# GhostBSD jumps ship; Drops FreeBSD to use TrueOS (PC-BSD)



## Chris_H (Jul 26, 2018)

According to their latest announcement. GhostBSD is dropping FreeBSD as their base, and taking up with TrueOS.
Their claim is people complaining about increasing problems with setup, and maintenance. Some claiming the problem is not using OpenRC. I remember someone in the Forums here, bringing that up sometime in the last few days, and them being slammed. Anyway, if you're interested in the details: GhostBSD is switching it's system base

--Chris


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jul 26, 2018)

Soon we will have people complaining about FreeBSD not using SystemD. Oh, well, that actually already happened. 

I don't know if you saw it on that other thread but there is at very least one BLOCKER for OpenRC come to FreeBSD, but those people don't care for stability just coolness.

Also, the amount of the work eventually spent to switch to OpenRC (what would include re-write all rc scripts over the time) would do better importing/merging/finishing the NextBSD work ( IMO ).


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 26, 2018)

What is the system base for TrueOS?


----------



## Chris_H (Jul 26, 2018)

drhowarddrfine said:


> What is the system base for TrueOS?


Essentially FreeBSD. That is, Kris cherry picked what he wanted (some of which he wrote while with FreeBSD), and bolted on, or "enhanced" the rest.
It's kind of a slick system. But not my cup of tea. Nor do I really have any use for it.

--Chris


----------



## rufwoof (Jul 26, 2018)

drhowarddrfine said:


> What is the system base for TrueOS?


My immediate thought also. Isn't TrueOS based on the "cutting edge" front end of FreeBSD? Recall many complaining about instability when TrueOS first released their 'latest/greatest' that drove many away.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 26, 2018)

Chris_H said:


> Essentially FreeBSD.


Imagine that.


----------



## Beastie7 (Jul 27, 2018)

They're better off dropping all this non-sense, contribute desktop related work to FreeBSD, and just focus on Lumina development.

No one needs another base operating system.


----------



## Chris_H (Jul 27, 2018)

What disappoints me about these "other" FreeBSD's. Is that FreeBSD became so fragmented. Which means you have several small groups struggling to keep their version(s) useful, and interesting. When what is truly needed. Is to rejoin the group. Pooling their resources, and skills. Making one _truly_ great product.

--Chris


----------



## cynwulf (Jul 27, 2018)

It seems to me that both TrueOS and GhostBSD have similar goals - i.e. the development of a consumer oriented OS.  So the "rebasing" does seem to make sense.  Both are not really so different to anything else FreeBSD based, whether closed or open source.

I don't really see the issue, nor see it as "fragmentation".  As with other *BSDs, FreeBSD can choose to use whatever comes from these projects that might be useful.  But "pooling their resources" could also mean getting all the nonsense you don't want along with the good stuff - a "too many cooks" situation.


----------



## Phishfry (Jul 27, 2018)

As long as net-mgmt/networkmgr keeps working on FreeBSD it really affects me none.
I do wish we could get everybody back on the mothership.



Beastie7 said:


> focus on Lumina development.


I do like some of what they are doing here. AppStore and Sysadm. It is what made Ubuntu popular(On top of Debian!!).


----------



## ralphbsz (Jul 27, 2018)

Chris_H said:


> When what is truly needed. Is to rejoin the group. Pooling their resources, and skills. Making one _truly_ great product.


The problem with that idea is that there isn't a single way to define "great".  Different users, supporters and developers of FreeBSD have different goals and aspirations.  And this is not only true for FreeBSD, but also for other operating systems it competes with (*BSD, Linux, other Unix variants, Windows, ...).  For example, I personally don't care at all about GUIs and windowing systems, but I want a server OS only, with certain characteristics.  As far as I'm concerned, a very simple console, enough to get the server onto the network is all I need, and then I never install anything that needs or wants Xwindows.  But I know that a lot of other folks here on the Forum are very adamant about wanting to use FreeBSD as a desktop system with a GUI.  To each his own.

The problem with "to each his own" is: optimizing the whole OS stack (not just the kernel, but the lower operational layers like init(8) and configuration (text files in /etc versus databases), and the philosophy of administration, has to be done differently for different use patterns.  An extreme example is sytemd, which was written from the vantage point of a laptop with a GUI (and has certain advantages in that setting), but is foot-shaped gun when deployed on headless servers.

