PC-BSD - where is it going?
 

This is just soliciting opinions and comments -

I am a long time FreeBSD user, going back to 2.x. Finally decided to play with PC-BSD 7.1 on a whim and I was overall really disappointed. The installer couldn't handle actually creating disk slices, the PBI seems extremely wan (especially compared with Synaptic or any other modern software collection) and the over all experience left me feeling it was a beta release. Unfortunately, this is several years and many versions in.

Is it going anywhere? Was my experience just unusual? What experiences have you guys had with it?

I was a long time BSDoer myself but switched to Linux. In the past also used Solaris and SCO . I don't see a good enough reason to go back to old Unix. Linux has everything that Unix has and more.

I hear that - I use Linux myself (Debian, usually), and for work I support AIX, Solaris, VMS(Tru64), BSD, and Linux.

Have you tried the PC-BSD frontend at all, or just FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD?

As a Unix/Linux noobie I can say that PC-BSD is extremely easy to install and use and I suspect that is the point, the where they are going. I think they would like to see greater uptake in the workplace. I have four or old P4 systems at home and it has installed easily and worked quite well on those. So, it should run very well on any/most workplace computers for endusers.

And for noobs like me it's simple to get up and running but still gives us the opportunity to learn Unix from the command line as time and inclination allow.

In the past I worked mostly with NetBSD. I liked it but I prefer Linux, it's easier to troubleshoot and customize. Also there's more documentation and more involvement.

Which version did you install, out of curiosity?
I'm glad to hear you are liking it! Do you use the PBI system much, or largely ports? On mine I'm mostly using ports, but that probably has to do with habit.

I'm using PC-BSD 7.1 on a little old emachines P4. It works well, but I have no doubt it would run faster with GUI that had less overhead. I use the auto-updater which checks for PBI updates and system (possibly kernal?) updates.

When installing PC-BSD I believe there is an option to manually configure slices.
SEE http://docs.pcbsd.org/guide/ section 3.1.7

Presently, I have PC-BSD on one computer, DesktopBSD on another, and Ubuntu on my wife's laptop. I'm going to order OpenBSD and a couple of books on that soon and see if I can build a little, hopefully coherent, home network.

As a new user, no Linux/UNIX experience I've found the three ditros I've mentioned to be highly functional. But I just use to surf.

This would actually be the piece that was failing for me - and not just me: http://forums.pcbsd.org/viewtopic.ph...12615&start=15

I ended up having to create the slices with FreeBSD before the PC-BSD installer would grab them. Auto also worked, which is good, but the default swap is really small (at under 500MB) for a system with 4GB of RAM.

I am delighted to hear some success stories from you guys, especially the ones new to BSD. BSD doesn't have a lot of the tools to ease a user into it that Linux has, being focused more on the grumpy old Unix guys (like myself). Heck, I don't think the sysinstall tool has changed since the early 90's.

The more I've used the PC-BSD frontend the more it has grown on me, though I do plan to compare it head to head with a FreeBSD 7x system tonight (instead of comparing it with a well-worn 6x system).

I do like the PBI site - it's sort of an interesting and linux-ish way to install packages. I still think Synaptic leads the pack, but I like my Linux to be Debian-flavored :D

I certainly agree that the BSDs have a steep learning curve and there are far too few books, IMHO. I'm going try a set up a small network using OpenBSD, which for 4.6 has a new installer. Although I've installed and scrapped it often enough on one of my compu,ters that I don't find that part daunting, anymore.

I was considering OpenSolaris because there are new books available, but I like much of the philosophy behind OpenBSD. The focus on security and emphasis on correctness of code. They even have their own version of Apache, I think they started that due to a change in Apache's license. Could be wrong about that though.

My little networking project should keep me busy of the winter.

Hi MBybee,

I'm curious about the test you were going to conduct between PC-BSD and FreeBSD. Have you had time to set up both? If you did, what do you think?

I had to change my plans a bit, as PC-BSD won't install on the box I was planning to use it on. Brand new system that was running Debian Lenny, but when I put in the CD for PC-BSD it just would constantly reboot. So I've gotten PC-BSD on my alternate box instead, and I'm putting FreeBSD on that one now.

