# FreeBSD first overview versus using Linux



## andreyves (Jan 6, 2014)

Hi folks, I was just testing out for the first time FreeBSD 10.0 today. I am coming from the Linux world and have been using Linux for around 4-5 years. Some people will ask why I did a move to FreeBSD. I will start with what features I do expect from an operating system in 2014:

Pros

Full disk encryption, if it is not even an option at the setup, then just forget about it, not even done for professional computing.
Fonts, fonts are ugly on Linux, I tried to fix them for hours since years.
Hardware support stability (unplug headset and have to restart the X server?), that is bad, but I do not have this issue on FreeBSD.
Good documentation on how to configure stuff.

Cons

The installation is only available in text mode, what about if I am a loser using FreeBSD? 
Hands on, I had some fun around getting the Nvidia driver to run out of the box. Once done, I did say a few F*** because the mouse and keyboard were not working. I had to install some extra package.
Sound was not working out of the box. F*** again, but I found the solution.

This thread is not intended to create a flamewar, it is more to give feedback about what I would like to see in the next few years (GUI installer, better Nvidia support and more automatic X configuration). After going through this pain one time, once everything is configured, the system is super stable, super secure and I am very happy with it! To terminate this, I've been out the Windows world since more than five years .


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jan 6, 2014)

Welcome!

That said, I'm not sure what could possibly be achieved in a thread making comparisons and wishing for features. For example, in the case of a GUI installer, I'm an old fart and can't read pictographs very well (my eyes aren't so good) so typing works better for me - hence the command line. So you see, I'm hoping for the opposite vision of the future. This sort of thing isn't really something that one can discuss. Like they say: "De gustibus non est disputandum."


----------



## andreyves (Jan 6, 2014)

I agree as well that sometimes a GUI installer sucks. I wanted more to say that I would like to have the choice at the boot menu to either do a GUI install or a text install. On servers a GUI install when you use the console is bad as well for me , but when you are a new user (I mean non-experienced users, which I am not part of), then you need something more intuitive to be able to use this operating system as a desktop OS. However, I love to charlenge _[change? challenge? -- mod.]_ things, are there any Windows users able to install their own Windows? Finally, text install is probably good then.


----------



## andreyves (Jan 6, 2014)

What I am amazed the most about is the font rendering. This is the first time that fonts are not sucking. When you use a 32 inch monitor, you see really fast when fonts are crappy.


----------



## andreyves (Jan 6, 2014)

Have some fun with Flash: https://www.dan.me.uk/blog/2010/09/26/i ... freebsd-8/

It was easy to install for a power user, at leat fleash least Flash is getting discontinued soon.


----------



## andreyves (Jan 6, 2014)

So what I really want to show here is that first I am a power user, I am a Sys Admin sysadmin and I am able to do alot a lot to get stuff working, but what FreeBSD is missing out on, as well as Linux, is to get it working for the losers.


----------



## nakal (Jan 6, 2014)

Consider FreeBSD as a distribution for experienced users and they want exactly the opposite: they don't want to be considered as dumb people. We have a dilemma here.

For me, too, nothing is more annoying than reducing complexity of a system, by sacrificing choices that people might need. That's a dumb approach which will make me change a system soon.

A graphical installer would be nice (but mostly for people who like visually appealing software). It does not dumb down the system, but FreeBSD has problems with graphics drivers support at the moment; for a very long moment (since years). So text mode is a better choice for now. Secondly, a graphical installer cannot be the primary option, because many people install FreeBSD on hardware that does not have a graphics adapter.

Also, don't forget that there are FreeBSD sub-distributions like PC-BSD or GhostBSD that also exist for the dumber part of the world.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 6, 2014)

@nakal brought up the real issue. If you have a GUI installer, what happens if your graphics card doesn't work? Then it's one more issue to fix before you can install or you have to use text mode anyway. So just use text mode and get things working first.


----------



## tzoi516 (Jan 6, 2014)

I don't know if I would call the typical user a "loser" or "dumb" - I've met a lot of people who didn't know a lot about computers but they knew more about other things than I did.

That being said, GUIs are where the future is at - I used to love my 27" CRT TV and remember playing "Halo" co-op with three other people on it. Then I bought an HDTV. I'm also not going to demand from people who develop FreeBSD on their own time to give me what I want - it's that "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" thing.


----------



## protocelt (Jan 6, 2014)

tzoi516 said:
			
		

> I don't know if I would call the typical user a "loser" or "dumb" - I've met a lot of people who didn't know a lot about computers but they knew more about other things than I did.
> 
> I'm also not going to demand from people who develop FreeBSD on their own time to give me what I want - it's that "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" thing.



