# When will FreeBSD be ready to noobs for desktop use?



## asifnaz (Jan 2, 2012)

I am an average PC user and have some experience of Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. I am really fascinated by Freebsd FreeBSD and always wanted to use it as a desktop OS. As it does not come with GUI installer, I come here and ask how to install freebsd FreeBSD with GUI DE (like gnome). I am asked to read handbook which is a bit beyond my skills. I wish freebsd FreeBSD was as easy to install as Linux (ubuntu). 

I will really appriciate if somebody could help me to install freebsd FreeBSD with gnome (any link to how-to etc).

Thank you.


----------



## vertexSymphony (Jan 2, 2012)

Probably never, it's not in the FreeBSD target to aim at desktops when the system actually comes like, for example, Arch ... All clean from all kind of non-base software and it's more oriented towards servers.
I don't say it's possible to use it as desktop (In fact, I use it as desktop), but it requires proper "tuning" to be functional, and that's where PC-BSD comes in â†’ A FreeBSD system tuned for desktop.

You probably should be using that.

Regards, Alex.


----------



## asifnaz (Jan 2, 2012)

Is PCBSD is a freebsd FreeBSD variant. It uses KDE but I would like to use gnome.

Any suggestion?


----------



## SNK (Jan 2, 2012)

asifnaz said:
			
		

> is PCbsd is a freebsd variant ..? . It uses KDE but I would like to use gnome .
> 
> any suggestion..?



Then try http://ghostbsd.org/


----------



## Dru (Jan 2, 2012)

> When FreeBSD will be ready to noobs for desktop use ?



Hopefully never.

This is one thing I like about FreeBSD, it doesn't hold your hand, and an added plus, that slightly keeps the people who dont want to learn away. A noob can install and run FreeBSD fine, but it requires effort.

There are people who just want to install something for the hell of it, they will bother people with questions, to which they could have learned the answer themselves, if they had read, but they just want to install something, cause they think its cool, screw time involved, or learning.

As far as FreeBSD as a desktop.....there is none better.


----------



## LateNiteTV (Jan 2, 2012)

I really don't understand why any noob can't get FreeBSD up and running as a desktop. When I made the switch from Windows to linux about 12 years ago, I used Linux for about a week then went to FreeBSD. I had FreeBSD up and running and doing everything I needed it to as a desktop in a couple hours. Read the handbook... FreeBSD is pretty damn simple.


----------



## stepulka (Jan 2, 2012)

I am really like FreeBSD isn't ready for noobs users. This was my first point of escaping from Linux...because Linux is changing to click-click style (Ubuntu). They want make windows, yes, they make, but very bad. Eveything didn't work good, forums are full. How-to work only one time, second time not. There exists Archlinux, Gentoo or Slackware, but the don't save that. Documentation on Linux is poor. I am happy with FreeBSD style, simplicity, performance and documentation(I am very amazed how many man pages there are). Thanks for that, you are doing it good .


----------



## jkois@ (Jan 2, 2012)

asifnaz said:
			
		

> is PCbsd is a freebsd variant ..? . It uses KDE but I would like to use gnome .
> 
> any suggestion..?



Beginning with version 9.0 PC-BSD (http://www.pcbsd.org) will support multiple desktop environment out of the box.  KDE4 will still be there, but it is not mandatory anymore.  You can also use (for example) GNOME, XFCE, LXDE or Fluxbox.  

PC-BSD is still FreeBSD on the inside.  Although it comes with a couple of "desktop extensions" (for example a working X server or GNOME in your case - without having to install it via ports).

PC-BSD 9.0 will be released soon.  Usually only a couple of days after FreeBSD 9.0 is released (as this is the base for it).


----------



## vermaden (Jan 2, 2012)

asifnaz said:
			
		

> When Freebsd will be ready to noobs for desktop use ?


It already is, its just called PC-BSD (which has FreeBSD under the hood).


----------



## fonz (Jan 2, 2012)

asifnaz said:
			
		

> I am asked to read handbook which is a bit beyond my skills . I wish freebsd was as easy to install as Linux (ubuntu)


As you probably already figured out from the previous responses: the focus of FreeBSD is on technical quality (reliability, security and performance), not so much user experience. That doesn't mean we're entirely indifferent to newbie-friendliness, nor that FreeBSD isn't suitable for the desktop (in fact, it's pretty much the only thing I use these days, including as desktop OS on my netbook), but it just isn't a priority. FreeBSD is _primarily_ intended for server use by the more experienced. Knowledgeable users can also make it work as a desktop system, but that requires some effort on their part.

If you're looking for something that combines the technical quality of FreeBSD with the ease of use/installing of, say, Ubuntu _(which may be a total mess under the bonnet, but at least it's easy to drive)_, I recommend that you check out PC-BSD or one of the other forks such as GhostBSD. As a matter of fact, the latter was developed by people who regularly post on this forum, e.g. Eric Turgeon. And it appears to be using Gnome rather than KDE (I like neither, but to each his own).

Hope this helps,

Fonz


----------



## xibo (Jan 3, 2012)

> Hopefully never.





> I am really like FreeBSD isn't ready for noobs users.


I don't get how not being easy to get started with can be considered advantageous.
If so, why not use the elite-ary linux-from-scratch? Virtually any linux or GNU feature not either used by millions or especially shiny severely lacks documentation forcing you to analyze the code and/or playing around so the learning phase takes a lot larger, plus of cause that knowledge isn't useful for a long time as the devs might decide their monolithic and bloated applications are too bothersome to maintain and replace them by (once again monolithic and bloated) rewrites that aren't compatible on neither API nor command line parameter level.

IMO FreeBSD is easy to use, or at least I had no issues when getting started with it. Also, getting started with OpenBSD was easy too before of that. Actually I was surprised back then (maybe exactly because I was coming from linux/gnu) that so many things worked "out of the box" and how good the FAQ/handbook actually covers the basics.

Linux/gnu isn't any easier to use then FreeBSD (or OpenBSD, or even NetBSD), in fact it's harder. But when people first use linux/gnu, they usually have "extensive" experience with Microsoft Windows, and also have little "advanced" usage in mind. There are fairly large projects within the gnu world that try to imitate (parts of) Windows OS and that results in these people feeling familiar with the system that somehow looks and feels like (but under it's cover is very different to) the Windows OS they are used to. So additionally, it should be considered how much time people required to get that used with Windows OS. If it was considered to be so straightforward that everything is self-explanatory, Microsoft wouldn't ship "Getting started" and "Installation" leaflets with Windows copies, so if it was not required for someone to read those obtained that knowledge was obtained somehow else (most usually by seeing it being used by other people), and that time needs to be considered too.