From this viewpoint, it might perhaps be a good thing that the TrueOS and GhostBSD people are working on a different code base: less opportunity for them to break FreeBSD.  Their goals are clearly different from mine:

"TrueOS is a cutting-edge FreeBSD graphical desktop operating system designed with ease-of-use in mind."
I don't want cutting edge.  I want really well tested systems.  I don't want graphical desktop; tuning or organizing the system for graphical desktop will just get in my hair.  And I don't care about ease-of-use; I understand that complexity exists in the real world, and trying to hide it behind easy layers just breaks things later on.

"Built on top of FreeBSD, GhostBSD provides a simple desktop-oriented operating system pre-configured with the carefully selected minimal commonly used set software required to start using it to its full potential."
I don't want a desktop.  I can configure things perfectly well myself, and I'd rather not have anything pre-configured, other than a minimal functioning base system, roughly at the level of V7 Unix with networking.  I don't use the system to its full potential, rather for a very narrow and specific purpose.

As you can see, I'm not in favor of them rejoining the group.  But other people will likely have very different opinions, and as long as FreeBSD works reasonable well for me, I'll continue to tolerate these other opinions.  If GUI and ease-of-use people break FreeBSD for me, there are many other OSes I can use.


----------



## Chris_H (Jul 27, 2018)

ralphbsz ,
You make some nice counter points. I generally follow your path. With the exception(s) that my "build"/development box has a DE. I chose that approach because I find I have a better/wider "macro" view working in that environment. I can have 150 tabs open in my editor/IDE, and at _least_ as many in my (web)browser (for any research). So I build all my "deployment" media on this server/DE, and go from there. Where all my servers are _console-only_. An environment I find _equally_ comfortable in that context.
*This* is what has always kept me riding the (Free)BSD train. It's *everything-to-everybody*. Who doesn't like choices?
_But_, and this probably speaks to your assertions; I _do_ have a problem with the way pkg(8) was implemented. In that it is a _requirement_. While I _fully_ appreciate the convenience it provides.  I am ill served when I am building/using for _my_ chosen environment. It just gets in my way. Making it harder; if-not, _impossible_ to accommodate my end goal. So, again to your point(s), it can be difficult-to-impossible to have/keep everyone (all developers) on the same path, with equal goals.
My only point above; is that it would be advantageous to have more (skilled) develop(ers|ment) on the _same_ team. 

Thanks for the "counterpoints", ralphbsz !

--Chris


----------



## Chris_H (Jul 27, 2018)

Phishfry said:


> I do like some of what they are doing here. AppStore and Sysadm. It is what made Ubuntu popular(On top of Debian!!).


Didn't Debian impliment/enforce the use of SystemD? 
Sorry, Phishfry . I couldn't resist. 

--Chris


----------



## xtremae (Jul 27, 2018)

ralphbsz said:


> An extreme example is sytemd, which was written from the vantage point of a laptop with a GUI (and has certain advantages in that setting)



It has certain advantages in the server world too (launching thousands of VMs/day). What doesn't seem to have advantages in servers but seems to be getting worked on is drm, video and wifi drivers.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jul 27, 2018)

The big issue with this kind of discussion/practice is no one ( talking about the people who are leading either FreeBSD and GhostBSD/TrueOS ) tell/set who is the actual target audience clearly. I mean, who is the FreeBSD target audience?

We ( users ) are the most ones telling it to everyone that came in here or IRC or mailing lists who is the FreeBSD target audience and what kind of behavior is expected from them when the things get too out of normal, but there is no official direction ( as far I am aware ) from the project nor the foundation about this subject. We can just assume we are 'right' because no one come and say NO, you are wrong.

The point is, what is a 'Desktop OS' and what is 'Server OS'?

For most people a 'Desktop OS' must be something like MacOS or Windows ( both have clearly defined audiences ). Same can be said about a 'Server OS', for some MacOS server is perfect and they don't need anything more than that, there are plenty of business running Windows Servers, others need carefully tailored setups or mainframes... Still, we can discuss, what is easy to use? For me i3 is easy to use, to my father it is black magic.

Why not do a research about the current users and of a defined target audience, preferences, suggestions etc. and follow the path brought by the result of it? It is easier to get more users/developers joining a community/project when it is clear for people they are the target ( or not ).

About desktops in particular, I guess the vastly majority of FreeBSD desktop installations are using: ( mostly ) WMs, followed by XFCE and then KDE. At same time there are a bazillion of DE/WMs available on ports used by 2 people each. This looks cool but it leads to a lot maintainership overhead.