I am in complete agreement with both of the above statements. 

As always, use the best tool for the job at hand that works best for you. If FreeBSD fits that bill it's a most excellent choice. If not there is Windows, Mac OS X, hundreds of Linux distributions, and even a fully preconfigured GUI based FreeBSD system as mentioned above in PC-BSD that may fill your needs. Also, if your programming skills are adequate, you are welcome to help out with FreeBSD development to add your missing needs. Whatever they may be.


----------



## gkontos (Jan 6, 2014)

The title is really wrong. It should read: FreeBSD first overview versus using Linux AS A DESKTOP*.*

When you start dealing with servers you will see that all GUIs are irrelevant, fonts are useless  and sound cards don't even exist.


----------



## nestux (Jan 6, 2014)

FreeBSD was made for servers, in Desktop on the desktop the system has some cons front _[compared to? -- mod.]_ Linux like hardware support. For instance, I can't get the sound work_ing_ on my motherboard GA-Z77X-UD5H. I'm not a developer, so I have to wait until someone fix_es_ this with a driver or something like that.

Besides that, FreeBSD is a great OS and *I* love the "non GUI" feeling on the installer


----------



## Edsel (Jan 6, 2014)

If you want a GUI installer, the GUI installer from PC-BSD can be used to install FreeBSD.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 7, 2014)

nestux said:
			
		

> FreeBSD was made for servers


It was not, but...


> I can't get the sound work_ing_ on my motherboard GA-Z77X-UD5H.


I have that exact same motherboard and sound works fine for me.


----------



## ShelLuser (Jan 7, 2014)

I too have some serious doubts about a GUI installer, also because I have the impression that it might not fit too well in the current setup. FreeBSD consists of the base system, which sourcecode you can download using Subversion. And that is basically all you need. Not only to build the OS itself, but it can also be used to build your own distribution or distributable media (the `# make distribution` target).

So I can't help wonder if adding a new (graphical) layer on top of this wouldn't result in a huge overhead. Because now you're not merely looking at building the base system (which can take quite some time depending on your hardware) but also a complete graphical layer. I can't help wonder if the overhead wouldn't outweigh any possible advantages, but that's just my idea.

Either way; if they would decide to go this way (which I doubt considering the existence of PC-BSD) my only preference would be to make this component optional. It's the one thing I disliked with a passion on many Linux distributions; in some cases there was no way to avoid using the graphical installer and simply fall back to a text based installation, which can be extremely annoying at times.


----------



## kpa (Jan 7, 2014)

As long as the base system does not include the X11 windowing system or an equivalent system for implementing the graphics primitives we can forget all talk about graphical installers in the base FreeBSD. The base system must be installable without any dependencies to ports and packages, that's a requirement that just can not be worked around. I don't see how X11 would be suddenly made part of the base system, on the contrary I predict that even more of the heavy components will be "weeded out" in the future and replaced with more lightweight ones. For example sendmail(8) will probably go because it's an overly complicated system for just delivering local mail. Something like the VESA console that is use in Linux could be sufficient to draw graphics on the console, maybe now that there's work going on with the Newcons project it could be used as starting point for a lightweight console graphics system.


----------



## wblock@ (Jan 7, 2014)

While I don't feel any great need for a graphic installer, I'm also of the opinion that an installer does not have to be in the base operating system.  In other words, there's nothing stopping anyone from making a text or graphic installer that uses whatever ports it wants.  None of those applications need to end up in the installed system.  An Ubuntu live CD could do it (and would be fairly amusing).  The idea that the installer has to be in the base has limited the capabilities.  The current installer is written in C and sh(1), neither of which is particularly good for the job.  It uses dialog(1), which is really limited and makes installation more difficult by not being able to present more powerful screens.


----------



## hitest (Jan 7, 2014)

I prefer text based installation routines.  If I want graphical installers there are other OSs that have that capability.


----------



## nestux (Jan 7, 2014)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> nestux said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How do you do that?  :q


----------



## jrm@ (Jan 7, 2014)

Edsel said:
			
		

> If you want a GUI installer, the GUI installer from PC-BSD can be used to install FreeBSD.



I played around with PC-BSD over the holidays and I didn't see that option any more.  This was with PC-BSD 9.2.