----------



## renice (Jan 3, 2012)

asifnaz said:
			
		

> but I would like to use gnome.
> 
> Any suggestion?



A first contact point could be the FreeBSD GNOME Project site: http://www.freebsd.org/gnome/

If you have experience with Linux as you mentioned, you should't have much problems to install FreeBSD (assuming that many new lecture to expanding skills isn't unpleasent thing to you).


----------



## bbzz (Jan 3, 2012)

The way I see it, most of the unfriendliness comes from lack of general *NIX experience, not specifically FreeBSD.


----------



## asifnaz (Jan 3, 2012)

Thank you all for your response . I will install FreeBSD on one of my spare computers . If I need help I will ask here . For now I will not look for ready made solutions like GhostBSD or PCBSD .

I appreciate your time


----------



## SirDice (Jan 4, 2012)

FreeBSD will be ready when Linux for the desktop finally happens. Think about it, it's not the underlying OS that's the issue here. It's everything else surrounding it like Gnome, KDE or whatever desktop environment will be next. Since Linux and FreeBSD share those it'll happen at around the same time.


----------



## stepulka (Jan 4, 2012)

xibo said:
			
		

> I don't get how not being easy to get started with can be considered advantageous.
> If so, why not use the elite-ary linux-from-scratch? Virtually any linux or GNU feature not either used by millions or especially shiny severely lacks documentation forcing you to analyze the code and/or playing around so the learning phase takes a lot larger, plus of cause that knowledge isn't useful for a long time as the devs might decide their monolithic and bloated applications are too bothersome to maintain and replace them by (once again monolithic and bloated) rewrites that aren't compatible on neither API nor command line parameter level.
> 
> IMO FreeBSD is easy to use, or at least I had no issues when getting started with it. Also, getting started with OpenBSD was easy too before of that. Actually I was surprised back then (maybe exactly because I was coming from linux/gnu) that so many things worked "out of the box" and how good the FAQ/handbook actually covers the basics.
> ...



Don't worry, I used Linux 2-3 years, Archlinux, Slackware, Debian, Gentoo etc.. I am not a noob, I just use FreeBSD, because is nearer to original Unix, especially Berkley Unix. I have some experiences with Linux, so it wasn't hard switch. I like Linux, i like Ubuntu, but now, when I am on FreeBSD, I realize and regret, why I didn't start with BSD some day before.


----------



## fluca1978 (Jan 4, 2012)

asifnaz said:
			
		

> Is PCBSD is a freebsd FreeBSD variant. It uses KDE but I would like to use gnome.
> 
> Any suggestion?



PCBSD will support multiple desktops, even Gnome, starting from release 9.

The way I see this is that FreeBSD, along with other *BSD, are a little scaring for the average user. The average user do not like terminals and shells, they like icons, menus and animations. Moreover there are more hardware issues with commodity peripherals than those with Linux, nowdays, so I think Linux will be a choice for the average-user-desktop for long time.This does not mean FreeBSD is not good enough, I personally think it is much more better than OSX, Windows (of course) and the majority of Linux around the world. Moreover I don't think FreeBSD on the desktop will happen when Linux happens, and in fact I believe that Gnome is an example of how bad portability can be for a desktop that claims to be OS independent.


----------



## adamk (Jan 4, 2012)

SirDice said:
			
		

> FreeBSD will be ready when Linux for the desktop finally happens. Think about it, it's not the underlying OS that's the issue here. It's everything else surrounding it like Gnome, KDE or whatever desktop environment will be next. Since Linux and FreeBSD share those it'll happen at around the same time.



To be fair, things like the underlying OS can certainly be an issue, especially when it comes to hardware support.


----------



## SirDice (Jan 4, 2012)

adamk said:
			
		

> To be fair, things like the underlying OS can certainly be an issue, especially when it comes to hardware support.



True but from a user's perspective this is hardly relevant. If the hardware works the underlying OS is just not an issue. Most windows users wouldn't touch a command prompt with a ten foot pole. They also couldn't care less about drivers as long as it works.

But things like creating and managing documents etc. is an issue for them. And it's here where things could use a lot of improvement.


----------



## adamk (Jan 4, 2012)

SirDice said:
			
		

> True but from a user's perspective this is hardly relevant. If the hardware works the underlying OS is just not an issue. Most windows users wouldn't touch a command prompt with a ten foot pole. They also couldn't care less about drivers as long as it works.



That's kind of my point...  The fact is, any piece of hardware you buy now is more likely to work properly with linux than FreeBSD.  Don't get me wrong, FreeBSD isn't that bad at hardware support, but it's still behind when it comes to certain things like GPUs and wireless chips. For example, on ##freebsd last night someone asked about what driver to use with an HD6970.  The only available one is vesa, which is likely highly relevant to that users decision on whether or not to stick with FreeBSD.

Adam


----------



## fluca1978 (Jan 4, 2012)

SirDice said:
			
		

> True but from a user's perspective this is hardly relevant. If the hardware works the underlying OS is just not an issue. Most windows users wouldn't touch a command prompt with a ten foot pole. They also couldn't care less about drivers as long as it works.
> 
> But things like creating and managing documents etc. is an issue for them. And it's here where things could use a lot of improvement.



Agree, but this sounds the way of working of Apple: provide hardware with support by the OS. OpenSolaris did the same with Toshiba, I think it will be very good for any OS to have an hardware partner to provide desktop systems as well as workstations (iXsystems for servers come into my mind).


----------



## vertexSymphony (Jan 4, 2012)

SirDice said:
			
		

> True but from a user's perspective this is hardly relevant. If the hardware works the underlying OS is just not an issue. Most windows users wouldn't touch a command prompt with a ten foot pole. They also couldn't care less about drivers as long as it works.
> 
> But things like creating and managing documents etc. is an issue for them. And it's here where things could use a lot of improvement.



Aha, and stuff like KMS,GEM and such is not an OS issue? Because yes, you talked about add-on projects determining the future of both OSes in the desktop, but the base system has to provide the needed things for those projects to work properly.

Now this is the part where everyone throws the ball to another person


----------



## xibo (Jan 4, 2012)

(Most) Desktop users ("Noobs" or not) don't care about KMS, GEM or TTM. They care about whether or not they get nifty effects in KDE and about frame rates in games (or more probably wine), the details on how the OS manages to do that is "good to know", not "required to know".

People using nvidia graphics hardware don't need to bother about whether or not FreeBSD can KMS. If FreeBSD had a working implementation before the freedesktop folks and intel dropped support for everything else, most FreeBSD users today wouldn't even know what KMS is supposed to be, like the linux and Windows OS users don't know. After all, people don't need to know about CAM or BIO (and maybe not even GEOM) when using filesystems, either.