So far I've installed several PBIs and built a few ports. The PBI system is nice so far. The ports are working just as I would expect.

KDE 4x is really pretty, and is performing well even on the slightly older machine I had to put it on. I haven't tried getting accelerated 3D on there yet as it is ATI.

My wife is a big fan - it's currently her second favorite system to use, after her Mint-based NetBook.

Speed-wise it's doing ok. I am starting to do some heavy lifting with it this week, as I plan to do all my main work from it as a test.

I'll let you know :)

I installed PC-BSD 7.1 here some time ago and had some minor issues. It gave an endlessly error message in console when I was at X, and KDE4 gave an error message about akonadi, when starting, if not mistaken.

IMHO the PBI system is like retrocede to Windows. I know a lot of people like it, and feel it's easier. But in the end of the day I think it's better to give 5 min to look at the ports documentation.
And their PBI site had few packages, its incomplete. Din't even have Nethack! Soon or later you will have to use ports. For the instabilities, could it been just KDE4? But overall the feel was that. And as I felt so disappointed I downloaded FreeBSD 7.2 (I had used FreeBSD in the past, but was away from it), because that is what I really like.

FreeBSD is perfect for me, it gives that feeling of rock solid. And think of all the customizable power it gives.

Conclusion: Although I feel they could care more for the testing (as OP said about it seeming beta), maybe it's just my preferences for command line and minimalism. But don't take me wrong, I wish good luck to the project and maybe will test it another time in future versions.

Hi egregor,

I have no doubt that there are better ways to do things, if you are comfortable with the BSDs. I think, though, that PC-BSD is designed to be an OS that provides easy functionality to the masses, like MS Windows. It also provides noobs, like me, with opportunity to use the commandline and start learning about BSD/Unix functionality without that initial sharp learning curve.

PC-BSD, being based on FreeBSD 7.1, can probably run a lot of the ports and packages available on the FreeBSD site. I'm just guessing about that though.

Hopefully, PC-BSD will gain a large enough user base that it will be around for a long time. It would be great to have some large companies pick it up as the desktop system of choice.

PC-BSD is FreeBSD 7, so yes. Every port works as expected so far as I have tested. PC-BSD is just FreeBSD 7 with the PBI system, a graphical installer, a newer version of KDE, and some other nice entry features.


This would be nice. I would rather they not gain too much widespread adoption - take a look at the bloat and fragmentation in Linux. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it ;)

Hi MBybee,

You're right about the Linux bloat. I just read a little article about that yesterday on the The Register. Still much better than MS though, in many way to my limited understanding.

I've also been looking at the Haiku project. They have an Alpha out now and I think I'll give it a try tonight. Are of you familiar with OS?

OpenBSD Apache version
 

[QUOTE=Johnnie J;3687730]They even have their own version of Apache, I think they started that due to a change in Apache's license. Could be wrong about that though.[QUOTE]

You are correct about that.

Hi girarde,

Thanks for the confirmation on that. I was sure I'd read that somewhere. As I mentioned in another post, I just order OpenBSD 4.6 and several of Jacek Artimak's books. Quite excited about the arrival of those books.

I downloaded the latest version, I love how easy the .pbi system sounds. I haven't installed yet though. I wanted this to replace OpenSuSE 11, but I want a winxp/pcbsd dual boot system, with no fuss, just install & it see windows/set up dual boot. If OpenSuSE had a system like .pbi I would love it. The thing about PC-BSD is on the pc-bsd forums, there are lots of "probs. with x" posts & the docs. kind of suck. So I just thought oh well stay with OpenSuSE 11. I wish someone would make a .pbi like sys for linux.

Hi Edward78,

I've been using it for months without any trouble. Granted, I've only installed a couple of programs using it; I don't remember what those were, but I can tell you that the PBI has caused me no problems and that the updater works very well, too.

Synaptic for the Debian-based Linux distros is very similar to PBI. You pretty much launch the app, browse through a nice list of about 20,000 packages and apps (or search, of course), and click "install". It handles dependencies and everything - most programs install in seconds with no fuss.

This is found on Debian, and things based on Debian like Ubuntu.