----------



## ikbendeman (Jan 8, 2014)

nestux said:
			
		

> FreeBSD was made for servers, in Desktop on the desktop the system has some cons front _[compared to? -- mod.]_ Linux like hardware support. For instance, I can't get the sound work_ing_ on my motherboard GA-Z77X-UD5H. I'm not a developer, so I have to wait until someone fix_es_ this with a driver or something like that.
> 
> Besides that, FreeBSD is a great OS and *I* love the "non GUI" feeling on the installer



Try adjusting hw.snd.default_unit and hw.snd.default_auto using sysctl or /etc/sysctl.conf. These were 2 on my last motherboard, and need to be 1 on my current motherboard (for HDMI-passthrough). Use the search engine for more information. Here's my sysctl.conf:

```
# $FreeBSD: release/9.2.0/etc/sysctl.conf 112200 2003-03-13 18:43:50Z mux $
#
#  This file is read when going to multi-user and its contents piped thru
#  ``sysctl'' to adjust kernel values.  ``man 5 sysctl.conf'' for details.
#

# Uncomment this to prevent users from seeing information about processes that
# are being run under another UID.
security.bsd.see_other_uids=1
vfs.usermount=1
hw.snd.default_unit=1
hw.snd.default_auto=1
# Move and use the following in /boot/loader.conf, experiment with values
#kern.ipc.shm_allow_removed=1
#kern.ipc.shmmax=67108864
#kern.ipc.shmmax=134217728
#kern.ipc.shmall=32768
#kern.ipc.shmall=65536
#kern.ipc.shmmni=1024
#kern.ipc.shmmni=2048
#kern.ipc.shmseg=1024
#kern.ipc.shmseg=2048
#kern.maxfiles=25000
#kern.maxfiles=30000
kern.module_path=/boot/kernel;/boot/modules;/usr/local/modules
net.link.tap.user_open=1
hint.acpi_throlle.0.disabled=1
kern.ipc.shm_allow_removed=1
```


----------



## throAU (Jan 8, 2014)

andreyves said:
			
		

> The installation is only available in text mode, what about if I am a loser using FreeBSD?



This one always makes me laugh.

An installer needs to do two things:  display information to you in text form, and require user input, which is typically either up arrow/down arrow or text input. Why is that required to be graphical? If text-mode is a barrier to being able to install the OS, you're probably out of your depth installing ANY operating system anyway.


----------



## Crivens (Jan 8, 2014)

One other point comes to my mind, regarding the benefits of text mode installation. Some weeks ago I met a software developer who is blind, but that does not really stop him. But the thing is, you can use some kind of braille terminal. Now try that with these graphical installers or GUIs. What would be the reason to lock there people out?


----------



## fonz (Jan 8, 2014)

throAU said:
			
		

> If text-mode is a barrier to being able to install the OS, you're probably out of your depth installing ANY operating system anyway.


You said it, I wanted to but backed out thinking I probably shouldn't 

Just to play the devil's advocate, though, let me (re)phrase it this way: besides a niftier look, what would be the advantage(s) of a GUI installer? It may look spiffier (and thus more inviting), but I don't see how it would actually make the installation any easier.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jan 8, 2014)

fonz said:
			
		

> . . . I don't see how it would actually make the installation any easier.


Of course you don't. Because it wouldn't.


----------



## Juanitou (Jan 8, 2014)

Maybe we are forgetting that GUI installer implies mouse-driven…


----------



## ondra_knezour (Jan 8, 2014)

fonz said:
			
		

> (...) besides a niftier look, what would be the advantage(s) of a GUI installer? It may look spiffier (and thus more inviting), but I don't see how it would actually make the installation any easier.



You will get a bigger screen and better layout manager - no big gain for a regular FreeBSD user, but useful for displaying more information about what will be done and why, which can be helpful especially for new users.

I am playing with idea to implement some graphics dialog-like tool using the vgl() library, which can by used by bsdinstall() to do the installation in the graphics mode, but beside of general lack of time, imagination of problems which it can bring to all installations done over serial lines, text-only IPMI consoles and similar scenarios I used over time, are keeping me back


----------



## fonz (Jan 8, 2014)

ondra_knezour said:
			
		

> I am playing with idea to implement some graphics dialog-like tool using the vgl() library, which can by used by bsdinstall() to do the installation in the graphics mode,


You mean something like x11/xdialog?


----------



## ondra_knezour (Jan 8, 2014)

fonz said:
			
		

> You mean something like x11/xdialog?



Not exactly. As far as I understand, xdialog pulls in a full X11 environment to work, but I am looking for something which just turns the console into graphics mode and you are working with pixels instead of characters. 

Consider the following scenario for yes/no questions for example:


dialog: get the screen size - 80x25 chars, clear the screen, place a blue rectangle at the center, place white text over the rectangle.
vgl dialog: switch to graphics mode, get screen size - 800x600 px, fill the screen gray, place a nice daemon bitmap in the top right, place a blue rectangle 400x200 px at [200, 100]...
xdialog: call the Xserver, WTF?


