# About the freebsd product, please take seriously.



## smartly (Mar 30, 2009)

about this product, i'm very like freebsd os, Even loves.

I have discovered several points very important questions. 


*start system speed.*
Now needs the time is too long. 
*The system initiation demonstration effect is very bad.*
Needs the color and the screen display 1280x800 support(Example..), is similar in gentoo such. 
*console color support!*
The user needs a kind control bench color support, add some code to /etc/csh.cshrc:
setenv LSCOLORS ExGxFxdxCxegedabagExEx
setenv CLICOLOR yes
(Example..)
*Quicker software update*
Gnome 2.26 is release, but only found gnome 2.24 in ports.(Example..)

Certainly these were the better pursue perfect idea, freebsd were very already safe, was very much user-friendly, but insufficient, we must diligently. 

I come from ITBBS.cn, Waiting reply.

thanks!

Brian Zou, 2009 year.


----------



## sossego (Mar 30, 2009)

1. Don't know
2. Depends on Xorg which is separate from Freebsd.
3. Don't know.
4. You can always install from outside of the ports tree provided that you have the dependencies and know what to do.


----------



## fronclynne (Mar 30, 2009)

*I'm rambling, sorry*



			
				sossego said:
			
		

> 2. Depends on Xorg which is separate from Freebsd.


I think he's talking about the console.  Linux framebuffer is, from a "hey, it just works" p.o.v., quite nice, really.  FreeBSD has VESA stuff (vidcontrol && allscreens_flags in /etc/rc.conf) but only(?) in i386.

Wow, I just remembered trying to install freebsd 4.1.1 alpha on a multia/udb back in . . . err, whenever 4.1.1 was new.  It was in the early stages of the famous multia heat death and my attempts did not fare well.

That was apropos of trying to remember if alphas had something other than a plain ol' 80x25 console.

Anyway, I used to used MODE_268 or something when I used i386.


----------



## SirDice (Mar 30, 2009)

1) that depends on your system, mine boots up quicker then XP
2) properly configure Xorg
3) It's your choice to use colors, why push it onto everyone?
4) It's being worked on. We don't want to rush it and break things that aren't part of GNOME


----------



## smartly (Mar 30, 2009)

SirDice said:
			
		

> 1) that depends on your system, mine boots up quicker then XP
> 2) properly configure Xorg
> 3) It's your choice to use colors, why push it onto everyone?
> 4) It's being worked on. We don't want to rush it and break things that aren't part of GNOME



*1* my system start is very high speed, but this system is debian(ubuntu)+ext4 filesystem.
*2* is not in Xorg, this is console, Better prominent demonstration start clause is important.(I thought.)
*3* Use color is to differentiate type the document(is file? is dir? is execution?).
*4* an Example, Whether to have the necessity to strengthen pkg_add, looks like apt-get such.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Mar 30, 2009)

> start system speed.
> Now needs the time is too long.



How long does your system take to boot then? Is it hanging for a long time on any kernel or rc message?



> The system initiation demonstration effect is very bad.
> Needs the color and the screen display 1280x800 support(Example..), is similar in gentoo such.



FreeBSD has some basic 800x600 VESA mode support for i386 only, this is not a priority and it will be very unlikly FreeBSD will have a framebuffer like Linux in the forseeable future.

Not do I expect that FreeBSD will have a colorful `christmas tree' boot procedure that Linux has, most FreeBSD users and devs prefer the simple and functional display (foolproof!) that FreeBSD currently uses.

If you really want to, there is a patch to make the rc process more colorful/Linux-like, I saw it fly by on the current@ list about a year ago ... Don't know how stable it is or if it works with FreeBSD 7.

Basically, If you want fancy graphics, use Xorg.



> console color support!
> The user needs a kind control bench color support, add some code to /etc/csh.cshrc:
> setenv LSCOLORS ExGxFxdxCxegedabagExEx
> setenv CLICOLOR yes
> (Example..)



The scons console support 16 colors (ANSI), xterm can be compiled with 256 color support.

I'm not sure what the problem is here, that it's not enabled by default? This is a matter which has been trolled to death, but it comes down to that the FreeBSD default configuration is aimed more at being simple&foolproof, rather than fancy&not-so-foolproof (As Linux is).
Both approaches have their merits, FreeBSD uses this one, this is not going to change.