IMO the right way to deal with it would be either: adopt the code most people use or write its own home grew desktop/wm, and drop everything else. But if something like that would be done, do it right. Lumina is a nice initiative aiming FreeBSD 'end-users', but I bet 50%+ of FreeBSD desktop users are using WMs and not a full feature DEs...

*[EDIT]*

Linux for instance has 1000+ distribution but if you look at the most successful ones they always have a clear target audience, for instance:

Arch Linux: programmers, developers.
Ubuntu: people aiming user friendly, magically configured stuff - and currently include enterprise servers.
RedHat/SuSe: enterprise, servers and desktops.
Debian: servers and desktops.

Now if you look at the ones that actually support desktops they almost always do *actively* support just one or two, three maximum, and sometimes don't ever have anything more in the repositories, and if people want to use something different they have to create and maintain it or use third party repositories.

So, the FreeBSD Server-side audience is more or less well defined by Juniper/Netflix etc., but not the desktop one. IMO, FreeBSD should market/work/develop the Desktop-side in similar way of Arch Linux/Gentoo -> programmers/developers - people who can and often prefer to use/maintain a desktop using the same or similar tools used on servers, or more towards to server usage ( I m not implying both are the same but it is easier to compromise ).


----------



## xtremae (Jul 27, 2018)

I don't think FreeBSD should market itself to desktop users at all IMHO. MacOS / iOS users look forward to auto-magically configured / pre-installed systems (it just works, etc), Windows users are more or less the same (yes -> next -> ok -> i agree, etc) but probably think FreeBSD is a Linux distro, while the rest are using Ubuntu (magically configured stuff). I know those are fairly broad strokes but still.

The ones that will realistically consider FreeBSD (as a desktop) are mostly Arch, Gentoo and/or <insert_niche_linux_distro> users. From those users, some will install FreeBSD and a subset will continue to use it. For those that eventually switched, the bottom line is whether or not FreeBSD provides a comparatively superior desktop experience compared to Linux. If it does, they'll keep using it. If it doesn't, they'll go back.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jul 27, 2018)

xtremae

If some project ( commercial or not ) does feel that part of it should not be marketed for some reason, it is because that part is worthless and then it should be completely dropped to freely resources to deal with what is considered important and worthy - _specially when they have very limited resources_.

Note that marketing something is not just about advertising ( marketing != advertising ) and may even not include it, but have a properly designed project/plan of how the product is positioned at the market, who are the customers, what they want, and what/how you should delivery it for them.

The current situation, I feel while doing some minor ports works, is more like throw everything each one want in the ports tree to try get every single user pleasured, and then spend a lot of time ( read resources ) to maintain a ton of ports that 2 people use, none of them maintain or do anything, and still want everything updated ASAP ( and they are not essentially wrong because they are not breaking any rule ) - _what means bug reports to be handled, patches to be written, etc_.

That said, if Arch/Gentoo*-like* users are supposedly the target or the ones that worth, instead of maintaining a ton DE/WM with 2 users each, research what those "worthy" users want need and design the thing ( what may be something new or something that already exist ) for them, and drop the rest. I give some ideas in HERE.

Are you aware we have +32K ports on the tree and currently should have about 400 porters to maintain them, almost all of them working at they spare time? Yes, there are a lot of users who maintain ports and many of them are nothing more than 'the maintainer'.

About the TrueOS desktop initiative, they are apparently looking for Ubuntu-like users, exactly those users that do not live without Netflix, Steam, Spotify, and similar that do not work on FreeBSD, or work poorly, or need some hack to work... _exactly what those users don't want_.

*[EDIT]*

What I want to say is the way the thing is being managed is exactly the way you should follow when you want to be left behind.


----------



## xtremae (Jul 28, 2018)

lebarondemerde said:


> If some project ( commercial or not ) does feel that part of it should not be marketed for some reason, it is because that part is worthless and then it should be completely dropped to freely resources to deal with what is considered important and worthy - _specially when they have very limited resources_.


Of course, we wouldn't be having this discussion if resources were unlimited.



lebarondemerde said:


> Note that marketing something is not just about advertising ( marketing != advertising ) and may even not include it, but have a properly designed project/plan of how the product is positioned at the market, who are the customers, what they want, and what/how you should delivery it for them.