Here's some screenshots, so you can take a look.
http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/action.html

I think personal preference, education and work play a factor in the operating systems we as users choose to rely upon daily. Even for the Linux/BSD/Solaris hobbyist, it's all about what you get comfortable using or meet first. :)

As for PC-BSD, I think it needs a lot of work but it's coming along quite nicely though. The installer looks magnificent but I am not a big KDE fan, nothing personal to the in-house developers. I personally just prefer fluxbox/gnome-lite/openbox instead. If the ability to switch Window Managers was set in place it would make things easier for older computers and picky users like myself.

Presently, I've installed the desktop version (PC-BSD) and switched to using Fluxbox as the primary Window Manager. I understand that KDE is still bloating me with file-space usage but I am fine with it for the time being. The main reason I am loving PC-BSD right now though is the auto-detecting my hardware during the installation part. It really saves me time from having to compile a lot of software from Ports on FreeBSD and losing A LOT of time waiting. I am all about using FreeBSD's "minimal" installation being careful to select only what I will use often! This takes me a day to a month to accomplish satisfying standards. What I am trying to say is that I don't always have hours to compile software and I don't have an extremely fast PC either. But as a FreeBSD user I can appreciate not having to edit a lot of config files. I was also very happy to see that PC-BSD keeps the ports separated from PBI's which is great for power users.

---

[leaping@pcbsd /usr/home/leaping]$ uname -a; dmesg | grep CPU:
FreeBSD pcbsd 7.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Nov 24 20:22:16 EST 2008 root@pcbsdx32-7:/usr/obj/pcbsd-build/cvs/7.0.2-src/sys/PCBSD i386
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz (2992.51-MHz 686-class CPU)

I migrated away from Windows to Linux for stability reasons. I migrated again from Linux to *BSD for similar reasons (after running Linux for 6 years or so). When I made the switch to *BSD, I downloaded FreeBSD and OpenBSD (I really don't care much for "portability" in the case of NetBSD (I have 9 Intel/AMD boxes at home and 1 sparc...so any Linux or BSD will do)). I installed FreeBSD on my machine and ran it for about a month or two, then installed OpenBSD and ran it for about a month or two. Both systems were amazing...stock FreeBSD's performance was on par (or better) than my overly tweaked Gentoo installation, and OpenBSD *just worked*, with very little fuss or searching past man pages.

In the end, OpenBSD won out because I really don't care how fast something goes, so long as it goes 100% of the time when I tell it to...which OpenBSD has yet to fail at.

LOL - this would require me to run a very interesting setup at home, since the first machines I really used a lot were Sun, SGI, and DEC boxes (89/90 or so). I think I first worked with FreeBSD in about 94, and used it as my main OS at home until Debian got interesting around 96 or so. Then I sort of distro hopped until about 99 and I've been mostly FreeBSD/Debian since. Professionally, I have supported AIX, Solaris, RedHat, SuSE, SCO, Tru64, VMS, and BSD variants since about 97 depending on the shop.

I think your logic has merit, though, since I'd love to get a nice little Alpha station at home :)

So, updating on this.
I attempted to use PC-BSD as my main box for awhile... as well as move some of the other systems at home across. My results were very mixed.

Of 4 machines, PC-BSD was unusable on 3 of them - an Acer laptop that installed fine but would power off randomly (had to actually remove the battery and power to get it to restart - wow). A brand new desktop that it simply rebooted on in a loop without ever getting to the install screen, and one where it ran... sometimes. Sometimes it simply hung at the boot screen. I tried various options like ACPI on/off, vesa only, safe mode, etc.

Where it worked, it was good. I was pretty happy with it, and it was stable. The overall instability (even on boxes that run FreeBSD 7.2 and Debian Lenny well) was shocking. I even ordered the official DVD just to make sure I didn't have some weird download corruption.

I attempted to get my work done on it for a week, and I mostly succeeded. I had to go to my Linux box here and there for some things (mainly because installing ports was very time consuming when I needed something that had no PBI). It worked adequately with most of the work I did (which is mainly coding, SSH, xterms, document editing, etc).

So I would totally recommend against it unless you're lucky enough that it works out of the box.

Try DesktopBSD 1.7, this was the first BSD...
 

that I was able to setup and use sucessfully as, you may have guessed, a desktop OS. I've just installed 1.7, based on FreeBSD 7.2, and really like it.

