Submitted by “DesktopBSD 1.6RC3 for AMD64 is now available for download via BitTorrent and from our mirror sites. It includes several improvements made since the release of 1.6RC3 for i386, including: better performance by disabling SMP on single core/processor computers, fixed installation on disks with special partition names, inclusion of the FreeBSD ports collection on the DVD, and more.”
One processor per person is not enough.
Im trying this as we speak, but i notice little to no difference in speed on an x64 3200 system compared to previous versions. But im probably doing something wrong.
The differences should not be visible like that – most BSD code is written for x86-32, a simple recompile will not help (it should, by providing more registers, but eeeh…). It’s more the advantage in terms of programming (cleaner, with no MMX and x87 legacy) and addressing space for apps (bigger textures for gaming, bigger mempools for systems daemons). So, it should not be that noticeable to move to x86-64.
Uhm, no?
http://www.freebsd.org/where.html lists alpha, amd64, i386, ia64, pc98, powerpc and sparc64. That’s 4 64-bit tier-1 platforms for -STABLE, out of 7 total tier-1 platforms. Hardly a bias towards x86_32, don’t you think?
That depends solely on the nature of the application(s). It’s not usual for Linux64 users to report measurable increases in performance unless the application can take advantage of the improved features of the amd64 architecture.
Don’t forget the number crunchers
(in my line of work, /usr/ports/science is a God-send)
I wish DesktopBSD get more attention and development resources. PC BSD is getting all the hype, but it looks that DesktopBSD approach of staying with FreeBSD ports/packages technically is more sound than alien PBIs. If PC BSD community devoted their attention to creating standard packages instead of PBIs it would make more sense, I think.
All in all, more competition for FreeBSD on desktop will benefit everyone.
“it looks that DesktopBSD approach of staying with FreeBSD ports/packages technically”
Then if there’s close to no difference with the upstream vendor, what’s the point? Why not using FreeBSD itself? If it’s just a matter of installing KDE and a few applications, I can do that in a few minutes.
Sorry but you didn’t got the point. DesktopBSD as well as PC-BSD are aimed to ease installation, configuration and updating (and some other things) of FreeBSD for new users not experts like you.
Some of the users might want to use DesktopBSD/PC-BSD forever, some want to explore the beauty of FreeBSD itself, some want to switch to another BSD or $whatever.
DesktopBSD-tools are available via Ports or packages and you can transform a FreeBSD installation into a DesktopBSD or vice versa. If you haven’t noticed please check http://www.freshports.org/sysutils/desktopbsd-tools/
Apple has tremendous success with Mac OS X because people with hardly no UNIX/BSD experience can use it in a minute. Please tell me what’s wrong with the same approach in FreeBSD itself?
You want a better FreeBSD? You need people, code, money, bandwith, hardware etc. You want that resources from people not using FreeBSD? Hardly possible.
If you want more resources you need to gain more FreeBSD users. In the long run they will be the only ones to support FreeBSD. And exactly you will benefit from more FreeBSD-users once DesktopBSD and PC-BSD have gained more popularity even if you don’t use it. Most of the users of DesktopBSD and PC-BSD will simply use it but some of them will contribute with money, hardware, bandwith, mirrors, artwork, guidance for newbies and even code once they are experts in some way.
This is the beauty of BSD and we want to share it with anybody out there.
May DesktopBSD and PC-BSD prosper and get better day to day as well as its mother FreeBSD.
Daniel on behalf of DesktopBSD
Yes, *BSD deserves more attention than it has. Best luck to you guys and kudos for the hard work.
Thank you very much for your kind words. Everyone really appreciates that no matter if Linux, BSD or any other free software project. Don’t forget it’s hard work and endless hours but it is fun!
Uh, yes, I really hope all BSDs will improve, everybody will benefit.
Best regards, Daniel
I maybe wrong here but I think PC-BSD still includes the ports system if you want to use it.
“I maybe wrong here but I think PC-BSD still includes the ports system if you want to use it.”