> Quicker software update
> Gnome 2.26 is release, but only found gnome 2.24 in ports.(Example..)



Porting software is not easy, and it is very time-consuming to make updates smooth&painless, this is why software updates always lag behind, especially for big project like gnome, many ports depend on gnome and the gnome porting people want to make sure nothing breaks.

And hey, it's still more up to date than Debian!


----------



## Mel_Flynn (Mar 30, 2009)

For the gnome part, it's more of a gnome issue then FreeBSD ports. Gnome is horror for package managers, no matter the OS.


----------



## rghq (Mar 30, 2009)

smartly said:
			
		

> *The system initiation demonstration effect is very bad.*
> Needs the color and the screen display 1280x800 support(Example..), is similar in gentoo such.



Fast booting is maybe better than a Framebuffer device with VESA support that needs to be initialized. Maybe consider using a splash until X came up.
For a text console different resolutions are maybe useless, X is already doing this. 



			
				smartly said:
			
		

> *console color support!*
> The user needs a kind control bench color support, add some code to /etc/csh.cshrc



Why not install "gnuls" from the ports and set an alias ? A colored prompt is possible as well with escape sequences


----------



## SeanC (Mar 30, 2009)

> *start system speed.*


Custom kernel, anyone?


> *The system initiation demonstration effect is very bad.*


I strongly disagree. The information displayed upon boot is valuable. I despise how some linux distros hide this. Besides, if your system is hanging somewhere on boot, like Carpetsmoker rightly suggests, you might be able to see it.


> *console color support!*


Why? The information is still the same.


> *Quicker software update*


Feel free to help out the maintainers of the ports and packages. Besides, I would rather a older, stable version than a newer, potentially unstable, version of software XYZ.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Mar 30, 2009)

SeanC said:
			
		

> Custom kernel, anyone?


Even then, what's going on here? Even my old PIII starts up faster than XP and Vista on my wife's notebook.


> Why? The information is still the same.


And coloring it adds nothing and takes away from developer time for things that do matter.


----------



## fronclynne (Mar 31, 2009)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> Even my old PIII starts up faster than XP and Vista on my wife's notebook.


10-4.  Probing the built-in card reader takes more time than the rest of boot, which is freaky fast and at _least_ 40 seconds faster than vista was.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Mar 31, 2009)

On my machine XP actually boots faster than FreeBSD 7.
But who cares about a few seconds of boot time if the system runs much faster (Which FreeBSD does)?


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Mar 31, 2009)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> But who cares about a few seconds of boot time if the system runs much faster (Which FreeBSD does)?


Exactly. There seems to be so much concern with boot times of OSes and browsers around forums on the 'net lately for who knows what reason.


----------



## foldingstock (Mar 31, 2009)

XP boots faster than any of my *nix systems. This is because XP boots to the desktop before all services have finished loading, thus you boot to the desktop in 17 seconds and then get an hour glass and a generally un-responsive system for the next minute or two. 

On the nix side, I don't get to the system until all services have finished loading. This makes booting "feel" longer, but I get to a responsive system that I can actually use quicker. 

To be perfectly honest, boot time doesn't really bother me unless it is obnoxiously long (greater than 2-3 minutes), which I haven't experienced on any of my own systems in some time.


----------



## hedwards (Mar 31, 2009)

SeanC said:
			
		

> Why? The information is still the same.


FreeBSD has supported a color console for many years, most people just don't care enough to set it up.

I just added this to my .cshrc file and was good to go.

```
alias ls     ls -G
```

But I do agree, that it's not really that helpful, it's mostly nice because it gives a bit more information about the type of file without being too wordy. Really not necessary.


			
				drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> And coloring it adds nothing and takes away from developer time for things that do matter.


Not really, as I pointed out earlier in my post, FreeBSD has supported it for at least 10 years. For whatever reason nobody's bothered to spend the couple seconds that it would take to change the default .cshrc files or the ls command to default to it.

I'd assume that it causes problems on a small number of desktops or that nobody really cares about it. I'd suspect the latter.


----------



## fronclynne (Mar 31, 2009)

*Blue doesn't focus well*



			
				hedwards said:
			
		

> For whatever reason nobody's bothered to spend the couple seconds that it would take to change the default .cshrc files or the ls command to default to it.
> 
> I'd assume that it causes problems on a small number of desktops or that nobody really cares about it. I'd suspect the latter.