I don't think this is an issue for FreeBSD since the project has a well defined and appealing feature set as a server OS. As a desktop OS, it's just not incredibly compelling to satisfy the particular market, at least not for most people. Trying to double down on desktops just doesn't make sense to me and i wish i could be wrong.



lebarondemerde said:


> The current situation, I feel while doing some minor ports works, is more like throw everything each one want in the ports tree to try get every single user pleasured, and then spend a lot of time ( read resources ) to maintain a ton of ports that 2 people use, none of them maintain or do anything, and still want everything updated ASAP ( and they are not essentially wrong because they are not breaking any rule ) - _what means bug reports to be handled, patches to be written, etc_.


This is a result of bike shedding and poor management but thankfully it's never late to start _dropping the fat_. Countless ports were created because certain users _needed_ them. With those users gone, the burden has fallen on the shoulders and the good will of the very few. This is a very big problem.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jul 28, 2018)

xtremae said:


> This is a result of bike shedding and poor management but thankfully it's never late to start _dropping the fat_. Countless ports were created because certain users _needed_ them. With those users gone, the burden has fallen on the shoulders and the good will of the very few. This is a very big problem.



You are getting the point. For instance, based on what I see in here, IRC and mail lists, the majority of FreeBSD users that use full featured DE use XFCE and it is very well maintained, and also KDE (now being maintained with help of Qt Company, it seems).

Then there are Mate, LXDE, LXQt, Cinnammon ( was broken from long time and at least until some time ago, if it still isn't working ), and probably something I don't remember now ( and I am not ever talking about Gnome with its hard SystemD dependencies ).

IDK the state of all of it but I guess most are poorly maintained because of very few users of it, and so why keep these things? What are the real advantages or unique features of these bunch of DEs ( those are many ports that often should be updated at once ) in relation to XFCE? I don't see any but some minor different details.

What I was pointing is, for instance, we "know" most people use XFCE ( and also KDE ), it is solid, well maintained and the alternatives offer no advantage ( with the exception of pcmanfm what is useful for WM users ). So, we know this part of the FreeBSD desktop market, and then why not drop everything else, and adopt XFCE as the only supported full featured DE ( + KDE )? Not to say poorly maintained ports are ugly and looks lazy.

That would freely a lot of resources that eventually could be interested in improving the XFCE and/or KDE support/integration on the system. Same work for WMs ( but WMs alone are often easy to maintain ), and everything else related with desktop. But to archive that, beyond the project leading, there is a need to do some marketing to properly know what should be dropped and be kept.


----------



## ralphbsz (Jul 28, 2018)

... talking about systemd:


xtremae said:


> It has certain advantages in the server world too (launching thousands of VMs/day).


And nasty disadvantages.  If Lennart had had server computing experience, and respect for it (supposedly, he has neither), he would have designed something completely different.  Matter-of-fact, if a group of competent and responsible engineers from the large commercial users of Linux (there are many, and I've been an employee of several of them) had designed a replacement for init, it would probably have been very different too.

Alas, in the Linux world, it is what we have now.  Like it or not, we'll live with it, and we'll have to be productive.



lebarondemerde said:


> The big issue with this kind of discussion/practice is no one ( talking about the people who are leading either FreeBSD and GhostBSD/TrueOS ) tell/set who is the actual target audience clearly. I mean, who is the FreeBSD target audience?


That is a very good question.  Another question discussed here is "marketing" (which is not a bad word, but a very necessary part of a product.  

I would go even one level deeper and ask a meta-question: Given that FreeBSD is mostly run by volunteers (with very few people paid to work on it, and very few companies using in-house developers for stuff that gets fed back into the public release), who can even make this decision, and can such a decision even be made coherently?  Is there even a marketing group, is it coherent, and does it know what its direction needs to be?

Maybe the answer is: every volunteer does what they feel like, and we hope they're productive this way.  So far, the result has been pretty darn good.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jul 28, 2018)

Given the current FreeBSD state, the _good_ and the _bad_, *IMO* the direction to be followed is to become the "BentleyOS". Yeah, it is niche, old, heavy, expensive, but it is the best. Linux is Ford. MacOS is Rolls-Royce ( too fluffy ).

Of course to marketer something like that there should have some proper preparation ( this is a long time investment ), the work to come from Intel ( Thread 66293 ) already help a lot, and niche products are not intended to be full featured but specialized. The clearly bad things they cannot get rid of are worked to seem good ones, and so the first thing to do would be dropping stuff.

If desktop is important choose very few alternatives as I already pointed before ( this is not MacOS who can afford imposing just one ), *invest on them* and drop everything else ( desktop would need to have its separated policy ). If it is not important drop it completely, or cut to the very minimal just to not lose the functionality.