----------



## tzoi516 (Jan 8, 2014)

ondra_knezour said:
			
		

> You will get a bigger screen and better layout manager - no big gain for a regular FreeBSD user, but useful for displaying more information about what will be done and why, which can be helpful especially for new users.


For me it's about speed and accuracy. Sometimes it's quicker to type a short command, but sometimes it's easier and quicker to pick from a drop-down menu instead of typing two lines of text that gets fat fingered - <click> <scroll> <click> <click> is faster than typing two lines of text: slapping your forehead because you left off either more text or messed up a switch; scroll up and hit enter and realizing you forgot to fix what you were supposed to; scroll up again and scrolling to the spot in the middle of the first line where the change is supposed to go and then hitting Enter.

It's like having a physical keyboard on your phone - some people are used to that tactile feedback and act like that 50 year-old balding hipping that hates the GUI and won't update their phone until they drop it in the toilet. But once they get used to typing on the screen then they begin to understand the form factor and options that make sense, and their mind begins to expand about future possibilities. To me more options are better than limiting people. Where would we be if we continued to think the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth?


----------



## ShelLuser (Jan 8, 2014)

Of course it would make it easier. Because if you have a GUI then you can press F1 to get the help screen with all the options 

Now, I know this may sound a bit like a sneer, it's not intended that way but meant jestingly.

But I still think this is the main issue at hand. Most people in this thread who responded see no difference in functionality between the text installer and one with a graphical interface (myself included by the way). But I think that when people mention a graphical installer they're also pushing some assumptions forward. For example the option I mentioned above; press F1 for help. Or the option to do something else during the installation (as is somewhat the case with some Linux live cd's which also provide an installation function).

It's just an assumption on my part as well mind you. But I think that when people mention a GUI they actually mean a lot more than merely an installer with a graphical interface.

Personally I prefer the text based interface, it makes the procedure a lot easier for me (especially when we're talking about performing remote installations, like on a VPS).


----------



## ShelLuser (Jan 8, 2014)

tzoi516 said:
			
		

> For me it's about speed and accuracy. Sometimes it's quicker to type a short command, but sometimes it's easier and quicker to pick from a drop-down menu instead of typing two lines of text that gets fat fingered


But that's not something exclusive for a graphical user interface, the same can be achieved on a text screen.

Quite frankly it's what's already present. For example; during a network installation you need to select the media which you want to use, and sometimes also the location of the repository. All of that is done using a menu. Not so much a drop down menu, but still a selection which you can navigate through (using the arrow keys or page-up / page-down) and hit enter when you're satisfied.


----------



## fonz (Jan 8, 2014)

tzoi516 said:
			
		

> but sometimes it's easier and quicker to pick from a drop-down menu instead of typing two lines of text that gets fat fingered


However, when during a typical (or any) FreeBSD installation does one need to type such long and/or complicated commands? I've been looking over my notes for a complicated manual install with GELI and jails, but I can't find anything like that.



			
				tzoi516 said:
			
		

> It's like having a physical keyboard on your phone - some people are used to that tactile feedback and act like that 50 year-old balding hipping *[You meant hippie I presume? -- fonz]* that hates the GUI and won't update their phone until they drop it in the toilet. But once they get used to typing on the screen then they begin to understand the form factor and options that make sense


Not to sidetrack the discussion, but... I had a Samsung Galaxy but *hated* it with passion, so I ditched it and instead got a GT-B2710 - it has normal keys and no effing touch screen. FWIW: I'm not 50 years old yet, I'm far from bald and although I can be romantic at times I sure wouldn't call myself a hippie


----------



## tzoi516 (Jan 8, 2014)

ShelLuser said:
			
		

> tzoi516 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				ShelLuser said:
			
		

> For example the option I mentioned above; press F1 for help. Or the option to do something else during the installation (as is somewhat the case with some Linux live cd's which also provide an installation function).


I think you articulated it better than I did - I don't have time to write a novel with examples.  Speed can be anything from having a ready reference in the menu to having an interactive `man`, or having side-by-side terminals up without having to alt-F-key it - which makes it even harder to not fat-finger. "People, use your imagination." - Barney the Dinosaur


----------



## graudeejs (Jan 8, 2014)

andreyves said:
			
		

> So what I really want to show here is that first I am a power user, I am a Sys Admin sysadmin and I am able to do alot a lot to get stuff working, but what FreeBSD is missing out on, as well as Linux, is to get it working for the losers.