In fact, PC-BSD, as well as DesktopBSD, contain both facilities for using precompiled packages and the ports collection. Please pay attention that using them with PC-BSD is possible, but not recommended unless you’re exactly knowing what you do, because it may interfere with the PBI system.
So, on a PC-BSD and a DesktopBSD system, you can
# pkg_add -r xmms
to install from a precompiled package, wich will install the dependencies if required, or
# cd /usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer
# make install
to compile and install from a ports entry.
Compiling things from the ports is needed only if you want to run bleeding edge software or if you are required to set configuration flags at compile time (e. g. codes to use by mplayer, or recompile X to make a tree button mouse work properly). In most cases, pkg_add is what you want.
You can use the portupgrade frontends (portinstall, portupgrade, pkgdb) to make extended use of the ports system and have a both ports and packages aware database maintained automatically (pkgdb -aF).
If you browse the PC BSD forums you’ll see numerous complains about problems after installing software using port/packages. It looks that PBIs are not that compatible with the standard FreeBSD way of installing software.
“It looks that PBIs are not that compatible with the standard FreeBSD way of installing software.”
No, it’s the other way round: If you use PBIs only in PC-BSD, you shouldn’t run into problems. If you start using ports / packages with PC-BSD, it might (!) cause problems with certain applications, but if you’re lucky, you’re using the ones that work without interferences.
But finally, your statement is correct. PBI introduced new paths that are not compatible with FreeBSDs standard locations for software installation (read “man hier” for more info).
“It looks that PBIs are not that compatible with the standard FreeBSD way of installing software.”
No, it’s the other way round: If you use PBIs only in PC-BSD, you shouldn’t run into problems. If you start using ports / packages with PC-BSD, it might (!) cause problems with certain applications, but if you’re lucky, you’re using the ones that work without interferences.
But finally, your statement is correct. PBI introduced new paths that are not compatible with FreeBSDs standard locations for software installation (read “man hier” for more info).
1) All PBIs are installed into /usr/local/Programs (compatible with hier btw).
2) About “broken” ports- due to license issues we can’t provide restricted audio/video codecs like win32codec, so we are forced to remove it from PC-BSD- this causes your so called “broken ports”. If you know what are your doing then you can fix this issue in no time.
# pkgdb -F
and stop whining…
Furthermore you will not need win32codecs most of the time. 90% runs very fine, apart from some exotic codecs. But people like it to install first and then think.
“1) All PBIs are installed into /usr/local/Programs (compatible with hier btw).”
Due to their nature, PBIs do install subtrees inside /usr/local/Programs, while classic ways of installation sort program components into bin/, lib/, share/ etc. subdirs. This is what I meant with “compatible”; PBIs just do not install this way.
“2) About “broken” ports- due to license issues we can’t provide restricted audio/video codecs like win32codec, so we are forced to remove it from PC-BSD- this causes your so called “broken ports”. If you know what are your doing then you can fix this issue in no time.”
“Broken port” usually refers to a port that does not compile, maybe because of version problems, errors in the source code, or missing maintainers. License issues are a different topic.
Currently DesktopBSD is generally considered as a less known (or even worse) competitor to PC-BSD, DesktopBSD is only considered as a ‘same as PC-BSD’ but packages are installed in diffrent way.
The good road forDesktopBSD will be abandon KDE and offer Gnome AND Xfce to choose after isntallation (focus on GTK2 desktop), this along with their tools would be a TRUE alternative to PC-BSD and people would have an alternative to PC-BSD which is bundled with KDE.
I would really want to see that change.
“Currently DesktopBSD is generally considered as a less known (or even worse) competitor to PC-BSD, DesktopBSD is only considered as a ‘same as PC-BSD’ but packages are installed in diffrent way.”
Sadly, this is what I’d say when I get asket about what’s the difference between DesktopBSD and PC-BSD. But in other words, DesktopBSD is more “hand in hand with” the underlying FreeBSD OS because it does not introduce a new kind of package installers, along with new directories rooted in / that contain the PBI content.
“The good road forDesktopBSD will be abandon KDE and offer Gnome AND Xfce to choose after isntallation (focus on GTK2 desktop), this along with their tools would be a TRUE alternative to PC-BSD and people would have an alternative to PC-BSD which is bundled with KDE.”
