more Open Source people and companies to compile and distribute > BSD. > > I believe we already have a bigger, better application repository than > any other current Unix or Unix-like system. However, I can't find hard > numbers for rpm or deb-based distributions repositories. But "rpms" or > "debs" found scattered around the net aren't a "repository"; they > won't work except against what they were build against, and trying to > get them to is a *real* recipe for frustration. > > > I am looking forward to a time when installing BSD is point and click > > with not much understanding of what is going on (unless I want to go > > advance and do special custom work). > > Is it really that simple? If we had an installer that looked as pretty > as a van gogh, and all you had to do was enter your country and postal > code and it then installed the base system, you wouldn't be happy (I > certainly wouldn't mind such a thing)? > > I suspect that what you *really* want - and what the GNU/Linux > distros, and Solaris 2008.05, and OSX try to provide - is a system > with everything you want pre-installed, without you having to figure > it out how to use a package system or anything else that looks the > least bit like work. > > Personally, no single system can do that for me. What I want on my > desktop is different from what pretty much anyone else wants on their > desktop is different from what I want on a router is different from > what I want on a mail server is different from what I want on a web > server is different from what I want on try-python.mired.org. Things > that I can't do without on some are things that ask to be pwn'ed on > others, and in some cases I want the same functionality from different > tools on different systems. > > I don't care how familiar you are with a system, it's *far* easier to > add the things you know you want to a solid base than it is to remove > crap that will cause you headaches later from a distro whose design > criteria was maximizing installations, hence checking off as many > features on a checklist as possible. On a desktop box, unneeded tools > are just a waste of space; on a server, they can be an open invitation > to pwn your server. > > That said - yeah, our installer is old and primitive. But it'll run on > almost nothing (3/4ths of a GIG just to run the > INSTALLER!?!?!?). There are people working on improving it, but > frankly, the needed improvements are largely cosmetic, not > conceptual. Any replacement for the installer should require less work > but not less smarts. It needs to ask questions, because the correct > answer to every general question about what to install is "it depends > on what you want it for." > > For people who just want to muck about with a desktop, there are a > couple of FreeBSD distributions with live CD's and a plethora of > applications installed, etc. That's the right way to go about > attracting an audience from the desktop. > > FreeBSD is the easiest system I know of to tailor to my needs. So long > as that remains true, it will remain my OS of choice. > > <mike > -- > Mike Meyer <mwm_at_mired.org> > http://www.mired.org/consulting.html > Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. > > O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/user/whiteflluffyclouds (Ham radio videos)Received on Thu Jul 03 2008 - 02:28:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:32 UTC