Unfortunately, DesktopBSD will no longer be developed. (Too lazy to find the link, it's on their site somewhere.)

Here: http://desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=43&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=41&tx_ttnews[backPid]=55&cHash=b6ad95fd57

Honestly, PC-BSD is a pretty good idea, once they actually get the kinks worked out. The machines it installs well on seem to hold up nicely in my limited testing, and it is nice to have KDE4 by default. Perhaps when I am out from under some of my current workload I'll see if I can contribute a bit.

When it was first out, there were, of course, the people who didn't want BSD to be that automated, so to speak, but with spokespeople like Dru Lavigne supporting it, even the naysayers came to see what was good about it.

I wish I still had time to follow it, and I wish it the best of success.

On my dell D820 I have PC-BSD 7.1 on their now. Install went really well. and so far all pbi's have gone smoothly. The only thing that does seem to happen is when I try and update my system over wireless. It just sets my wireless in a pissy mood and I have to wind up rebooting.

But other than that, I am pretty happy with it.

Not to really 'necropost' but I did want to follow up on this now that I've been using PC-BSD as my main OS for 2 mos.

I have been quite happy with it, and more so with the 8.0 alpha that's out now. The alpha resolved the issue with my laptop (which turned out to be heat-related, btw - powerdevil simply didn't work and it ran the machine full-bore until it died).

The 8 alpha version has fixed the partitioning issues I had with 7, and the PBI system is working splendidly.
I look forward to PC-BSD 8 coming out in release, since these fixes were huge pain points for me.

The forums are still something of a mess, but the mailing lists are superb.

IMO, the PC-BSD project is a compromise variant, intended to attract
new customers. It is the same old FreeBSD wrapped in a nice GUI + PBI.
I think it's meant to add more popularity to FreeBSD, which is less
popular than Linux distributions.
As for me, I wouldn't like BSD be more popular like Linux.
FreeBSD is better than Linux distros and I hope it will always
be like that.

>FreeBSD is better than Linux distros and I hope it will always be like that.

What's better? I'm using FreeBSD and Slackware - Slackware since the early 90s, FreeBSD since 5.0 because of quality. I don't have any penalties while using the Slack and I'm really sick of this fanboyism. I don't like any single Linux distro, but at least Slack and to some degree Gentoo. Vice versa PCBSD is in my opinion redundant, especially PBI. So what? Who cares? It's open source, if you want to compete do it with facts not fiction.

Well, I think "better" arguments are usually pretty silly.
I happen to really like the PBI system - it's a nice take on the pre-compiled packages that Debian uses (and Redhat et al copied).

I happen to like the interface of BSD better, but that's because I have a really long background with the actual classical Unix systems (System V, IRIX, AIX, BSD, etc) so I am more likely to type ps aux than ps -ef.

The only really significant differences, so far as I know are:
1) GPL vs BSD licenses
2) Top-down Unix vs bottom-up Linux

I don't think an end user of either system (on a properly configured box) would ever really be aware of it. KDE is KDE, Gnome is Gnome, WindowMaker is WindowMaker.

The output of top
The output of kldstat
The kernel configuration file:
It is logical, simple and stable.
Do you want more facts?

Well, if we're comparing based on stuff like that

How about topas (AIX):

There's no rival for SMIT/SMITTY anywhere:
And compared to the clean /etc/filesystems layout, /etc/fstab is a freaking mess:
/etc/fstab:

My point being - this is not the basis for a system comparison.
You need to compare on the architecture of the system, the stability of the kernel, the accessibility of the support, and the range of systems supported.
If we're simply going by the beauty and elegance of some utilities and tools, AIX and VMS are lightyears ahead of any free project... deservedly so.

@mobydick

Facts! Those are no facts. Top and FreeBSD kernel config. So what? DO you want to see some Irix or Solaris? Most driver options in Linux are in kernel config, in FreeBSD most driver options are hidden in sysctl's for example. Do you know any sysctl? Even most of the developers just know a bunch of those. It's a mess, especially if you have to cope with a problem. How many drivers got FreeBSD compared to Linux? So Linux kernel config is a mess, missing most of the drivers and technologies of Linux it's no miracle to see FreeBSD shine in this area.