Traditionalism?

Coloured ls is annoying to me, I certainly don't want colour as the default for root.  I'd just have to go to the extra work of editing _ye pertinent filen_ every time I did a new install to remove it, and for me it's better that such (trivial) effort be put on the shoulders of those who want it, rather than those who don't.

To end on a positive note:  submit a patch to have a commented sexion added to /usr/share/skel/dot.cshrc with a line like
	
	



```
# To enable vile, satanic coloured terminal noises uncomment the following lines:
```


----------



## hedwards (Mar 31, 2009)

I suppose, but to be honest, I don't really care one way or the other, and I get the sense that most people don't care either.

My only point was that it's been in there for quite a while and could be enabled with basically no effort.


----------



## tingo (Mar 31, 2009)

smartly said:
			
		

> about this product, i'm very like freebsd os, Even loves.
> 
> I have discovered several points very important questions.



FreeBSD is not a "product" - it is a tool.
If the tool does not work the way you want, you can change the way it works, or find another tool.


----------



## smartly (Apr 3, 2009)

Example(Booting) picture:


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Apr 3, 2009)

I know how booting Linux looks -- It looks like a christmas tree and I every time I see it I can't stop thinking about Jingle bells.

The FreeBSD rc script display is simple, functional, effective, and foolproof -- Just as we FreeBSD people like it.

As I mentioned before, if you want a Linux-like boot display, there are patches, no support&seatbelts provided though.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Apr 3, 2009)

If there's one place I don't like to see dumbed down, it's the boot sequence.


----------



## smartly (Apr 5, 2009)

filesystem is zfs(boot), Mainly in Screen resolution.

drivers support, network and others!


----------



## Graaf_van_Vlaanderen (Apr 5, 2009)

smartly said:
			
		

> filesystem is zfs(boot), Mainly in Screen resolution.
> 
> drivers support, network and others!



Then I suggest you should compare with FreeBSD's own filesystem.

I have basically three servers setup with FreeBSD and they all boot and shutdown like lightning.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Apr 7, 2009)

Booted INSERT Linux LiveCD today at work, and here's why FreeBSD does *not* have stupid framebuffer support enabled by default:

http://83.161.253.7/images/Photo0109.jpg
http://83.161.253.7/images/Photo0112.jpg

It's a bit hard to see on the picture, but notice how the first few characters on the left side of the screen disappear?

More important however, the font is almost unreadable ugly, there are horizontal striped and it is very difficult to read (Especially the ifconfig output).

Maybe it can be configured to sensible settings, but it is very different from FreeBSD, which **just works** out of the box.


----------



## graudeejs (Apr 7, 2009)

1) FreeBSD boots faster then any Win, not to mention linux on my pc.
The only time linux actually beat FreeBSD on my PC was when i was experimenting with initng and einit.

2) use X.
If you care about speed as much as i do, use FVWM.
After i startx i can't surf web in 3-5s (on Pentium 4 3GHz)

Why do you need picture in console? Does it help working?

3) colorful ls sux in console. It makes your eyes bleed when you read names of directories, because they are dark blue (by default).

It's not hard to enable and/or change this behavior.

4) Sooner or later it'll be updated. Imagine yourself compiling Gnome or KDE or OOO3 when it breaks in middle or at end of process. I prefer to get latest software later, then waste energy trying to compile.


----------



## smartly (Apr 7, 2009)

starts in freebsd the time screen's resolution high easy to look at some details.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Apr 7, 2009)

smartly said:
			
		

> starts in freebsd the time screen's resolution high easy to look at some details.




I have no idea what this means ...


----------



## ossnet (Apr 8, 2009)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> it is very different from FreeBSD, which **just works** out of the box.



Work out of the box if you like using old apps and ports

I've been tring to build the latest gnome and have had nothing but problems


----------



## fronclynne (Apr 8, 2009)

The only thing that actually works "out of the box" is the suckling reflex.



Pun intended.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Apr 8, 2009)

ossnet said:
			
		

> Carpetsmoker said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You mean the latest gnome from ports or the latest source download from the gnome site?

The version in ports is not old, although it is not the newest version either, but it takes time&manpower to port applications, especially big&complicated applications like gnome.
Also consider that gnome is primarily developed for Linux, and that porting it to FreeBSD takes additional time&effort.