I would really honour this change. I’m tired of KDE already. Please don’t get me wrong: KDE is a fine thing for newbies and average home users, but it is definitely not designed for me. After installing PC-BSD, my first move would be to deinstall nearly everything because I do not use any KDE application. Gnome, on the other hand, provides a desktop system that appeals a bit more to me, but still, I like XFCE and WindowMaker a lot. For those who prefer a manually tailored BSD system, “plain” FreeBSD would be the better choice, I think; this provides a way to have only those software installed that you really really want, and not what others think you will need. Integration of the underlying OS into the setup mechanisms of Gnome would be a rewarding task, so you don’t need to rely on KDE setup tools only if you feel you need GUI tools to administer your system.
And please, re-read the paragraph above: I don’t want to start a flame war KDE vs. Gnome or say “KDE is for dummies”. It’s just not for me, honestly.
You are living proof you are not the targeted audience for DesktopBSD and PC-BSD and you explained everybody in detail why.
Use FreeBSD instead, configure your machine the way you like and help FreeBSD.
The only thing you, vermaden and all those other dudes is to suggest starting a distri hell in FreeBSD too like Linux. And after all you have 100 different FreeBSD-distris with 100 window managers. If you don’t believe try to name all Buntus within a minute.
The only thing you will realize someday is
a) wasted time and resources that would be better spent on easing the installation, upgrading, configuring etc. of any of the 100 given windows managers in 1 distri or what you like to name it.
b) your time would be better spent helping FreeBSD to improve the Ports system rather than bundling wm after wm with the same FreeBSD kernel etc. It doesn’t matter if you like Ports, packages, pbi or anything else: You totally rely on the hard work of the FreeBSD Ports committers and maintainers and they themselves rely on the work of all those people writing and maintaining that applications.
For each FreeBSD distri you need at least one person to do it. What would be better: 300 Ports committers instead of 200 or 200 Ports committers and 100 persons doing their distri thing? You know the answer.
If for example pbi is capable of installing a given wm with a click the only thing you gain with a specialized distri for wm X is one click. And if you don’t like pbi you can use the package manager in DesktopBSD. Uh, that’s only one click too… And if you don’t like both you can type pkg_add -r $wm. That was easy? Uh, its BSD.
What is a ‘distri’?
distri is usually a Linux distribution. But BSD itself is a distribution to. BSD == Berkeley Software Distribution. Some people claim PC-BSD and DesktopBSD are FreeBSD distributions.
You didn’t understand my posting, right? Well, maybe it’s because english is not my native language, so it seems I need to comment this.
“The only thing you, vermaden and all those other dudes is to suggest starting a distri hell in FreeBSD too like Linux. And after all you have 100 different FreeBSD-distris with 100 window managers. If you don’t believe try to name all Buntus within a minute.”
Regarding terminology, FreeBSD does not come in distributions, it comes in flavours. I’m not sure where I read this. In most cases, the FreeBSD flavours are compatible, at least at OS level, because they are all built upon the same FreeBSD OS and offer its basic functionalities, for example, the package management and the ports collection. This is what makes FreeBSD different from Linux where some distributions are incompatible to others when it comes to parts like package management or basic tools included. To make a FreeBSD system incompatible with another one it needs more changes than what DesktopBSD and PC-BSD do.
I for myself didn’t try to start a “distri war” in FreeBSD world, because this is completely useless and, if I may say this, impossible. Maybe you can say you cannot use PBI with plain FreeBSD, but that’s okay because it’s not intended to. PBI is a speciality of PC-BSD, and it cannot be integrated into a plain FreeBSD system because it introduces certain incompatibilities.
“The only thing you will realize someday is
a) wasted time and resources that would be better spent on easing the installation, upgrading, configuring etc. of any of the 100 given windows managers in 1 distri or what you like to name it.”
As I explained before, there are no window managers included with FreeBSD’s basic “distribution”. PC-BSD and DesktopBSD come with KDE, so they are maintaining it (and, as it seems, only KDE) to fit the needs of the targeted audience.
