Another Step Towards BSD on the Desktop 536
linuxbeta writes "DesktopBSD is the latest easy to install BSD aimed squarely at the desktop. Installation screen shots. From their site: 'DesktopBSD aims at being a stable and powerful operating system for desktop users. DesktopBSD combines the stability of FreeBSD, the usability and functionality of KDE and the simplicity of specially developed software to provide a system that's easy to use and install.' DesktopBSD joins the ranks of PC-BSD and FreeSBIE."
Necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny installation steps (Score:2, Insightful)
But when it comes down to it, installation is only the gateway to the system. It isn't the system itself. MacOS could have the world's worst installation system, but the OS itself runs so nicely that people just love to be running it.
There should be no "Configure my Installation" step. It should choose a default "best-fit" confiuration based on the detected hardware (mostly screen resolution) and leave any further customization to the user to do later. It is more important to have the system up and running than to have it customized just so.
And in the end, you're still dealing with BSD, which is great if you're running a server, but sluggish (response times to system interrupts is slow, compared to Windows and MacOS) when running in a user-centric scenario.
I installed FreeBSD previously and didn't have any trouble there. The questions were just as straightforward as this installer and within an hour I had a full BSD installation with graphical interface to boot. It wasn't "ready for the desktop" in any sense of the term, though, unfortunately.
Re:Necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
. Until you've installed and tested it yourself, your post above is nothing more than a half-hearted attempt at a comment.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Convince me (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, BSD is NOT linux. Read for yourself what they do. Here they are.
http://www.freebsd.org/ [freebsd.org]
http://www.openbsd.org/ [openbsd.org]
http://www.netbsd.org/ [netbsd.org]
Too bad, another OSS jihad. (Score:5, Insightful)
We're all on the same team -- only if we FOCUS our efforts into the OS with the best chance (Linux) can we defeat the DRM-infested, money-grabbing proprietary OSs like M$ Vista and Apple OS X."
Why must every good thing be turned into some kind of zealot-fest, rally to my agenda? How about we all simply enjoy the damn distro without trying to conquor this, push agenda that, holy-war upon everything that doesn't agree with me?
You know BSD is dead (Score:3, Insightful)
For awhile there, we only had 3, and life was good. Now we have DragonFly, Darwin, and now DesktopBSD. Any system that splits up so much must be dead or dying!!
Black-widow license. (Score:1, Insightful)
You joke but I firmly believe that that's one important difference between the two licenses. One was designed from the start to be some kind of counter-culture, subversive license. The other is elegent in it's simplicity. No hidden traps that you need a lawyer to ferret out. No worry that sometime latter it will be changed to be even tighter (2.0), when it's realized there might be a way out of it's grasp (web apps).
Re:Its not the kernel. (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for reminding me of something: whoever it is within Gnu that thought it'd be a great idea to deprecate man pages in favor of info documents, even if it's Stallman himself, I seriously want to kick his ass!
There. That felt better.
BTW, I agree with the rest of your post as well.
Re:Too bad, fragmentation of FOSS Desktop efforts (Score:5, Insightful)
Every annum for the past 6 years, headlines claimed that it was the year of "desktop Linux." Yet nothing came of it save for a bunch of Windows-esque clones with no innovation. Then Apple came along and revolutionized the desktop experience. So maybe it is time for someone else to give it a go.
Re:Too bad, fragmentation of FOSS Desktop efforts (Score:5, Insightful)
dude, take it easy. turn off the che rhetoric for a bit, tell your poly sci prof to lighten up on the indoctrination, and be thankful that we have money-grabbing corporations or else we'd all be living in mud huts. from each according to their ability doesn't work in the real world. now, i'm no fan of microsoft, but tell me this: how many people do you employ? how much do you pay in taxes? how many people use your software to run their businesses, etc. i own two ibooks, and have run linux on my pc's since '98. however, profit is not a dirty word. people pursue profit and it stimulates innovtion. why is it that people bitch up and down about "evil M$", yet barely say a word about all the hardware companies? eh? aren't they money grabbing? you like your dual core pentium 4's, well, they ain't making them because they're nice people.
Anything That Uses X-Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
DesktopBSD looks good for a BSD, but it's still at least seven years behind the market.
Re:Too bad, fragmentation of FOSS Desktop efforts (Score:5, Insightful)
OpenBSD is my main operating system, with some Linux on the side. I don't want BSD to be like Linux. That's why I use it instead of Linux. That's why people use BSD. It does the job for them in a way that they like better. If they wanted Linux, they'd use Linux.
Both systems have their strengths. BSD is great if you want something lean. Linux is good if you want something very easy to maintain and don't mind a little GNU-bloat.* BSD is great if you want traditional Unix. Linux is good if you're not very philosophical and just want something that works. BSD is great if you don't want to recompile your kernel. Linux is great if you don't want to recompile your userland. BSD seems to consume less memory. Linux supports more binary-only software.