----------



## ph0enix (Jan 4, 2012)

stepulka said:
			
		

> I just use FreeBSD, because is nearer to original Unix, especially Berkley Unix.



Really? Why?
I use FreeBSD because it's a great OS and I couldn't care less about it being more or less like AT&T Unix, System V or whatever.


----------



## vertexSymphony (Jan 5, 2012)

xibo said:
			
		

> (Most) Desktop users ("Noobs" or not) don't care about KMS, GEM or TTM. They care about whether or not they get nifty effects in KDE and about frame rates in games (or more probably wine), the details on how the OS manages to do that is "good to know", not "required to know".
> 
> People using nvidia graphics hardware don't need to bother about whether or not FreeBSD can KMS. If FreeBSD had a working implementation before the freedesktop folks and intel dropped support for everything else, most FreeBSD users today wouldn't even know what KMS is supposed to be, like the linux and Windows OS users don't know. After all, people don't need to know about CAM or BIO (and maybe not even GEOM) when using filesystems, either.



Not only desktop effects, anything else that requires proper or basic acceleration.
And usually they don't care or know about these things, until their hardware is not giving what is supposed to give.

And yeah, here you played the well-expected "throw the ball" .... unfortunately.
I love FreeBSD and the *BSD community in general, but one of the things I dislike *A LOT* in the community is that issues are ALWAYS another person's fault ... ALWAYS

Regards, Alex.


----------



## SirDice (Jan 5, 2012)

vertexSymphony said:
			
		

> Aha, and stuff like KMS,GEM and such is not an OS issue? Because yes, you talked about add-on projects determining the future of both OSes in the desktop, but the base system has to provide the needed things for those projects to work properly.



Yes, but it's working on Linux and that still hasn't lived up to it's "Linux on the desktop" fame. Which is my point, it's not the drivers or the OS that's keeping it from happening, it's everything else.


----------



## adamk (Jan 5, 2012)

SirDice said:
			
		

> Yes, but it's working on Linux and that still hasn't lived up to it's "Linux on the desktop" fame. Which is my point, it's not the drivers or the OS that's keeping it from happening, it's everything else.



It's both.  As a result of having the drivers, Linux is certainly closer to desktop use for the average user than FreeBSD is.

EDIT: Or even more advanced users.  An operating system that locks up when I restart X is certain not ready for desktop use for me.  So, no, I do not think "FreeBSD will be ready when Linux for the desktop finally happens."  Most likely, FreeBSD will still be playing driver catch-up.


----------



## stepulka (Jan 5, 2012)

ph0enix said:
			
		

> Really? Why?
> I use FreeBSD because it's a great OS and I couldn't care less about it being more or less like AT&T Unix, System V or whatever.



That's another opinion. But, did I say something wrong about FreeBSD? Read my first comment in this thread above.


----------



## anomie (Jan 5, 2012)

bbzz said:
			
		

> The way I see it, most of the unfriendliness comes from lack of general *NIX experience, not specifically FreeBSD.



Yeah, that's right. "noob" is a potentially broad term. Someone with a substantial Solaris, HP-UX, et al. background will definitely have a softer learning curve with FreeBSD than someone with little or no background in *nix (or, worse still, no background in computing fundamentals). 

As to the original question: I feel a tech-savvy "noob" with some tenacity, willingness to learn, and free time to tinker will be pleasantly surprised with a FreeBSD desktop.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 5, 2012)

stepulka said:
			
		

> But, did I say something wrong about FreeBSD?


The question occasionally comes up as a put down of FreeBSD because it doesn't have a built-in GUI like Ubuntu or Windows as if having such a thing means a superior OS. Experienced and professional *nix users know such things are frequently an impediment to getting real work done and many also look down upon such things as just eye-candy.  And I agree.


----------



## stepulka (Jan 6, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> The question occasionally comes up as a put down of FreeBSD because it doesn't have a built-in GUI like Ubuntu or Windows as if having such a thing means a superior OS.


Yeah, if you read my post, I said that. Click-click.


			
				drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> Experienced and professional *nix users know such things are frequently an impediment to getting real work done and many also look down upon such things as just eye-candy.  And I agree.


Yes, right.


----------



## Sfynx (Jan 9, 2012)

A problem with the adoption of desktop software is also that it is heavily dependent on specific hardware abstraction layers for easy disk mounting and power management by non-privileged users and whatnot, and that the desktop developers tend to support the Linux ecosystem first. Remember when the GNOME folks abandoned HAL and went to DeviceKit. Well, that sucked, because DeviceKit was tied to udev. Which means we have to port it to our own devd first before we get the same experience the developers envisioned.

In the meantime it kind of works, but I always had more problems with things like shutting down the system from the graphical environment, while in Linux it just worked right away. A lot of users will already call it quits and return to good old Ubuntu when that happens a few times.


----------



## adam_ar (Jan 10, 2012)

Lets just agree that FreeBSD is a great OS.

Next, lets also look at what people saying "GUI" are really saying.
I feel, FreeBSD should be available for anybody who wants a good-great OS. Whether desktop or not.

The issue here is new users tend to be intimidated by the amount of tech stuff you need to do to get a desktop running. Sure, for you and me running a few commands may not be a big deal. But for a user who just wants a graphical OS it is probably too much. And if it involves figuring out why something is not working even after executing some commands handed down from the experienced messiahs, all the more demotivating.

Ok, I know it sounds simple and plain to say, "well, you want XYZ on your system, you just execute following commands and you are done". But for a non-technical user, it is probably akin to climbing Mt Everest.

At a level knowing what you are doing is probably the best thing when you are an administrator on a box serving something important (email, web, whatever). But, when it comes to a user wanting to browse the internet, edit some documents, spreadsheets, movies and listen to favorite music, s/he should be least bothered if some or the other daemon is running or not. Or which version of driver or what type of driver is being used.

I certainly don't think knowing the workings/under-the-hood-stuff is required to use an OS. Also, I don't think not knowing the workings/under-the-hood-stuff should make it difficult for a user. Just as much Jack/Jane care about the internals of engines/transmission, etc. when running his/her favorite car! You can't expect all car owners/drivers to be auto engineers!

just my 2 cents.

@Sfynx
In the GUI, you could've always opened up a terminal and typed "sudo halt<enter>"!


----------



## fonz (Jan 10, 2012)

adam_ar said:
			
		

> Just as much Jack/Jane care about the internals of engines/transmission, etc. when running his/her favorite car! You can't expect all car owners/drivers to be auto engineers!


Sure, you can drive a car without knowing what a cam shaft is, or even if you've never used a screwdriver (the tool, not the drink) in your entire life. But the reason why this works is because when the car breaks down you pull over, call the AA and they fix it for you.