Easing installation? What’s so compilcated in, let’s say, “pkg_add -r xfce” that you need to make it more easy? Things like installing or upgrading are the things the ports maintainers care about, so things like “portupgrade xfce” will work. Configuration is up to the creators of the window managers itself, or developers who provide a specific setup tool for a window manager that does not include one.
“b) your time would be better spent helping FreeBSD to improve the Ports system rather than bundling wm after wm with the same FreeBSD kernel etc.”
As you will agree, this is what beginners and average users are searching for: A fully preconfigured and integrated compilation of “everyday use software”, allthough I admit that needs are very different, so you cannot expect – as I mentioned before – that KDE will be the best solution for everyone. But you can see from the popularity of the KDE based Linux distributions: KDE is not that bad as you may have read from my post (allthough I did not intend to say anything like that). Don’t confuse KDE with a simple window manager: Like Gnome (or XFCE 4), it is a complete desktop environment.
“It doesn’t matter if you like Ports, packages, pbi or anything else: You totally rely on the hard work of the FreeBSD Ports committers and maintainers and they themselves rely on the work of all those people writing and maintaining that applications.”
This is correct.
“For each FreeBSD distri you need at least one person to do it.”
No. Because the base system is what the ports rely on, and the base system is not changed by either PC-BSD or DesktopBSD, so ports will work everywhere. Only exception: The PBI system from PC-BSD is independant from the ports / packages system.
“If for example pbi is capable of installing a given wm with a click the only thing you gain with a specialized distri for wm X is one click. And if you don’t like pbi you can use the package manager in DesktopBSD. Uh, that’s only one click too… And if you don’t like both you can type pkg_add -r $wm. That was easy? Uh, its BSD.”
FreeBSD has always been famous for its user-friendlyness.
What’s so compilcated in, let’s say, “pkg_add -r xfce” that you need to make it more easy?
It’s not complicated, just not complete.
The portsdb could be synced, the source tree could be synced. And if you know how to do it, the question remains with what version/release do you sync, 6_, 5_5, 6_3 ?
A nice GUI package that can sync the ports,source tree and if necessary install with 'pkg_add -r <package>, and if necessary/desired can compile a package from source, displays everything that can be installed, and last but not least can compile the kernel and use mergemaster to switch between the releases without nagging the user with what’s going on underneath the package installer.
For those who wish there could be a switch to see the actual commands and output. All that needs to displayed is a message when the system has to be rebooted (kernel compilation), and a progress bar for application instalation.
FreeBSD doesn’t need to change, it is good as it is.
The above comments are addressed to PCBSD and DesktopBSD being even better FreeBSD advocates.
Edited 2007-11-24 09:46
“A nice GUI package that can sync the ports,source tree and if necessary install with 'pkg_add -r <package>, and if necessary/desired can compile a package from source, displays everything that can be installed, and last but not least can compile the kernel and use mergemaster to switch between the releases without nagging the user with what’s going on underneath the package installer.”
I don’t know if I remember correctly, but hasn’t there been an application named kports that should provide these functionalities? Or what about the DesktopBSD tools for software installation, isn’t this what you have described?
Sadly, all automation applications cannot mention all possibilites where an interference between automated changes and changes done by the user occurs. Upgrading releases usually is a “big task”, so I think you should know what you’re doing there, instead of assuming the system to care about everything. Please note the GUI overhead that would be neccessary. It wouldn’t matter if everything works, but if something fails, users are dropped to the # prompt. Here you need essential knowledge about the system you administrate. (And yes, all these tasks belong to system administration.)
“For those who wish there could be a switch to see the actual commands and output. All that needs to displayed is a message when the system has to be rebooted (kernel compilation), and a progress bar for application instalation.”
I think those who would wish such options are the ones that would use the “old fashioned” ways.
“The above comments are addressed to PCBSD and DesktopBSD being even better FreeBSD advocates. “
I don’t think DesktopBSD or PC-BSD are advocates for FreeBSD because they only promote their own ways of doing things. The underlying FreeBSD OS is not important. Using Linux based systems, there are many Linux distributions achieving the same goals.