Please stop using the "losers" word please. It sounds very offensive. We as FreeBSD community are usually much more tolerant than in the Linux community (AFAIK). "noobs" or "newbies" is a much better word to use.

Thanks.


----------



## fonz (Jan 8, 2014)

ShelLuser said:
			
		

> tzoi516 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which reminds me, I used to have (something very much like) the following in my ~/.signature:


> How do I type `for foo in *.jpg; do convert -resize 200x200 $foo `echo $foo|sed -e s/jpg/png`; done` in a GUI?


----------



## tzoi516 (Jan 8, 2014)

fonz said:
			
		

> However, when during a typical (or any) FreeBSD installation does one need to type such long and/or complicated commands? I've been looking over my notes for a complicated manual install with GELI and jails, but I can't find anything like that.


That's your experience. How does your experience translate to "all" users, not ones that work in the same manner as you do? For me I get thrown a laptop with no manuals and have to customize it to the user all of the time (modifications range from extreme security to a ton of applications, or both). I generally will have an iPad open with a relevant PDF that I found on the Internet, another computer nearby with an open terminal and browser, and throw in a few test installs. It's not easy to work in the blind all of the time, and I don't think I'm the only one in that type of element.



			
				fonz said:
			
		

> Not to sidetrack the discussion, but... I had a Samsung Galaxy but *hated* it with passion, so I ditched it and instead got a GT-B2710 - it has normal keys and no effing touch screen. FWIW: I'm not 50 years old yet, I'm far from bald and although I can be romantic at times I sure wouldn't call myself a hippie


"You don't bring me flowers anymore" - Barbara Streisand 

I do think it's the same mentality - sometimes you have to force people to do something before they can move their brain forward and comprehend that things don't limit but enhance.


----------



## tzoi516 (Jan 8, 2014)

fonz said:
			
		

> Which reminds me, I used to have (something very much like) the following in my ~/.signature:
> 
> 
> > How do I type `for foo in *.jpg; do convert -resize 200x200 $foo `echo $foo|sed -e s/jpg/png`; done` in a GUI?


<click><click><Convert> - hard to fat-finger that, and the accuracy might be more consistent.
It's also great when you have to shrink and convert a lot of images too.  Oh, and the app has it built in, so no need to worry about having ImageMagik installed or updated.


----------



## protocelt (Jan 8, 2014)

I don't personally have any problem with a graphical installer being added. I just remain curious to how that would help a new user understand how to use the OS after installation. It seems to me at this point of time it would just cause more confusion for some new users by creating a  false sense of confidence in understanding until after installation rather than improve anything in general. I would find an improved text installer appealing myself at least.


----------



## roddierod (Jan 8, 2014)

throAU said:
			
		

> andreyves said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you!  I've been trying to figure out a nice way to say that and you did it for me.


----------



## SirDice (Jan 8, 2014)

graudeejs said:
			
		

> Please stop using the "losers" word please. It sounds very offensive. We as FreeBSD community are usually much more tolerant than in the Linux community (AFAIK). "noobs" or "newbies" is a much better word to use.


Noob is the derogatory version of newbie, it's usually used in an offensive manner


----------



## graudeejs (Jan 8, 2014)

SirDice said:
			
		

> graudeejs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know, but it sound so much better than "loser".


----------



## tzoi516 (Jan 8, 2014)

I baseline everyone at "user". Then it goes from there: "experienced user", "power user", etc. Comes in handy when I have to get technical with senior people who aren't familiar with computers outside of their day-to-day tasks, and it doesn't insult anyone. What's the point, unless I don't want to be employed?


----------



## graudeejs (Jan 8, 2014)

tzoi516 said:
			
		

> I baseline everyone at "user". Then it goes from there: "experienced user", "power user", etc. Comes in handy when I have to get technical with senior people who aren't familiar with computers outside of their day-to-day tasks, and it doesn't insult anyone. What's the point, unless I don't want to be employed?



Great remark, thanks. Now everyone - let's get back to the subject.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jan 9, 2014)

Juanitou said:
			
		

> Maybe we are forgetting that GUI installer implies mouse-driven…



I think so.

@tzoi516 suggests drop down menus are handy. I agree. I've been using them on a green screen DOS machine for years, and still do. Is that a GUI? I don't think so if we're going to define GUI as being mouse-driven - and I think we should.

@ShelLuser suggests that we need a GUI to get function key (F1=help) use. Again, I rely heavily on the use of function keys on my DOS machines. And again, there is no mouse.