Now go and inquire what it takes to learn to fly a plane (even a small one, like a Cessna 182 or something, will do) and note the difference. There's a whole lot more studying involved in obtaining a pilot's license than a driving license. And it's not just hot air, a pilot *needs* to know a certain amount of sh** in order to safely operate an aircraft.

Because of the nature of its design and the focus of its development, I'd rather liken FreeBSD to a plane than to a car. People who, for whatever good or bad reason, cannot learn a certain amount of skill and knowledge will have to content themselves with cars and leave the flying to the experts.

Fonz


----------



## adam_ar (Jan 10, 2012)

well said fonz.

I was just trying to see their point of view...


----------



## fonz (Jan 10, 2012)

adam_ar said:
			
		

> I was just trying to see their point of view...


I understand what you were trying to say, but I just couldn't resist the car-plane metaphor.

Fonz (and for what it's worth I do think there's _some_ validity to both)


----------



## vertexSymphony (Jan 10, 2012)

Yes adam and fonz, that's the overall case, but ... In some cases being an advanced/power user it's not enough ... because in cases like KMS or upstream developers doing linuxisms, the OS is the lacking one (fair or not, important to the user or not I'll leave it up to your thinking, I'm talking about non'working or limited software and that's the issue), and no "magic command" will solve that.

I love FreeBSD, since I discovered it I feel that I don't need to do more hopping between systems because FreeBSD is the one that suits almost all of my needs ... but sometimes it lacks :C

I hope some day I'll be able to contribute to the project.


----------



## fonz (Jan 10, 2012)

vertexSymphony said:
			
		

> In some cases being an advanced/power user it's not enough ... because in cases like KMS or upstream developers doing linuxisms, the OS is the lacking one


Point taken. However, as said earlier it's still a matter of priorities. If I'm not mistaken the FreeBSD Foundation is paying somebody to work on KMS, but it appears not to have a high priority with voluntary developers.

Fonz


----------



## adamk (Jan 10, 2012)

fonz said:
			
		

> Point taken. However, as said earlier it's still a matter of priorities. If I'm not mistaken the FreeBSD Foundation is paying somebody to work on KMS, but it appears not to have a high priority with voluntary developers.



They are only paying someone to work on it for Intel GPUs.

Adam


----------



## Dru (Jan 10, 2012)

Lots of users wouldn't have been happy trying to use Windows server 2003 as a desktop either, unless they knew how to configure it, and liked something clean and vanilla, without un-needed junk, as a base.

Hardware support aside. Essentially this whole convo is trying to make FreeBSD what it's not.


----------



## Slurp (Jan 10, 2012)

fonz said:
			
		

> People who, for whatever good or bad reason, cannot learn a certain amount of skill and knowledge will have to content themselves with cars and leave the flying to the experts.
> 
> Fonz


The question is why shouldn't FreeBSD be a flying car?
The 3 most popular desktop OSes(*) having together 99.x% of userbase strive to do it and for many users it makes sense. I bet that majority of noobs is there. Sure, when you know this already, making things easier has little value for you and, I guess, can be even annoying at times. But making flying as easy as possible is a noble goal that when realized would bring great benefits.
(*) I'm acutely aware that there are different Linux distros and this is not true for some of them. That's why I wrote 99.x instead of 99.9.


----------



## fonz (Jan 10, 2012)

Slurp said:
			
		

> But making flying as easy as possible is a noble goal that when realized would bring great benefits.


I hope I didn't open the floodgates with that drive-fly analogy P

But in response to the quoted statement: Yes, it's a noble goal. But it's also a mammoth task because flying is inherently more difficult (and dangerous!) than driving. And then consider that most people can't even drive a car properly; there are lots of idiots on the road and I for one sure wouldn't want them taking to the sky for the time being 

Fonz (going off now to watch Futurama)


----------



## throAU (Jan 11, 2012)

My two cents (and this is surely NOT going to be what most want to hear):  

The free Unix GUI will never be ready for "noobs" due to continual bikeshedding, and constant re-writes to cater for (or copy from Apple/Microsoft) <flavour of month> by programmers stroking their own ego.

Now ego-stroking is not always a bad thing, but when it means throwing away heaps of stuff and re-writing after every couple of years, only to have a new round of alpha/beta quality code on users' desktops - well, it's just never going to be friendly to "noobs".

I've been waiting for a decent Unix desktop since 1995.  From a GUI standpoint, Windows 95 is still more noob-usable, 16-17 years on.  There's plenty of cool stuff going on in free desktop land, but the pieces never get polished enough to be good enough.

Hence, I moved to OS X for the desktop (and FreeBSD for anything headless).


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 11, 2012)

Maybe I'm repeating myself in this thread but I'll say it again anyway. FreeBSD is not for noobs. If you you're an amateur and want some spiffy GUI like Windows, go use Windows and leave us alone. Better yet, get a Mac. But asking for clones of those on FreeBSD is out of line and off-topic. Go away. You're wasting our time and bothering us. I'm perfectly content with how things are even though I'm a bleeding edge kind of guy.


----------



## fonz (Jan 11, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm repeating myself in this thread but I'll say it again anyway. FreeBSD is not for noobs. If you you're an amateur and want some spiffy GUI like Windows, go use Windows and leave us alone. Better yet, get a Mac. But asking for clones of those on FreeBSD is out of line and off-topic. Go away. You're wasting our time and bothering us. I'm perfectly content with how things are even though I'm a bleeding edge kind of guy.


Well put. A tad harsh perhaps, but then again this is only the 256th time we're having this discussion :\

It sure is nice to see that people are interested in FreeBSD and are willing to offer suggestions to make it (from their perspective) better. However, FreeBSD is what it is and there are reasons why priorities are the way they are. When one thinks that FreeBSD is missing something, chances are that you want FreeBSD to be something it isn't. And, just to reiterate for the one-plus-infinity-th time, everybody is free (*Free*BSD) to take FreeBSD and use it as a starting point for something else by adding what you think you're missing and redistributing that as NoobBSD/NiftyBSD/KeiraKnightleyBSD/FlyingCarBSD or whatever.

Fonz


----------



## Slurp (Jan 11, 2012)

fonz said:
			
		

> But in response to the quoted statement: Yes, it's a noble goal. But it's also a mammoth task because flying is inherently more difficult (and dangerous!) than driving.


Agree. And, honestly, I'm not sure if going all after if would be the best use of limited time of FreeBSD developers. Still I don't like the "noobs, go away" approach that some here express.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 11, 2012)

Slurp said:
			
		

> Still I don't like the "noobs, go away" approach that some here express.