>Regarding terminology, FreeBSD does not come in distributions, it comes in flavours.
It’s the Linux ‘misuse’ of this term.
BSD aka Berkeley Software Distribution, so I guess those flavours are distributions or short distris too =)
>allthough I admit that needs are very different, so you cannot expect – as I mentioned before – that KDE will be the best solution for everyone.
And it doesn’t matter at all, if there isn’t anyone who wants to cope with Gnome, then there will not be any Gnome *distri* for FreeBSD.
>FreeBSD has always been famous for its user-friendlyness.
But your mileage may vary is the saying which should follow after such terms like ‘friendliness’ or ‘desktop’
“BSD aka Berkeley Software Distribution, so I guess those flavours are distributions or short distris too =)”
This is correct of course, allthough PC-BSD and DesktopBSD are all the same FreeBSD / BS distribution in their base, they just added different stuff which extends the FreeBS (base) distribution into a certain flavour. Wow, semantics are fun.
“And it doesn’t matter at all, if there isn’t anyone who wants to cope with Gnome, then there will not be any Gnome *distri* for FreeBSD.”
I think those who really want to use a Gnome desktop based upon FreeBSD will install plain FreeBSD and then pkg_add the Gnome packages. So it’s simple, but doesn’t come in a shiny box from the shelf.
“But your mileage may vary is the saying which should follow after such terms like ‘friendliness’ or ‘desktop’ ;-)”
You can always discuss terms and their meaning to several different groups of possible users. For example, I’m using FreeBSD on the desktop since 4.0, and its very friendly, and always has been. “FreeBSD is user friendly, it’s just picky about its users.”
Completely rewrite all the Qt-tools in gtk? For what please? You want DesktopBSD to throw away years of work for exactly no gain in efficiency, features etc.? Uh, we will have a lot more users when we proudly announce it on our website… And which Newbie knows the difference between gtk and Qt? You don’t think the same amount of work would be better spent improving the existing work in Qt? Please think twice.
Please stop those useless discussions. Exactly nobody of the targeted audience cares about things like KDE vs. Gnome or gtk vs. Qt.
Ask an Apple user if he knows the diffrence between PPC or Intel or the difference between a Mach kernel or a BSD kernel. He will tell you he has an computer and he wants to browse, mail etc. Get the message please.
And if you like Gnome or XFCE that much you can easily install it via Ports, packages oder .pbi in PC-BSD (don’t know if there are pbi for it).
I do not know about what you are arguing so much, did I offended you or DesktopBSD by saying my thougths?
Having two almost identical BSD based OSes is usefull for me, difrences?
1. PC-BSD PBI’s
2. DesktopBSD Tools
2. DesktopBSD Ports Manager
3. Installer
If the both use KDE and PC-BSD users can add DekstopBSD Tools just like that by ports or even by PBI, where is a place for DesktopBSD?
A good idea would be to merge these projects into one KDE based distro with PBI’s [optional at install or later addon], DekstopBSD Tools and DekstopBSD Ports manager.
If DesktopBSD would offer Gnome/XFCE (GTK2) environment it would be better to compete with PC-BSD, or even to provide an installer option to choose KDE/Gnome/XFCE desktop.
Currently I see no point in choosing DesktopBSD over PC-BSD while you can have all the same with PC-BSD + PBI’s, which are great for CASUAL users.
Yes you can add XFCE/Gnome/Fluxbox/FVWM/dwm … from ports, but tell me how many CASUAL users will do that?
Its about good defaults and that is the place where Ubuntu got so much attention, it just had great defaults, you install it and just use it without almost any configuration, well wallpaper maybe.
1. I’m not offended in any way.
2. You gave the answer to all those people wanting wm X instead of KDE: “but tell me how many CASUAL users will do that?” Answer: nobody. The only people wanting Gnome or XFCE or the like are Linux users. The rest of this planet doesn’t care. And if you realize yourself that nobody really cares why all those proposals that DesktopBSD should siwtch from KDE to something else?