Most FreeBSD people apparently use WMs, I am no expert but to develop ( or fork ) a WM should not be that "expensive" since every month one guy come out with a new WM.

Look what people are using ( tilling: i3, awesomewm, bspwm, xmonad ), study them ( and they bug trackers ), discover what the users like and miss on them, what are they design flaws, design a proper one using that data, don't care for portability ( leave it for server stuff only ), and heavy integrate it with the system ( make it personal ).

The big blocker to do something like that is the obvious need of specialized marketing professionals, and that cost ( a lot of ) money. However, all partners certainly have very capable marketing departments and probably wouldn't harm to ask if they can lend them a bit.


----------



## Chris_H (Jul 28, 2018)

The direction of FreeBSD is determined by those whom contribute; either by developed/maintained code, or by $$ (paying to have something done).
You want to turn FreeBSD into a Bentley lebarondemerde ? (good choice BTW). Then whip up some Bentley code, and submit it. 
Alas. That's about as good as it's going to get, I'm afraid. But all-in-all, I wouldn't choose any other OS as my "daily driver" (pardon the pun).

SystemD (and Linux)?
Well, I know that one of the original distros, disavows SystemD. What's more; it's the closest FreeBSD (feeling) Linux I know of. Namely Slack Linux.
OK it's not the _newest_ kernel. But if it ain't broke. Why fix it? At least _one_ Linux distro stood up for what's right! 

--Chris


----------



## vthacker (Jul 28, 2018)

Chris_H said:


> The direction of FreeBSD is determined by those whom contribute; either by developed/maintained code, or by $$ (paying to have something done).
> You want to turn FreeBSD into a Bentley lebarondemerde ? (good choice BTW). Then whip up some Bentley code, and submit it.
> Alas. That's about as good as it's going to get, I'm afraid. But all-in-all, I wouldn't choose any other OS as my "daily driver" (pardon the pun).
> 
> ...




You bring up a curious point about direction. Would you say that FreeBSD has a leadership/management (i.e, vision, trust, morale) problem?

--Vic


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jul 28, 2018)

Chris_H said:


> Then whip up some Bentley code, and submit it.



That is not really how it works! If you follow IRC and some mail lists you will find some situations like:

There is an issue with bug reports that some dev assign it to him/her and for some reason do nothing later ( nothing dramatic and happens everywhere, people just forget some things ), but one time the bug is assigned to some one it is not more in the pool and being "watched", for obvious reasons. There were some discussions and people found out the best solution would be to automatic un-assign it if there were no movement from the assignee between X (like 2 months) time.

Some folk worked on it, modified the bug tracker code, bring the patch, and bug-meisters said NO, blanket.

And there still has this kind of situation: Thread 59705.


----------



## ralphbsz (Jul 28, 2018)

Remember, developers and port/package maintainers are for the most part unpaid, volunteers, amateurs, hobbyists.  They do something because they want to.  A bug tracking system exists for their convenience, and because they enjoy it, not as a punishment or shaming mechanism for making them work harder.

This also implies that developers/maintainers will sometimes work very slowly.  But that's not specific to free software projects.  Even when I was a paid developer, I would sometimes have bugs assigned to me that were 1 or 2 years old.  This may simply mean that fixing this bug is not considered a high priority, that it affect few people, doesn't pose high risks, or has easy workarounds; or perhaps that it is hard to fix now, but will become easy to fix when some other major work will be going on.

And to keep a crew of volunteers working together requires keeping the community spirit going.  That unfortunately may require admonishing developers who interact in a fashion not compatible with the group, and if they don't change their behavior, excluding them.  In a commercial setting this is much less necessary (it is rare), because there the reward of the great big paycheck causes people to behave somewhat better.

So there is no point getting upset about lack of maintenance.  Do it yourself, or use a different OS.


----------



## P15C15 (Jul 28, 2018)

My experience of use in the time that I've used GhostBSD makes me to back to FreeBSD. That's all.
FBSD, with all the things that don't have, I don't know if call it better, but at least is not a waste of code, time and effort.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jul 28, 2018)

ralphbsz

First, the initiative apparently came from the devs - the ones directly affected by it ( probably not the majority, ok ), but what made them annoyed was not fact of the new 'feature' not being accepted, but everything was discussed under the eyes of bug-meisters, they knew the guy will/was writing the code, the exactly purpose of it, and waited until the guy finish all the work and have it done to say NO.