The fact that the latest gnome is *not* in the ports collection is exactly in line with my point earlier, better a slightly older version that works well and is stable, then a newer version which is buggy and doesn't work as stable.


----------



## DrJ (Apr 10, 2009)

I had no issues installing Gnome 2.24 a few weeks ago.  I had a few bugs and daemon issues that I had to track down, but the compile itself went fine.

Gnome 2.26.0 is out, but I'd strongly advise you to wait until the .1 release if history is any guide.  The .0 releases usually has a lot of bugs.


----------



## mwatkins (Apr 11, 2009)

smartly said:
			
		

> [*]*Quicker software update*
> Gnome 2.26 is release, but only found gnome 2.24 in ports.(Example..)



Have you looked at Debian lately? Talk about behind the times. Yeah, I know, that is "by design" but in some cases  you'll find packages with security issues still at old levels when they should be advanced to newer releases.

FreeBSD port maintainers seem to be on to such issues, at least with commonly used software, a little bit faster.

I've been using FreeBSD for more than 10 years now; recently had to take on managing some Debian (latest, "Lenny / 5.0") management and I'm frequently finding FreeBSD ports to be much more up to date.

I like ports.

And when I need something newer, working directly with the source of the source is fine with me.

As for booting and such - I'm of no opinion. Many of my machines only get booted once a year or however frequently I need to do an OS update for security reasons.


----------



## mwatkins (Apr 12, 2009)

smartly said:
			
		

> Example(Booting) picture:



Tell me - how does this screen - devoid of actual information - enhance the computing experience?

It is Unix. Embrace it. Don't fear the daemon.

(I realize the Blue Oyster Cult reference is going to make no sense in this cross-cultural discussion but... I like the song.)


----------



## SirDice (Apr 13, 2009)

ossnet said:
			
		

> Work out of the box if you like using old apps and ports
> 
> I've been tring to build the latest gnome and have had nothing but problems



Works fine here

http://www.freshports.org/x11/gnome2/
http://www.freebsd.org/gnome/


----------



## LateNiteTV (Apr 13, 2009)

i installed gnome from ports and it works just fine. i dont know why you absolutely have to have 2.26. you can upgrade from 2.24.

colored ls and all that crap... whats the point? if you look about 2 inches to the left, you can tell by the first field in the file permissions what it is, executable, directory, whatever.

like other people have said, the boot messages are exactly what 99% of freebsd users want. so i dont see it being changed any time soon. you CAN have a bootsplash if you want.

boot time... someone already said, configure a custom kernel so it wont be loading all those unnecessary modules and your boot time will improve.


----------



## LateNiteTV (Apr 13, 2009)

i did have a problem with gnome, but after i edited /etc/hosts everything works fine.


----------



## smartly (Apr 15, 2009)

The anticipation, hoped that official can take these.


----------



## gnemmi (Apr 20, 2009)

I just really need _native_ UTF-8 support (and no .. works around are a no go).. that's all ...

Although getting a higher screen res on boot (vidcontrol && allscreens_flags in /etc/rc.conf works only after boot sequence completed) wouldn't hurt either .. but it just isn't imperative for me as fully native UTF-8 is

If you want some color in your boot messages, recompile your kernel and make good use of the vesa options:


```
# Vesa support and options
options     VESA            # Soporte para VESA (man sc)
options     SC_PIXEL_MODE   # syscons res
options     SC_NORM_ATTR=(FG_WHITE|BG_BLACK) # The normal text will be white on black background
#options     SC_KERNEL_CONS_ATTR=(FG_LIGHTRED|BG_BLACK) # Kernel message will be printed red on black
options     SC_KERNEL_CONS_ATTR=(FG_WHITE|BG_RED) # Kernel message will be white on red background
```

Take a look at the sc(4) pages.


----------



## phoenix (Apr 21, 2009)

There are people working on UTF-8 support for the console driver.  It may make it into 8.0.


----------



## gnemmi (Apr 23, 2009)

Well that's good news then!

Thanks for letting me know about it phoenix 

Is there a link or a wip page somewhere about that?

Regards


----------



## phoenix (Apr 23, 2009)

I don't think there's a progress page anywhere, but I've never looked for one. There are several long threads on the freebsd-current@ mailing list.  You can search the archives (link in .sig below) for more details.


----------



## gnemmi (Apr 23, 2009)

Will do !
Thanks again phoenix


----------