The use of a mouse can be handy for some things, but adds very many extra steps for the user. Using hand/eye coordination; watching the pointer carefully so that it gets lined up with the target, thus drawing attention from other tasks; moving the whole arm to do even simple things, particularly when shifting from mouse to keyboard - to mention just a few. The animated physicality of using a mouse is one of the more inelegant, and frankly embarrassing, developments in human/computer interface design. These things become second nature to those who enjoy them, but are in fact energy consuming. They make it impossible to do simple office tasks which used to be taken for granted - such as transcription, or watching/monitoring other events while doing related input. I have a huge dislike for that kind of thing because I use computers for practical purposes and don't imbibe in games or trivial behaviour without being forced to do so. This has partly to do with my disabilities, but also to do with common sense. I do not see the point in using extra steps to do anything - and particularly don't see the point in a program forcing other people to do so unless it actually is supposed to be a game. 

If someone has difficulty understanding the concept of "extra steps", I would ask them to imagine each muscle movement, and its connection with your body, brain, and eyes, that is needed to do whichever task you are concerned with. You will see that without even getting very analytical, you will be adding dozens of steps simply for the privilege of using a GUI.

PS: Relating to the previous stretch of loser/noob discussion. I consider myself an *amateur*. It's an old word which does not imply any particular level of expertise. From a professional point of view my computer skills are actually not very advanced, so the OP is welcome to call me a loser in that regard.


----------



## throAU (Jan 9, 2014)

Juanitou said:
			
		

> Maybe we are forgetting that GUI installer implies mouse-driven…



Which means that I need a mouse.

You can also do mouse stuff in text mode if you really want to, but seriously, the benefits?  The "hard" part about installing any OS is determining where to install it, how to partition the disks/LVMs/etc., which filesystem to use and what packages to install.

None of those questions will be answered for you with a GUI.

You could perhaps refine the text-based install a little bit to say, not take up the full screen and have helpful hints off to the right or something (e.g., left half of screen = data entry, right side = context sensitive help - then again, top/bottom split in 80x50 or 80x60 text mode will account for full-screen CLI tools running in the top half with help in the bottom), or even better a hyperlinked install guide, but again, you could just as easily do that in text mode, which will then actually work well over the WAN via KVM/SSH/etc.

I guess where I'm coming from is that the not-insignificant time and effort expended on writing fancy GUI installers to then have to maintain as well as the text-based version is effort that could be better spent refining the questions asked on install and doing more intelligent hardware detection.

(I'm aware that the same people may not be involved in writing both different aspects of the project, but hopefully you see my point.)


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jan 9, 2014)

throAU said:
			
		

> I guess where I'm coming from is that the not-insignificant time and effort expended on writing fancy GUI installers to then have to maintain as well as the text-based version is effort that could be better spent refining the questions asked on install and doing more intelligent hardware detection.



I agree. Although I find the installer to be just fine compared to what other OSs are doing these days, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be significantly better - and still be text mode. If DOS 2.0 (1983) and up can do drop down menus and all that old fashioned stuff, then I'd be surprised if *Free*BSD couldn't at least come close.


----------



## JWJones (Jan 9, 2014)

I don't see the need for a GUI installer in FreeBSD. At the end of the day, GUIs = obfuscation. My preferred Linux distribution, Slackware, also does not use a GUI installer. Cleaner and simpler code this way, especially considering that many will be using the likes of FreeBSD or Slackware as headless servers.


----------



## nestux (Jan 9, 2014)

ikbendeman said:
			
		

> nestux said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you very much, I will try that and see what's happend. :beer


----------



## phoenix (Jan 9, 2014)

OJ said:
			
		

> fonz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It depends on the UI.  Some GUIs make it very easy to do disk partitioning; some TUIs do as well.  And, other GUIs make it hard to figure out what's going on; the same with some TUIs.

It's not the graphical part, in and of itself, that makes a GUI better than a TUI.  It's all in how the information is presented.

I still prefer the Debian/Ubuntu text installer over any of the GUI Linux installers I've used.  And the bsdinstaller TUI is really shaping up to be its equal.


----------



## nanotek (Jan 18, 2014)

The thread seems to have digressed (devolved) into an obsessive focus on GUI installers, which really has nothing to do with the functionality of the OS. That said, I agree with the suggestions of an optional GUI installer or simply an improved text installer but, whether implemented or not, has no bearing on the usability of the operating system once installed (or at all) [*]. I would likely use a GUI installer 25% as often as the text version because most of my FreeBSD installs are on servers; the GUI version would only be used on home/desktop PCs. Nevertheless, installation might constitute about 0.0000001% of the time spent using FreeBSD for most users, I presume, and is not a very difficult procedure anyway.