What I actually said was FreeBSD is not for noobs so if you are a noob/amateur, FreeBSD is not for you. Go use something else if you don't want to learn how it works. That's what Windows and Macs are for.


----------



## Zare (Jan 12, 2012)

FreeBSD is tailored for technical users. There is a difference between "user friendly" here and there, on our side user friendly means that we can grasp full control of the system, quickly diagnose what some program is doing, quickly reconfigure system mechanisms according to our needs, automatize actions with scripting, etc. While on the non-technical side, user friendly means quite opposite. They don't want to know what some program is doing in background as long as it works, they don't want to know where it installs as long as it's "one-click" installation, they don't want to learn how to tailor the system, because it's easier and faster for them to adapt to default workflow.    

If you mix those two categories you'll end up with a bastard OS full of compromise. It won't be great for average Joe's or professionals. 

Besides, what if we had a simple GUI installer and all the nifty GUI programs on installation CD? The user would be greeted with same, say KDE, shell, upon first boot, and if he doesn't fire up the terminal (and most computer users think that stuff is the Satan himself), he won't notice is it FreeBSD or Linux underneath. Pointless. Want to move away from Windows and you don't want a Mac? Download Ubuntu.

If someone really wants to learn FreeBSD, but finds it difficult, well, try harder. Learn it the way we all did. Read documentation, trial and error. Don't try to reinvent the wheel because you don't understand it.


----------



## roddierod (Jan 12, 2012)

fonz said:
			
		

> ...KeiraKnightleyBSD...



Nice!


----------



## fluca1978 (Jan 12, 2012)

We are mixing a lot of stuff here, mainly user-friendness, usability and simplicity.
Now, FreeBSD is a complex system that requires you to do your homework. Linux requires it too, but some distros make it simple doing it for you.
Windows is...well not worth writing.
Mac OSX is good and simple, with a great influence, but I refuse to use something proprietary when I can get it free (not meaning _for free_).
Why is important to have the _your-favourite-operating-system_ on the desktop? Because I feel comfortable using the terminal to see why my machine is becoming slower, or because I know I will be faster doing a tree diff from the command line than picking up a fancy GUI program. But for all the rest (web, mail, music, documents) I prefer to have a GUI. And having to spend time to do a _coarse_ tuning (allow me to say that) just to have it up and running when other systems give it for free is not desktop-prone.
I mean, FreeBSD derivates like PCBSD are great doing their job: they give you the ability to get a FreeBSD heart with some fancy stuff on top already configured. This is the direction in my opinion.


----------



## UNIXgod (Jan 12, 2012)

FreeBSD = Stick Shift Transmission
WinbunuX = Automatic

(couldn't resist )


----------



## fonz (Jan 12, 2012)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> FreeBSD = Stick Shift Transmission
> WinbunuX = Automatic


Automatic _plus_ distance-adjustable cruise control, of course. And the passenger needs to hold the wheel because the driver is too busy lighting a cigarette 

Fonz (couldn't resist either)


----------



## bbzz (Jan 12, 2012)

Zare said:
			
		

> If you mix those two categories you'll end up with a bastard OS full of compromise...



*AKA Linux.*

Thx.


----------



## throAU (Jan 13, 2012)

bbzz said:
			
		

> *AKA Linux.*
> 
> Thx.




I think that's a little unfair.

It doesn't necessarily have to be the case - I just think that the free / unpaid software development style doesn't really go hand in hand with user-friendliness/polish.

Not to say that the network tools, etc with FreeBSD or other free platforms aren't polished, but generally those who can program stuff aren't overly concerned with the last detail bits of polish once something is working and doing the required job(s) properly / efficiently.

Combine a solid unix foundation with commercial development and you can end up with stuff like NextStep or OS X, which do a lot of stuff right.  User friendly on the surface but the tools are available to get more complicated stuff done.


----------



## bbzz (Jan 13, 2012)

I know, I like to add oil to that fire sometimes.
But I wasn't far off.


----------



## calande (Jan 14, 2012)

> As far as FreeBSD as a desktop.....there is none better.



:q

For me, the most frustrating isn't the huge amount of time it takes to read the handbook, Unix basics, tutorials on forums and blogs. If once set up it worked for good, that would be the reward. But when you're a commonplace user who visits Flash web sites, who watches TV on the computer, who scans and prints documents, the necessary configuration for such usage is very sensitive and updates/upgrades very often wreak havoc with your system or applications. Your Flash window may all of the sudden become black, or disable the browser interface controls. Your DVD may not be ejectable unless you reboot your computer. Your TV board may not be recognized by the OS. Your scanner configuration may be cleared after an update. Your printer may not work anymore. Your win32 application may stop running after you update WINE. For all cases when FreeBSD doesn't do the job (anymore?), you can reboot into Windows, but it's a lot of wasted time. And anyway, you'll have to spend much of your precious time reading the documentation again, searching the web to see if other users have the same problem, if they do, try to find out if they got a solution which may or may not work for you. Another thing that is sad is that over the years you don't see improvement for the desktop, maybe because FreeBSD is aimed at server usage. Flash still causes problems (not FreeBSD's fault), hardware support is still poor (not FreeBSD's fault), applications often stop working because they interact badly one another and updates often cause damage (maybe not enough volunteers to test, report PRs and fix code). You have to read the UPDATING file beforehand. I can understand FreeBSD enthusiasts not appreciating newcomers not reading the documentation, but not everybody has time to. Some people have two jobs, a family, kids, hobbies, etc...Tell them that if they don't have time to learn how to use FreeBSD, they should use Windows or OS X, at least none of you waste your time. Also, there will always be over-enthusiatic users that pretend the system is perfect, that Flash is easy to set up, and it's solid as a rock, when you know this is just not the case, based on the number of people reporting problems and asking for help on the forum. Why not admiting that there are problems and addressing them? And if no solution is possible (e.g. hardware), say it clearly. The size of the documentation gives an idea of the complexity of the system. This huge page is _just_ the table of contents
And here's how to keep your system up-to-date. Of course there is an effort to make things more simple for users, but you have to roll up your sleeves to use FreeBSD, really! This is not necessary a bad thing. I think each user can find his OS of choice, and there is choice. Make no mistake, I want FreeBSD to thrive ; I know some hardcore enthusiasts will disagree but I had to say it!


----------



## wblock@ (Jan 14, 2012)

Your first eight sentences still make sense if "FreeBSD" is replaced with almost any other operating system.

Yes, the Handbook is huge.  It's not like it has to be memorized; kind of the opposite, in fact.  A large part of the reason for this is choice.  Things get much, much simpler if the user has no choices.

Many computer-as-an-appliance users would be better served by using PCBSD.  It's still FreeBSD underneath, but the desktop setup is already done.