3. Please stop using any term of “competing” once you mention PC-BSD and DesktopBSD. We both take care of our users, period. And it doesn’t matter at all if PC-BSD or DesktopBSD has more users. We compete with Windows, Mac OS X and Linux in that distinct order. 90+ percent of all users are Windows, 5+ percent are Mac OS X and maybe 1 or 2 percent are Linux. And now you know which potential users you have to focus on. Every new user for PC-BSD or DesktopBSD is one more FreeBSD user. People switching from DesktopBSD to PC-BSD or vice versa will not improve anything. And I really like it you use PC-BSD, stop arguing here and help PC-BSD!
4. If PC-BSD users like DesktopBSD-tools that’s fine. That’s what BSD is about: Freedom of choice. If the tools work for you: great. If they don’t work: please give detailed feedback why.
5. Yes, Ubuntu did a good job on defaults. Some of them I don’t like personally but that’s a different story. Conclusion? Help FreeBSD to get better. Better than Ubuntu and everything else out there.
6. Merge DesktopBSD – PC-BSD: Maybe some time it will happen. That’s a question of time, philosophy, people etc.
“And I really like it you use PC-BSD, stop arguing here and help PC-BSD!”
I do not use PC-BSD, just FreeBSD, I am already, I assume that you are also.
“4. If PC-BSD users like DesktopBSD-tools that’s fine. That’s what BSD is about: Freedom of choice.”
This is the point, its hard to say that you have freedom of choice when you can only choose betwen KDE or KDE. Its like linear cRPG games, you can do whatever you like as long as you do exacly what developers of the game want.
So what’s the point? If you don’t like Linux you do not have to use it, vice versa this is true for BSD. If I like KDE, I would certainly build a system with it like Peter did, but why should I build it with Gnome instead? Remember, it’s *open source*. Freedom of choice isn’t a one-way-ticket.
1. If you don’t use neither PC-BSD nor DesktopBSD why are you arguing here to no avail? Yes I use FreeBSD and I used it long before DesktopBSD arrived but so what? It’s cool, it works and people can use it. Even my 75 year old mother in law uses DesktopBSD. I don’t use PC-BSD but does it justify any bad comments on it? Sure not. PC-BSD works and their users are happy with it (at least most of them). And if they don’t like it they can customize it at will or choose something else or actively can help improve it. Stop talking, be productive.
2. So what?
http://www.freshports.org/x11-wm/
That doesn’t even count KDE, Gnome etc in other categories.
On my Desktop + FreeBSD test machine I have 16 different wm, what are you talking about? I use KDE, XFCE, fluxbox primarily and when I don’t like them I can use Ion, Blackbox or whatever. Hey, I can install them with a click (yes I prefer Ports; packages only when its OO, Java and KDE).
Windows users have no choice, Apple users have no choice, users of Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris etc. can do whatever they want.
DesktopBSD and PC-BSD have KDE preinstalled because its the best desktop environment for BSD that’s it.
“DesktopBSD and PC-BSD have KDE preinstalled because its the best desktop environment for BSD that’s it.”
I may argue that desktop environments are not designed for operating systems, they are designed for users. So you could only claim “KDE is the best desktop environment for all BSD users”, but this won’t be true. For beginners and average users whose machines provide enough ressources, KDE is the best solution in most imaginable cases, I agree here. That’s why I love to share DesktopBSD and PC-BSD CDs with friends who want to try out something new (instead of “Windows”), and most of them do not have any problems with KDE. I know some more professional users who find KDE annoying (can’t explain exaclty, seems to refer to lots of installed small apps they don’t even touch), so they prefer Gnome or XFCE. Especially on lower end hardware KDE destroys the advantages of the fast FreeBSD OS, so WindowMaker, Fluxbox etc. usually are the better choice here.
Why on earth abandon KDE? I think the option of choosing an alternative desktop to KDE would be better than ditching it altogether. I’d never want to see a *BSD OS shipping just with GNOME.
