# Multiple FreeBSD 11 issues reported by DistroWatch



## graemeg (Nov 10, 2016)

I've just been made aware of a DistroWatch report about FreeBSD 11. The person that reported this to me mentioned they had the same experience - which wasn't good. Now I personally haven't had time to test out FreeBSD 11 yet, but if the article is correct, that's not a good sign.

Can anybody here comment on the issues mentioned in this article:
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=current#freebsd


----------



## Maxnix (Nov 10, 2016)

There is a discussion about that review; give a look at it: Thread 58464


----------



## graemeg (Nov 10, 2016)

Thank you, I'll go read that thread right now.


----------



## Terry_Kennedy (Nov 11, 2016)

Maxnix said:


> There is a discussion about that review; give a look at it: Thread 58464


I posted a long reply over there with some suggestions about "the big picture". Just mentioning that here, not crossposting.


----------



## chrbr (Nov 11, 2016)

There are many good points, too. Terry_Kennedy pointed out critical things. If some desktop does not meet the expectations on the first shot might be of minor importance.


----------



## Hanky-panky (Nov 14, 2016)

Just my two cents. I'm not an expert then I do use FreeBSD on relative old hardware and on virtual hardware from I think like 15 years.

It is true IMHO FreeBSD work a lot better on virtual hardware. IMHO like many software this days it is developed over virtual hardware.

I wont even try to install it on top edge latest hardware. For it never ever Linux work well: there is Windows 10 and it work great.

I personally do use FreeBSD as a desktop too and I can say I can run everything very stable on it. After 15 years I think I can handle even if not an expert most of FreeBSD aspects and I think it is a wonderfull choice for stability and pretty much everything but when you have the need to upgrade the whole OS. My custom router run on FreeBSD and on fantastic zfs pool and it is so flexible... once it properly setup.

Tools like freebsd-update are totally out of fashion this days. They did a great impovements in binary upgrades with optimal pkg tool, if they still recommend like the do in the handbook to use freebsd-update as preferred OS update and upgrade tool, they should fix it and improve it a lot.

If not, make world is not for all then it will work most of the time and it is totally FreeBSD attitude.

Just my two cent as I said...


----------



## roddierod (Nov 14, 2016)

Hanky-panky said:


> Tools like freebsd-update are totally out of fashion this days. They did a great impovements in binary upgrades with optimal pkg tool, if they still recommend like the do in the handbook to use freebsd-update as preferred OS update and upgrade tool, they should fix it and improve it a lot.
> 
> If not, make world is not for all then it will work most of the time and it is totally FreeBSD attitude.
> 
> Just my two cent as I said...



Wait. Freebsd-update is "out of fashion"...but you should use `make world`? I don't even think I have seen a mention of make world since FreeBSD 5 maybe 6.


----------



## kpa (Nov 14, 2016)

There is work going on to make the base system updateable/upgradeable with pkg(8) but it won't be ready for production until FreeBSD 12 at earliest:

https://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgBase

Funnily enough, PfSense the FreeBSD based firewall system has already adopted this system. They have a much more minimal base system and don't have to deal with different build options that the users might want to experiment with and that's why they've been able to use it already.


----------



## ANOKNUSA (Nov 14, 2016)

graemeg said:


> Can anybody here comment on the issues mentioned in this article:



*SUMMARY:* "I tried this, but didn't know exactly what I was doing, and it didn't work for me right away, so I quit. But my opinion is still important, so I'll print it."
That's not entirely fair of me, I know, but I have as strong a distaste for DistroWatch as I do for Phoronix. They're just not good sources of information, as folks running the sites speak authoritatively without really knowing what they're talking about. Here's something I found notable:



			
				Jessie Smith said:
			
		

> A little poking around revealed that the _/boot_ directory was just a symbolic link to a location which did not exist. I set up the missing _/boot_ directory and was then able to create boot environments. However, then I ran into a few other problems. At start-up time, I was unable to select alternative boot environments from the boot menu as no snapshots were listed in the boot menu. ... As I mentioned earlier, tools such as _freebsd-update_ and _freebsd-version_ were unable to detect my kernel version and I suspect this was related to the missing _/boot_ directory. Though even after this directory had been created, these two programs still failed to work.



The issue here was that bootpool was not mounted. Mounting it would have resolved these issues. Without knowing this and without bothering to inform himself (the system booted, after all---the /boot directory has to be _somewhere_), Mr. Smith blindly took a step that eliminated the error message without actually resolving the problem, then proceeded to dive deeper into a rabbit hole of his own making. Now, the fact that bootpool was not mounted is something worth bringing up, since (as the reviewer already noted) a missing /boot directory impacts kernel updates, and I believe that while the issue remains in the current installer it has already been addressed by developers. But the fact that the reviewer "fixed" a problem without knowing what the actual problem was---possibly breaking other things in the process---adds a taint to the assessment from that point on...


----------



## Oko (Nov 14, 2016)

ANOKNUSA said:


> *SUMMARY:* "I tried this, but didn't know exactly what I was doing, and it didn't work for me right away, so I quit. But my opinion is still important, so I'll print it."That's not entirely fair of me, I know, but I have as strong a distaste for DistroWatch as I do for Phoronix. They're just not good sources of information, as folks running the sites speak authoritatively without really knowing what they're talking about. Here's something I found notable:


+1 

While DWW might be slightly more civil place than Phoronix the fact that both sites are run by clueless people who want to replace one mono culture (Windows) with another mono culture (Linux). 
Over the years working professionally with many Linux system-admins and developers I developed a great deal of respect for their knowledge and learned a lot from them. However I can't say the same for DWW and Phoronix.


----------