----------



## SR_Ind (Jan 21, 2012)

Some old timers seem to confuse user-friendly system with usability of a system. Unless FreeBSD projects puts out a disclaimer saying that FreeBSD is an explicitly server OS, I think old timers are pushing an erroneous line here.

The FreeBSD project page says "FreeBSDÂ® is an advanced operating system for modern server, *desktop*, and embedded computer platforms". 

Considering the fact the KDE and GNOME are available in the installation disc, it should not be a too difficult to include options to install the desktops during the OS installation process itself. However that's not an ideal choice.

Either FreeBSD advertises itself as a server only OS or allocate a little effort towards bundling in GUI tools like Network Manager, Audio Mixer, Disk Mounters, Port/Package Manager et. About the latter I said "bundling in", because there are open source projects that do these stuff. There are also standalone File managers, Editors, Browser etc.

The point is the indicative list above includes tools that qualifies as basics for desktops. A selected "best of breed" set of these need to become first class citizen in FreeBSD world. By selected I mean standalone projects, not components from KDE/GNOME/XFCE etc.

I saw another thread where folks are cribbing about GNOME becoming Linux centric; one more reason to adopt a set of open source apps to put togather a FreeBSD dedicated desktop. It serves two purposes, decreasing dependence of Linux based projects and being able to provide a set of ready apps (maybe in a single meta port) to newbies. Even if they are not in installer, a single shell script could be provided to have them installed later.

Few months ago I did put together a complete desktop based on Qt. Only the Qt GUI module to keep it really streamlined with Opera as the browser.

Being a developer helps. The Qt documentation and examples (they are BSD licensed; except a few) sufficient to put together most apps. I had to get some applications from Qt-Apps. Reasonably good outcome.

I think its possible to provide a soft landing for newbies with minimum effort.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 22, 2012)

SR_Ind said:
			
		

> I think its possible to provide a soft landing for newbies with minimum effort.


Yes. It's called PC-BSD.


----------



## SR_Ind (Jan 23, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> Yes. It's called PC-BSD.



With all due respects to the tremendous effort put in the PC-BSD team, it does not meet my requirements of good system based on FreeBSD. 

I put together a lightweight desktop, precisely because of the shortcomings of PC-BSD. Unfortunately it is the shortcomings borne out of misdirected zeal. They have messed up package management system by putting in non-standard/non-FreeBSD package management system. 

Sorry, a newbie cannot deal with PC-BSD beneath the hood for package management by reading FreeBSD handbook.

You do not seem to apprecite the benefits of a dedicated desktop environment. KDE4 does not suit me. If I'm working on a IDE like QtCreator or watching a movie, I'd expect maximum CPU available to me and absence of any unnecessary disk I/O. KDE4 has messed up with inclusion of Strigi/Nepomuk and Akonadi. 

Seriously two RDBMS on a desktop system just to make some obscure features work? Two RDBMS on a "desktop" to achieve some 20%-10% use cases?

While it is possible to rip out Strigi/Nepomuk, its not so possible with Akonadi.

Why should I tolerate MySQL on my desktop? It makes worse for a developer like me that uses BSD licensed tools as far as possible. I use PostGRESql. Akonadi cannot use PGSQL, so I end up with 3 RDBMS on a laptop. 

Any case RDMBS on a laptop for desktop use is a non-starter. 

My laptop is dual-booted (Win2K8 and FBSD). WIndows 2008 is leaves behind PC-BSD in responsiveness. Of course plain FBSD with customised desktop is faster than Win2K8.

>>>

In any case "newbie" is a fuzzy term. Many people coming to FreeBSD might be actually expert computer users and they'll not have problems configuring an optimum system for themselves. 
I'm not counting in casual enthusiasts, even for experienced people when they come to FreeBSD and get referred to PC-BSD etc. is a very bad advertisement. It is worse than no advertisement.


----------



## izotov (Jan 23, 2012)

Hi,
My experience is that FreeBSD is just all right for a desktop. My home laptop is running 9.0-RELEASE with Gnome. I am satisfied with it.


----------



## bbzz (Jan 23, 2012)

@SR_Ind

You need to reread post #48 in this thread.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 23, 2012)

bbzz said:
			
		

> @SR_Ind
> 
> You need to reread post #48 in this thread.



ditto


----------



## SR_Ind (Jan 23, 2012)

bbzz said:
			
		

> @SR_Ind
> 
> You need to reread post #48 in this thread.


Whoever posted that and the people cheering him do not understand release engineering nor they understand target audience segmentation.

Allow me to explain it to you why.

My comment is based on my professional experience in product lines as software engineer to product line manager for last 15 years. My professional is entirely with two European telecom equipment manufactures, one German and another Swedish. They know their business.

I've seen single product being sold at different prices with functions enabled as per various geographies or business requirements/paying capacity of the customer.

Marketing team never comes to the R&D/Engineering to have gazillion versions of the product they wish to sell. This is agreed between the product manager and the marketing guys. The bundling and packaging is done by the release engineering team. 

To explain it in more simpler terms, no R&D/Engineering is ever asked to produce a "bastardized" product. A decided set of features (as per roadmap) always exists. Out of that superset of features, subsets are built for targeted audiences. 

So, you see the R&D sticks to its long term roadmap. They don't need to "bastardize" anything. The marketing, product management and release/implementation towards packaging as various target audiences, i.e. maximizing the spread.  

Now let me take the analogy to FreeBSD. The FreeBSD installation CD/DVD contains everything you need for a desktop. This means the engineering/R&D (developers of kernel/base/ports) have done their job. I'd say the release engineering is half way there. 

What's missing? The choice to install some pre-configured apps right from the first run installer. 

The "bastard"/"mixed" comment is very interesting. The poster says FreeBSD is for technical users and some even say FreeBSD is for servers. If that is so, for servers one would expect to have complete stack available on the initial system. So, when will a BSD licensed HTTP server make it to the base? Or even a RDBMS? For developers, what libraries and tools are available out of the box?

Nothing about FreeBSD per se, it is great project carried forward by an awesome team. As an user I'm aware of their resource limitations and I'm grateful for whatever they are about to release every year.

What's unpleasant is the attitude of some people (that wishes best for FreeBSD) that get defensive whenever wish-lists come up and the unsustainable arguments they forward to rationalize the current state of affair.


----------



## roddierod (Jan 23, 2012)

Does anyone remember the instant-workstation and instant-server meta ports from way back in the day?

Perhaps something like that needs to be brought back from the dead? Although that would probably cause more issues than not since people work just argue over should it be gnome, kde or any other DE,WM.