I think that this is a good idea for DesktopBSD to office the Gnome environment, while PC-BSD offers the KDE environment since these two are aimed primarily for new users to experience BSD. Personally… this would bring them both more exposure to the masses.
Peter Hofer started the development of DesktopBSD and the according tools in KDE, about one year before the advent of PCBSD. Furthermore Gnome isn’t really a mature desktop environment in FreeBSD. It’s a hell to maintain (you can sometimes hear similar things from Linux distros). So if you like it, install it.
” It’s a hell to maintain (you can sometimes hear similar things from Linux distros). So if you like it, install it. ”
I’m well aware of how difficult it is to maintain… At the same time I’ve read too many reviews on how well FreeBSD has maintained Gnome and I have to agree with FreeBSD users who prefer it… I’m a FreeBSD user myself as well as a long time Slackware user with Solaris along for the ride. I like all 3 operating systems and they all have much to offer and something to be learned from… and yes… I like it… so I installed it.
I disagree completely. PC-BSD is doing something unique by offering PBI’s. These, much like Windows’ EXE files, offer a painless method for newbies to install packages. The ports system is still available for those wishing to do things the in a more traditional BSD way. It boggles me why people are so quick to attack simplified methods of installing software? Linspire Linux was also ridiculed when its distribution began touting “Click-n-run” as an alternative to Debian’s more traditional apt (and Synaptic.) Change is not bad. Repeat as necessary.
Another benefit of the PBI system, for those of us with limited internet access, is that you are downloading ONE file as opposed to several dependencies for your program to work. I’ve used FreeBSD since 1998, but given my current location, internet access isn’t always a given and thus ports/packages aren’t always available. Downloading a single file with an installer has helped tremendously. Now if only there was an option to view the install script before actually installing…
“Another benefit of the PBI system, for those of us with limited internet access, is that you are downloading ONE file as opposed to several dependencies for your program to work.”
This implies another advantage: You can compose CDs or DVDs with software to be installed on systems without Internet connection. The dependencies are included, so everything you need is inside the PBI file. In most cases, the PBI is smaller in size than the precompiled package with all dependency packages. And of course it’s faster than compiling things from source.
The downside: You cannot update components like libraries for all applications, you need to upgrade via PBI.
On page
http://desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=84
pressing link
http://desktopbsd.net/fileadmin/download/torrents/DesktopBSD-1.6RC3…
produces:
Not Found
The requested URL /fileadmin/download/torrents/DesktopBSD-1.6RC3-amd64-DVD.iso.torrent was not found on this server.
Apache/1.3.39 Server at desktopbsd.net Port 80
Sorry and thanks for your notive. Could you plese check again?
Best regards, Daniel
At least, with DesktopBSD, you have it all on one DVD and don’t have to swtich the CDs after each package installation
Is that good? Just means they have few packages…
DVD is the way to go nowadays. But there aren’t few packages. The FreeBSD ports consists of 17740 applications etc. at the moment, choose whatever you want. Of course you have to compile these first, but we do have a buildserver who manages this task day by day, especially for the huge packages like KDE and so on. So in the end there is no limit in available applications.
http://www.freshports.org/
DVD (single layer) size – 4.4 GB. 2 CDs size – 1.4 GB. Where can you fit more packages?
A few days ago, several days in a row, I tried to view the DesktopBSD site but it was down. I’m glad to see it’s up now.
is done by MidNightBSD though it is not a distro like PCBSD and DesktopBSD.
As far as the ports system is concerned if you treat PCBSD gently (install via source Java and Java programs, realplayer, opera,acroread) you have NO problem.
It is worthwhile to ask one question
why the hell these gnudarwin folks do not move over to real BSDs and provide more ports? Apple does not want them and until an L4/BSD or CoyotOS/HURD thing will come up as an alternative to the closed source MacOSX they can contribute to these masterpieces. Hopefully we can see some distros for NetBSD/OpenBSD and DFBSD. GentooBSD is a good candidate. MirOSBSD needs more hands. Though I am a Linux fun….. and I do not like your licences
I LOVE YOU BSD GUYS…. and I hope you all the best and especially to the next release of DesktopBSD.