A GUI does not translate to "dumb" or "simple" either. Similarly, it doesn't need to limit potential or detract from TUI or CLI based usability; in most cases it is simply a matter of convenience, which is not unusual these days and need not translate to laziness or inability. Further, and this has already been stated but worth reiterating, persons who lack experience and technical proficiency in computers are not necessarily "dumb" and may well possess many more points of intelligence than your typical "power user".

[*] Some of the suggestions and comments I like:

More comprehensive installation notes/information during install procedure.
GUI partitioning functionality: this can certainly make the partitioning process easier without losing capability at all.
In some cases, vision impairment may benefit from GUI versus TUI.
Accommodating less technically aware users does not "dumb down the system" or exemplify the whole userbase.
The lightweight base system is appealing; developing a GUI installer that is separate from the base system is a good idea.
The presumption that an inability to install an OS that relies on text-based installers should disable you from installing any OS is unfounded; there are millions of people who use computers for any number of reasons who probably couldn't even install an OS that uses a GUI installer.
The use of a mouse does not imply inability; however, for some users a mouse may improve accessibility.
A GUI might decrease install time and increase capabilities for less technically skilled users. I would consider this a positive; accommodating more users translates to more exposure and may increase funding. The inverse, however, is not true: a GUI installer will not increase install time or decrease capabilities for more technically skilled users.
Drop-down menus, radio buttons, pre-fabricated installations (encrypted, /var /tmp /home / etc. partitions) would all be very nice and not limit the user's or the operating system's ability at all.

When it's all said and done, choosing to use an OS on the basis of its installer, I would think, is not prudent and I don't choose to use FreeBSD because it uses a text-based installer and by extension create the perception that the OS and its userbase are more advanced. Similarly, I wouldn't choose to use another OS because it does possess GUI installer capabilities (if an installer is even a capability of the OS) and by extension make the OS and its userbase less advanced. Broadly speaking, a GUI can utilize all the power of the CLI while making it simpler, quicker and more accessible but would require a lot of coding time that would be better spent elsewhere, I would think.

tl;dr: convenient != dumb


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jan 19, 2014)

Very nice post and summery @nanotek! I would take exception to one entry on your list though:


> In some cases, vision impairment may benefit from GUI versus TUI.


In my own experience it is the other way around. GUIs are difficult to read because they don't follow typographical nor linguistic conventions, and thus put a big load on the mental and visual processing required by the user. However, there are no doubt a wide variety of mental and visual processing styles and abilities, so you could also be right in some cases.


----------



## nanotek (Jan 20, 2014)

I think you're right, @OJ: _"there are no doubt a wide variety of mental and visual processing styles and abilities"_, which might make some benefit from a GUI and others, as your experience proves, from a TUI. That is another reason why I like the suggestion to have an optional GUI installer and not replace the current convention. Candidly, the GUI installer option places at the bottom of my FreeBSD Improvements list (which is already _very_ short) and, for me, its absence doesn't detract from the OS at all anyway.


----------



## zspider (Jan 20, 2014)

I prefer the text installer, also to administer most aspects of the system you need to use the command line as no desktop environment/GUI tools can fully replace that, so you may as well make friends with the console.


----------



## sossego (Jan 21, 2014)

http://search.dilbert.com/comic/Holy%20Wars


----------



## throAU (Jan 22, 2014)

nanotek said:
			
		

> More comprehensive installation notes/information during install procedure.
> A GUI might decrease install time and increase capabilities for less technically skilled users. I would consider this a positive; accommodating more users translates to more exposure and may increase funding. The inverse, however, is not true: *a GUI installer will not increase install time or decrease capabilities for more technically skilled users.*


Caveat:  so long as it is OPTIONAL.  If you're installing over say, a serial console (and this is something that is done occasionally), a GUI is not going to work.



> When it's all said and done, choosing to use an OS on the basis of its installer, I would think, is not prudent and I don't choose to use FreeBSD because it uses a text-based installer and by extension create the perception that the OS and its userbase are more advanced. Similarly, I wouldn't choose to use another OS because it does possess GUI installer capabilities (if an installer is even a capability of the OS) and by extension make the OS and its userbase less advanced. Broadly speaking, a GUI can utilize all the power of the CLI while making it simpler, quicker and more accessible but would require a lot of coding time that would be better spent elsewhere, I would think.
> 
> tl;dr: convenient != dumb



Agreed.  And the coding time thing is a major point I'd like to re-iterate - even if you inherit the code for a graphical installer FOR FREE (zero labour required) you've doubled the amount of testing and maintenance that needs to be done every time anything with the install process changes.


