*BSDThis forum is for the discussion of all BSD variants.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
I prefer freeBSD, but its not the easiest to install. Probably PC-BSD is easiest, or desktopBSD.
Also, you say you have current multiboot linux partitions? Be advised that BSD does not use a traditional msdos style partition system. BSD can only be installed on a primary partition, not the extended logical ones. Since you can only have 4 primaries, you have to partition wisely.
So, my primary use will be normal desktop use
and I want to know which *BSD is
1) easiest to use/install
2) up-to-date
3) wont hurt my PC or disturb my _n linux installs?
That criteria seems to point to PC-BSD. (I can't definitively say that any new OS install will not disturb your existing setup, though; there is always some level of risk incurred.)
In the past I tried Open/Net/Free BSD. They are rather small, even for linux standards. I guess it's a similar minimalistic approach as Arch has - You start from a very small base and build on it.
Quote:
Seems BSD is kinda alien compared to Linux....
Is migrating gonna be an issue?
commands and such?
They are different. Read on installation procedure as it was really puzzling for me when I first installed them. Partitions/disks are labelled in a completely different way. I remember I messed up my other partitions when I did it for the first time.
Obviously, it's a question of practice and getting used to it. I did like it but I gave up on BSD after a week or so. It took me too much time to get familiar with new things (ports) and configuration.
Perhaps one day I'll come back to it. I think it's worth the effort.
I'm using Gnome, and it was very very easy to install and set up. I used Lynx to read freebsd.org's handbook once I had the basic system set up and Gnome installed. Once it's installed, you have a choice of ways to install programs and keep updated. I've been using pkg_add/pkg_delete and freebsd-update because it's very simple. I haven't compiled anything myself, yet.
That's with a Windows XP recovery partition on my hard drive, also. I used the auto option for my partitioning and just let it take care of it for me. I installed using the livefs.iso and FTP - but I have a cable modem.
Quote:
FreeBSD is a freely available, full source 4.4BSD-Lite based release for Intel i386™, i486™, PentiumŽ, Pentium Pro, CeleronŽ, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium 4 (or compatible), Xeon™, DEC Alpha™ and Sun UltraSPARC based computer systems. It is based primarily on software from U.C. Berkeley's CSRG group, with some enhancements from NetBSD, OpenBSD, 386BSD, and the Free Software Foundation.
Last edited by pr_deltoid; 06-16-2010 at 11:30 AM.
Not at all. By comparison, an amd64 default install of OpenBSD takes around 200 MB (not including swap) without X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linus72
And, I'm not a KDE type; are other desktops available?
or I gotta install from source?
At least as far as OpenBSD is concerned, there are many other desktops are available, including gnome, enlightenment, xfce, fluxbox, {t,fv,c}wm (in the default filesets), {9,w9,ae,ct,d,fl,evil,ice,j,qv,scrot,etc...}wm (available as packages, or ports if you prefer building from source), etc...
I'm sure there are more available on FreeBSD/NetBSD since they have tons more ports available than OpenBSD does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linus72
Seems BSD is kinda alien compared to Linux....
Is migrating gonna be an issue?
commands and such?
My experience is that there are "quirks" converting from Linux to BSD, as Linux uses bash and many BSD's use ksh. You can install bash (or any of many, many other shells, for that matter), though ksh and bash are similar enough that it shouldn't pose *too* big of a problem. Many of the "standard" tools on Linux are GNU, and many of the standard tools on BSD's are *not* GNU, so options may be different and such.
I came over to BSD from Gentoo, so ports didn't phase me hardly at all (portage is based on FreeBSD ports).
Quote:
Originally Posted by linus72
Can BSD be installed to a pentiumII 160MB ram lappy?
lol
Sure. Again, this is OpenBSD, but on a default install without X I see the RAM usage hovering around 8 MB heh. X is going to increase that, of course, but the base system doesn't take very much at all.
I read after my installation that the handbook can also be found locally and read using a browser (like Lynx) here:
Quote:
/usr/share/doc/handbook/index.html
I just made a very basic user during my installation, and my default shell ended up being Bourne, but from my reading a lot of people use tcsh I think, and was already pointed out - any of the shells can be installed including bash.
Last edited by pr_deltoid; 06-16-2010 at 11:40 AM.
Sure. Again, this is OpenBSD, but on a default install without X I see the RAM usage hovering around 8 MB heh. X is going to increase that, of course, but the base system doesn't take very much at all.
wow
then I think Ill put a *BSD on the lappy first...which one...
I'll probably download 'em all...
I saw something about minimal install then net-install rest of pkgs
kinda like arch...
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