It seems to me that when core developers went to Apple all this chaos of focus seem to start. It could just be my perception.


----------



## SR_Ind (Jan 23, 2012)

roddierod said:
			
		

> Does anyone remember the instant-workstation and instant-server meta ports from way back in the day?


I was not aware of this. If this true then one cannot but admire the long term goals and foresightedness of the core team.



			
				roddierod said:
			
		

> Perhaps something like that needs to be brought back from the dead? Although that would probably cause more issues than not since people work just argue over should it be *gnome, kde or any other DE,WM*.
> 
> It seems to me that when core developers went to Apple all this chaos of focus seem to start. It could just be my perception.


True. Something like "for every type of app, BSD licensed app first" policy could be an acceptable solution to all.


----------



## roddierod (Jan 23, 2012)

SR_Ind said:
			
		

> I was not aware of this. If this true then one cannot but admire the long term goals and foresightedness of the core team.



It hasn't been around since 2006, http://www.freshports.org/misc/instant-workstation/

If I remember correctly, it was created and maintained by Groggy.
I recall it from the 4.x series I think it was when I tried it.


----------



## bbzz (Jan 23, 2012)

SR_Ind said:
			
		

> Now let me take the analogy to FreeBSD. The FreeBSD installation CD/DVD contains everything you need for a desktop. This means the engineering/R&D (developers of kernel/base/ports) have done their job. I'd say the release engineering is half way there.
> 
> What's missing? The choice to install some pre-configured apps right from the first run installer.



But why? The work needed to install required apps is minimal at best. And you missed the point of that other post. If someone needs basic help for installing apps than maybe this OS just isn't the right place, yet.



> The "bastard"/"mixed" comment is very interesting. The poster says FreeBSD is for technical users and some even say FreeBSD is for servers. If that is so, for servers one would expect to have complete stack available on the initial system. So, when will a BSD licensed HTTP server make it to the base? Or even a RDBMS? For developers, what libraries and tools are available out of the box?



That's just taking it out of the context; sorry I don't agree with this. Are you saying that what makes one OS a great platform for servers is the fact that it comes preinstalled with needed apps and libraries? Sorry.

I like the way things are. Whether you want to go for server deployment or desktop use, there's a clear cut separation between what constitutes a solid base and what is an additional software.


----------



## SR_Ind (Jan 23, 2012)

bbzz said:
			
		

> But why? The work needed to install required apps is minimal at best. And you missed the point of that other post. If someone needs basic help for installing apps than maybe this OS just isn't the right place, yet.


Why? Finishing. Great many products lose out to competition because of this. Yes the last mile effort is always the difficult part.




			
				bbzz said:
			
		

> That's just taking it out of the context; sorry I don't agree with this. Are you saying that what makes one OS a great platform for servers is the fact that it comes preinstalled with needed apps and libraries? Sorry.


Its not out of context. It is the fit and finish or lack of completeness of it that prevents an readily usable server or desktop configuration. 



			
				bbzz said:
			
		

> I like the way things are. Whether you want to go for server deployment or desktop use, there's a clear cut separation between what constitutes a solid base and what is an additional software.


Perfectly agreed. Lets atleast be consistent. If a FTP server and SSH server merits placement in the base, so does a HTTP server (and many other network tools, a running SNMP agent for example), unless the OS restricts itself to network devices.

Newbies are not just desktop users, they are also server users and developers. Fit and finish helps all. Many of us have to work in a restricted IT environments, behind firewalls. cannot install ports and packages whenever we like. So comment on server setup is not out of context, its related.


----------



## NewGuy (Jan 23, 2012)

*Pc-bsd*



			
				SR_Ind said:
			
		

> With all due respects to the tremendous effort put in the PC-BSD team, it does not meet my requirements of good system based on FreeBSD.
> 
> I put together a lightweight desktop, precisely because of the shortcomings of PC-BSD. Unfortunately it is the shortcomings borne out of misdirected zeal. They have messed up package management system by putting in non-standard/non-FreeBSD package management system.
> 
> ...




With respect to you, SR_Ind, I think you should try a more recent version of PC-BSD. PC-BSD 9 supports several desktop environments, not just KDE. GNOME, Xfce and LXDE are available on the install media. Plus it's possible to use common window managers, like OpenBox, if you don't like the heavier environments.

PC-BSD's PBI package system is a bit different from FreeBSD's, but you don't have to use it. Since PC-BSD is really just a layer on top of FreeBSD, you can use the Ports system and the freebsdupdate tool if you want, rather than deal with PBIs. Or, for that matter, you can go the other way and use PBIs pretty much exclusively.

Most of your complaints with the OS seem to stem from KDE, but since there are plenty of other environments available and no need to use KDE I think it would be worth taking another go at the project.


----------



## SR_Ind (Jan 24, 2012)

NewGuy said:
			
		

> With respect to you, SR_Ind, I think you should try a more recent version of PC-BSD. PC-BSD 9 supports several desktop environments, not just KDE. GNOME, Xfce and LXDE are available on the install media. Plus it's possible to use common window managers, like OpenBox, if you don't like the heavier environments.
> 
> PC-BSD's PBI package system is a bit different from FreeBSD's, but you don't have to use it. Since PC-BSD is really just a layer on top of FreeBSD, you can use the Ports system and the freebsdupdate tool if you want, rather than deal with PBIs. Or, for that matter, you can go the other way and use PBIs pretty much exclusively.
> 
> Most of your complaints with the OS seem to stem from KDE, but since there are plenty of other environments available and no need to use KDE I think it would be worth taking another go at the project.


Thanks, I'd like to give it a try on my home desktop. BTW, my choice of alternative WM has been Fluxbox.
Yes, its true my complaints vis-a-vis PC-BSD is related to KDE4. To be particular, the requirement of MySQL for Akonadi is a turn off.


----------



## lele (Sep 10, 2012)

asifnaz said:
			
		

> As it does not come with GUI installer



It *does* come with a GUI installer.  It's a console-based GUI, but  a GUI nevertheless.



			
				asifnaz said:
			
		

> I come here and ask how to install freebsd FreeBSD with GUI DE (like gnome). I am asked to read handbook which is a bit beyond my skills.



Can't you read? ;-)

I'm a newcomer to FreeBSD like you.  I'm not sticking around because my laptop - a Thinkpad X201 - does not support FreeBSD (no suspend/resume, poor battery life) and the window managers I'm interested to target GNU/Linux.  I have found Gnome to be quirky, and that made me suspect that albeit there are a lot of packages ported to FreeBSD, they aren't thoroughly tested (how could they be, given the small community?)