Advantages would be:

1. lots of manpages and actually readable ones
2. developed as a whole system

I didn't mention stability, because stability depends on the hardware context. If you have got better support for your hardware, especially for some quirks FreeBSD isn't top, it's Linux that shines in this area.

FreeBSD has got more and better development cycles in contrast to Linux, that's a fact. But again this is no miracle, with only a "few" testers you have to do it that way. With 1000 times more testers you can do it the messy way like Linux.

But Linux is a massive showstopper if it comes to documentation or continuity (especially in terms of how to configure it from release to release).

I like *BSD, but it's more a matter of personal bias, because it's from release to release familiar terrain. Vice versa Volkerding achieves similar qualities with Slackware.

I compared FreeBSD to Linux distros, not other UNIX flavours.
These I forgot to mention.
This is my favourite Linux distribution.
It is designed like FreeBSD, to be simple.
I have been running FreeBSD for more than 2 years (started with 6.0-RELEASE).
One cannot call me a fanboy, because I do all my day-to-day
work on my FreeBSD box.
And I got used to it. Now I find Linux distributions awkward and strange.
Tried a few times OpenSolaris, but I found it mysterious and
gave up the idea of learning it.

Its funny that you mentioned smit. I am actually looking at using java to build a smit clone for linux. That is one tool that I feel is really missing from linux. It makes AIX administration so much easier for certain tasks.

Good plan - not sure I'd care for it in Java, per se... but yes. I have often wished that other Unix systems (and clones, like Linux) had smit. Especially that 'show command' bit that makes it easy to automate complex or weird menu paths.

Also - comparing based on a few specific generic tools is every bit as silly as comparing Unix systems. Linux is, like it or not, much more deeply entrenched in the big company mindsets. It's the tools like Veritas, Oracle, DB2, SAP, Peoplesoft and such that matter. Not tools like top.

Systems that use BSD in the background like appliances and such are fighting a losing battle for mindshare.

<edit> It's probably worth mentioning that a lot of the 'problems' with Linux come from the pressure applied by companies like IBM pushing their code into Linux... desktop kernels shouldn't really be built the same way as server kernels. </edit>

sysinstall would be probably the closest thing FreeBSD has to smit, and that's a stretch...or a starting point, depending on how you look at it.

I'd call it a starting point - you might be able to tuck some of it under the 'post install config' section, but I think you'd really just want to start over, but make it feel like sysinstall.

BTW - sysinstall is SO missing from Linux. Every Linux distro seems to have grown some method of replacing it, but usually they just pile tools together until they get there. GParted, User Manager, etc.

I'm a firm believer in "wrap your habits around the OS, not the OS around your habits" (i.e. I learn the "native" OS tools moreso than write my own, unless of course the native tools just aren't up to par), but a system configuration manager (even a simple script) would be nice for Linux/BSD.

Same here. I'm trying to get my mind around FreeBSD.

-JJ

Up a creek ...
 

I just tried it for the first time yesterday. It bombed. I burned the boot-only CD, then performed a network install over the Internet using that disc. The installation seemed to be going well, although it took about 5 hours. When it finished, I had a brain-dead system, unable to load Xorg, and it got caught in an infinite loop with a 640x480 text screen scrolling the same four lines forever.:( Strange, because the GUI installer looked good and seemed to handle my monitor and video card without problems.

I found a report of an identical experience a couple of months ago on the PCBSD forum, different video card, different monitor, so my experience obviously wasn't a fluke. A seemingly more experienced user suggested booting into single-user mode and editing the Xorg configuration by hand. I can't believe it! As much maligned as Bill Gates is, he never would have suggested that Windows 95 users tweak video drivers by hand in order to get the GUI to come up! I carefully transcribed what I was seeing on my screen with pencil and paper and added my comment to the thread several hours ago, and it has yet to appear while the moderator "approves" my posting. What a joke -- the Ubuntu forums could never operate in this manner.

Face it: PCBSD is going nowhere. Unless they can come up with a Live CD version that lets people prove it out quickly without having to spend half a day, only to face what looks like an insurmountable roadblock to the novice, it won't catch on.