The point is, they have different goals, different strengths and weaknesses. I'm not in any hurry to see them merge. In fact seeing people advocate that here on Slashdot annoys the hell out of me. And I can tell you, the BSD developers and Linux afficionados out there would find the idea stupid too. If you posted your comment to a developer mailing list, if there'd be any reply at all, it would be along the lines of, "No. That's ridiculous. Stop getting in the way of our work." Though perhaps more polite.
* Yes, GNU has a noble goal but can be bloated. It's mostly bloated because it tries to be all things to all people. See the infamous GNU echo [gnu.org] joke.
Re:Its not the kernel. (Score:4, Insightful)
The documentation issue was the only intelligent point made. However, it was surrounded by a bunch of crap.
Oh, and your "This is /. you can't post anti-Linux things here" post has been done about 10000 times before. And it still gets modded funny. Wow.
GNUStep + [Net]BSD. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not do it in a sane way such as:
This is my hope for a desktop oriented BSD. I'm typing this from OS X on my powerbook, but I think the world still needs a compelling open platform.
-Peter
Re:Too bad, fragmentation of FOSS Desktop efforts (Score:4, Insightful)
Sharing isn't the word your want. Sharing isn't about attaching strings to your generosity. The word you're looking for is "reciprocality". Please don't confuse the two.
Re:Too bad, fragmentation of FOSS Desktop efforts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too bad, fragmentation of FOSS Desktop efforts (Score:2, Insightful)
My iBook (which is downstairs that i use every night), is no more or less revolutionary, better or worse than my PC that i use everyday that runs KDE.
Both have things i love and rant about, that are new and different, both have things that shit me to tears.
The difference? When i get shitty at KDE, or some OS application i think "It's free and look at the awsome stuff it does". When i get shitty at OSX, i think, "ooohh look the MIGHTY OSX being a pain in the arse, whats that? I need to spend *more money* on yet another stupid shareware application to perform some inane task like putting my iPhoto library into a different place?"
Revolutionised indeed, a revolution would be holographic projectors that can read my thoughts or some awesome shit like that, little bouncing icons and an automatic window organiser is *not* revolutionary.
(Sorry, just bitter after wrestling with OSX for a few hours yet again).
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too bad, fragmentation of FOSS Desktop efforts (Score:3, Insightful)
All that glorious "Linux software" you all gloat about is really not "Linux software". It's "UNIX-compatable software" and benefits users of just about any *NIX-like system out there.
Re:Its not the kernel. (Score:4, Insightful)
What compilers do *BSD's use? Is it "GNU junk" or something else? What about X? X.org would be "crap from various sources", so apparently *BSD uses some uber-leet BSD-Xserver, right?
OS X == Desktop BSD (Score:3, Insightful)
But there already is an easy to use BSD for the desktop. It's called Mac OS X.
Yes. Yes. I know it only runs on Apple hardware (at this point).
I have some news for you... (Score:1, Insightful)
Oooh! "openly admitted" it did he?
Listen genius - important fact comming up: -
EVERY product and service is priced according to what the market is prepared to pay for it!
But in your world, I suppose I'll just have to sell my product for 20% less than people are prepared for it. A fine way to run a business that would be.
The CEO in question is a CEO because he understands these basic facts. You on the other hand are just a clueless moron.
Re:Too bad, fragmentation of FOSS Desktop efforts (Score:2, Insightful)
To use "in common with others" means that you and others draw from the same pool. There is absolutely no implication of a return.
You don't share so you can get something out of it -- you share because it's the right thing to do. Imposing debt is not sharing.
Re:BSD v Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Black-widow license. (Score:1, Insightful)
But I'll never, ever license anything under a BSD license. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...
Shooting yourself in the foot? Why? Because you fear that someone else could use the code for their purposes leaving you out in the cold? You should have been smarter then. You're sounding pretty insecure there. You might want to see a counselor about that.
The BSD license ensures that code (good code) is used for not matter what purpose. By nature, the BSD license is a very giving license.
The only reason I'd not use BSD license and use a GNU license is if a) I was so insecure about myself that I'd think people could pofit from my code, b) I was being a selfish brat (I don't want anyone to have it unconditionally), c) I wanted to be an "indian" giver (you give, but you also take back). That's what GNU licenses, such as the GPL promote.
Although, really if I did want to "protect" my code so that no one can profit from it then yeah I'd use GPL. Although, if I wanted everyone to benefit from it then I'd use BSD.
Re:Too bad, fragmentation of FOSS Desktop efforts (Score:3, Insightful)
For most of the mid 80s to mid 90s, every year you could count on some major prediction that next year would be the year of the network. Never happened, without any explosive growth networks ended up anywhere.
Re:Too bad, fragmentation of FOSS Desktop efforts (Score:3, Insightful)