I'm sad because I fell in love with the simplicity of the system and its documentation compared to GNU/Linux, but worse is better here like somewhere else.  However, I've found that the Handbook looks more scary than it really is.  I've found FreeBSD easier to install that PC/BSD... go figure.  There will be glitches in the installation, so have a backup PC around to search the Internet for solutions to issues.

Keep up the good work.


----------



## fluca1978 (Sep 11, 2012)

I believe some efforts to learn the operating system is required for any OS. The difference here is that a lot of OSs manuals have only pictures, the FreeBSD handbook has text. 
Moreover, every user that approaches FreeBSD (or any other OS not for dummies) should first try to understand the culture.


----------



## lele (Sep 11, 2012)

fluca1978 said:
			
		

> I believe some efforts to learn the operating system is required for any OS. The difference here is that a lot of OSs manuals have only pictures, the FreeBSD handbook has text.



And which approach you think is more noob-friendly?  Hint: the one followed by companies that sell OSes for noobs.



> Moreover, every user that approaches FreeBSD (or any other OS not for dummies) should first try to understand the culture.



But how do you learn about the culture?  The Handbook has no chapter about it ;-) How do you know FreeBSD is not for dummies?  Everyone raves about how its well-written extensive documentation, doesn't she?  Jokes apart, if people were told what to expect beforehand, they would have no reasons to complain.

Yes, newcomers have expectations, and if you are a wordly person you will be aware of that and if it is the case, make newcomers aware that such expectations will not be met.  Maybe a chapter targeting users coming from Windows or GNU/Linux is in order?  I wish I were told upfront that with FreeBSD: my laptop was likely to be crippled and have poor battery life, that having an encrypted hard drive was a job for experts, that having a package available did not mean such package would work, that I was expected to configure *everything* by hand, and so forth...  I was told I was going to give up Flash Player and Adobe
Reader, but I was OK with that.

My judgement is that FreeBSD is an OS for sysadmins, or aspiring sysadmins. Whener you read about using FreeBSD on the desktop, it means on the desktop of sysadmins.  Even the PC-BSD installer, which is advertised as the FreeBSD for the masses, is awkward for noobs.  No wonder about it: iXsystems sells servers, hence I infer that the installer was put together by a sysadmin.  Unbelievable as it may be, I found installing FreeBSD much easier than PC-BSD. And with FreeBSD the wireless worked out of the box, whereas with PC-BSD it didn't... However with FreeBSD, Gnome was buggy (or misconfigured, I didn't investigate further), whilst with PC-BSD it was KDE the buggy one.

Many people are noobs when it comes to operating systems.  If they find too many obstacles upfront, they will give up. Heck! After four years on Debian, dealing with configuration scripts and compiling custom kernels, I threw up with FreeBSD. FreeBSD requires too much technical knowledge upfront. With Debian, and Ubuntu before it, I was able to work my way from noob to power-user step by step.  With FreeBSD this is not the case, and yes, I tried PC-BSD, too.

I hope you will not take this post as whining, because it isn't.  I see that the FreeBSD community is friendly and helpful, but you are techies and as such The Curse of Knowledge is upon you and it will always make you unaware of the stumbling blocks an non-techie faces ;-)

All the best.


----------



## jrl1357 (Sep 12, 2012)

just use PC-BSD.. even comes with gnome, xfce, and lxde in the dvd edition. not that big of a deal. however, you should be a real man and just get used to a setting things up in a cli. freebsd is a simple, stable, bsd unix (-like, if your really going to say that) operating system that lets the user set the system up exactly they way they want it with no other bloat (cough* buntu *cough) i've had a few problems on a desktop but nothing a little of work and some help here didn't fix in a very small amount of time.


----------



## throAU (Sep 12, 2012)

I think a huge cause of many of the problems of being user unfriendly is the hacker culture surrounding the free Unix circle.

Next / Apple proved that is is quite possible to make a user friendly unix, and in a fairly short time frame - given the *motivation *and a *clear direction.*

Unfortunately free software by it's nature is driven by individual developers with an itch to scratch and the level of co-ordination required to get something like say, OS X or NextStep done just isn't there.  We can't even agree on a standard filesystem layout, init system, desktop UI toolkit, etc.

Continually having to learn a new UI (be it GUI, configuration file format, etc.) is simply not user friendly.


----------



## wblock@ (Sep 12, 2012)

"User friendly" is subjective.  Usually what people mean when they say that is "looks and works like Windows".  Even that is not consistent, because in Windows there are generally three or four different ways to get to a menu entry or program option, and not even a common default used by most people.

Subjectively, I find FreeBSD's consistency to be pretty friendly.


----------



## lele (Sep 12, 2012)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> "User friendly" is subjective.  Usually what people mean when they say that is "looks and works like Windows".  Even that is not consistent, because in Windows there are generally three or four different ways to get to a menu entry or program option, and not even a common default used by most people.
> 
> Subjectively, I find the FreeBSD's consistency to be pretty friendly.



"User-friendly" is subjective according to who the user is: beginner or power user.  I'd say FreeBSD is very user-friendly towards power users, less so regarding beginners.  FreeBSD forces you to deal with technicalities even when reasonable defaults are available.  Beginner-friendly systems avoid that.  For instance, neither Windows nor OS X nor Ubuntu ask you what desktop manager you want to use; they go for a default one.  With FreeBSD, the facilities for beginner-friendliness are there, it's just a matter of polishing.  And no, making FreeBSD more beginner-friendly wouldn't hurt power users.

To beginners, what matters is a discoverable UI, that is a menu-based taskbar in  a window manager.  KDE, Gnome, Xfce offer that already and I'd argue they are more beginner-friendly than recent versions of Windows (after Windows XP, the UI has become so bloated that it is not noob-friendly anymore).

For instance, a beginner-friendly setup would offer two options at the beginning: expert mode and beginner mode.  Beginner mode would ask as few questions as possible.  It's also a matter of avoiding technical terms, for instance why does a user must be acquainted with IPv4 and IPv6?  Just say "Internet configuration".

Again, I've tried PC-BSD and ***it is not*** beginner-friendly and, on top of that, KDE and Gnome were buggy (maybe this is a problem for FreeBSD, too, because such desktop environments are Linux-centric).  I've posted on the PC-BSD forums regarding this.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 12, 2012)

Adding to what Warren brought up, consistency is the building block of a good user interface no matter the difficulty of the underlying item.


----------



## atmosx (Sep 12, 2012)

<off topic> I wonder how long this discussion would have last on IRC pre-web 2.0 </off topic>

If a user cares so much about user-friendliness, he should run far and away and buy a mac. End of the story, once he needs 'more' or 'less', he can start learning one thing or two about computers. That's my opinion of course not any sort of universal truth... FreeBSD is as friendly as it gets imho.


----------