----------



## dominique (Jan 22, 2014)

Personally, I don't care if the installer is a GUI or a console. Thatŝ for the theory. In practice the only good GUI installer I know on Linux (I didn't try them all) is Yast from Suse: When something goes wrong, it shift to the text mode, which give you the chance to fix the issue. On the other hand, Yast can be very slow in graphical mode when it refresh its screen.

I was really impressed by the FreeBSD installation process. It make FreeBSD even easier to install than Debian.

Also, I find FreeBSD well documented and relatively easy to use and configure, that even for a newbie.

The minus for me is that it is more complicated to install third party software from their sources than on Gentoo, that because of some huge internal differences between Linux and FreeBSD. As I don't know the C/C++, I am stuck in such cases. I don't blame FreeBSD for that, it's just I am balancing between my actual need of software in areas like audio and electronics, and my sadness about the actual Linux trend to bloat more and more the system with unstable and ever changing stuffs like systemd, and non needed breakmysystem.tm moves like *kit, the kde3 to kde4 move, or wayland and its impossible to finish compatibility layer that is coming at the corner (X and all its extensions are just too complex in order to hope for a complete, or even decent, compatibility layer.).


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jan 23, 2014)

Sounds like you and I are on the same page. I came to FreeBSD because Linux is changing in a direction that I was hoping to avoid long before it started happening.


			
				dominique said:
			
		

> I was really impressed by the FreeBSD installation process. It make FreeBSD even easier to install than Debian.
> Also, I find FreeBSD well documented and relatively easy to use and configure, that even for a newbie.


Yes, FreeBSD  is a nice easy install, and so is Debian. As for documentation, that is one of the two major reasons I felt confident to move to this OS. That, and the professional support provided so freely on this forum.


----------



## user00 (Apr 4, 2014)

Another ex-Linux guy here. And a Linux/Windows sysadmin since 1995!

FreeBSD text mode installation is IMO totally adequate to the task. FreeBSD install is not difficult or complicated - no way!
Linux setup with all its graphical bells and whistles (Fedora, Ubuntu) is sounding more complicated to me, to be honest. FreeBSD is a breath of fresh air compared to it.

So keep up good work, folks, IMO graphical install should be one of the lower priorities. What will win the desktop user will be multimedia drivers, better Windows interoperability, more transparent support for hot-plug devices (USB, eSATA etc) and broader array of ports.


----------



## Hewitson (Apr 5, 2014)

user00 said:
			
		

> FreeBSD text mode installation is IMO totally adequate to the task. FreeBSD install is not difficult or complicated - no way!
> Linux setup with all its graphical bells and whistles (Fedora, Ubuntu) is sounding more complicated to me, to be honest. FreeBSD is a breath of fresh air compared to it.


Absolutely. There is no place for a graphical installer in FreeBSD and I would be disappointed if one was ever included.


----------



## kpa (Apr 5, 2014)

Hewitson said:
			
		

> user00 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't be disappointed if one was available. However, if the graphical installer was the only one available and you could no longer install FreeBSD the way I usually I do, which is to ignore the installer completely and do the install by just extracting the distribution tarballs onto the destination filesystem, I would definitely start to look elsewhere...


----------



## tzoi516 (Apr 5, 2014)

kpa said:
			
		

> ... if the graphical installer was the only one available ...



I don't think I've come across an operating system that didn't allow a user to drop to a command line.


----------



## kpa (Apr 5, 2014)

What I do remember from Debian is that installing it manually without the curses based installation program using just shell commands is a very involved process because the whole system is packaged and bootstrapping the package database has to be done just right. On FreeBSD you just extract tarballs and be done with it.


----------



## Crivens (Apr 6, 2014)

tzoi516 said:
			
		

> I don't think I've come across an operating system that didn't allow a user to drop to a command line.


MacOS in the old days before OsX. No command line, no shell.


----------



## srobert (Apr 6, 2014)

I think the text-based, `bsdinstall`, is just fine. I can see advantages of a GUI installer, but it should only be an alternative front end to the text-based installer, rather than a replacement. Ideally, in a GUI front end to any program, I like to see a text output explaining what equivalent text commands are being executed. At least two GUI installers are already available, in that PC-BSD's installer can install plain FreeBSD, and installing GhostBSD is essentially installing FreeBSD with some sensible (but easily changed) defaults for the desktop.


----------



## zspider (Apr 7, 2014)

kpa said:
			
		

> Hewitson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've started doing that too, there's a certain satisfaction from working from the live DVD shell. I would also be forced to seek a suitable alternative if I lost that capability.


----------