Btw, this subject come out in a more extended discussion about several similar situations.


----------



## Chris_H (Jul 28, 2018)

Speaking of pkg-mgmt/synth marino was an _excellent_ developer. In fact, he was my mentor, when I first started maintaining ports, years ago. But IMHO his being admonished was largely, if not completely unfounded. Either way, he's with a _different_ BSD now. Which is a _great_ loss. No matter which side of the coin you're on. 

--Chris


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jul 28, 2018)

IIRC marino was NetBSD, DragonFlyBSD, and FreeBSD developer at that time. IDK if he continues on NetBSD.


----------



## trev (Jul 29, 2018)

ralphbsz said:


> So there is no point getting upset about lack of maintenance. Do it yourself,



Indeed, but even when you do it yourself and submit patches, they can take an eternity to be included. Or get derailed. Then good luck getting any response 

I still bother to submit them, but for the first time in more than a decade, I've not donated to the Foundation this year ... so being ignored may have unintended consequences.


----------



## recluce (Jul 29, 2018)

lebarondemerde said:


> You are getting the point. For instance, based on what I see in here, IRC and mail lists, the majority of FreeBSD users that use full featured DE use XFCE and it is very well maintained, and also KDE (now being maintained with help of Qt Company, it seems).
> 
> Then there are Mate, LXDE, LXQt, Cinnammon ( was broken from long time and at least until some time ago, if it still isn't working ), and probably something I don't remember now ( and I am not ever talking about Gnome with its hard SystemD dependencies ).
> 
> IDK the state of all of it but I guess most are poorly maintained because of very few users of it, and so why keep these things? What are the real advantages or unique features of these bunch of DEs ( those are many ports that often should be updated at once ) in relation to XFCE? I don't see any but some minor different details.



I guess we are looking at a hen and egg problem here. Many people may be using XFCE simply because the other DEs do not work right. I have certainly tried using Cinnamon (which I also use on Mint and Artix) on FreeBSD, but it just did not work as expected (Permission Issues with just about everything). XFCE simply looks primitive to me and I hate both the looks and the ergonomics of it. YMMV.


----------



## recluce (Jul 29, 2018)

Chris_H said:


> The direction of FreeBSD is determined by those whom contribute; either by developed/maintained code, or by $$ (paying to have something done).
> You want to turn FreeBSD into a Bentley lebarondemerde ? (good choice BTW). Then whip up some Bentley code, and submit it.
> Alas. That's about as good as it's going to get, I'm afraid. But all-in-all, I wouldn't choose any other OS as my "daily driver" (pardon the pun).
> 
> ...



Add Artix Linux to the upright. Artix is Arch minus systemd (supports OpenRC, runit and S6). Very much Bleeding Edge, if that is what you want. Works great for my desktop and laptop, but I would not dream using it on a server.


----------



## xtremae (Jul 29, 2018)

recluce said:


> Many people may be using XFCE simply because the other DEs do not work right


Many people are using xfce and the various wms because they work in a deterministic way and most importantly, are platform agnostic. TrueOS devs gave birth to Lumina out of uncertainty for the latter.



recluce said:


> I have certainly tried using Cinnamon (which I also use on Mint and Artix) on FreeBSD, but it just did not work as expected


If you have to _buy into_ an OS in order to use a certain DE (Cinnamon, Aqua, Gnome, whatever) then the people behind that DE don't care about compatibility (at all). They don't just build a DE, they build it for a particular platform. That's why you have to install Linux in order to use Cinnamon. Similarly, if you wanted to use Aqua, you'd have to buy a mac, and so on... It eventually depends on your tolerance and comfort levels.



recluce said:


> XFCE simply looks primitive to me and I hate both the looks and the ergonomics of it


Arguably, there is a priority that favors function and utility over form and aesthetics, especially since the project is a small group of software developers (not artists / designers).


----------



## Beastie7 (Jul 30, 2018)

trev said:


> Indeed, but even when you do it yourself and submit patches, they can take an eternity to be included. Or get derailed. Then good luck getting any response
> 
> I still bother to submit them, but for the first time in more than a decade, I've not donated to the Foundation this year ... so being ignored may have unintended consequences.



Its frustrating. I've been following BSD conferences and developer summits for a while now, and desktop related issue barely get addressed.


----------



## cynwulf (Jul 30, 2018)

recluce said:


> I guess we are looking at a hen and egg problem here. Many people may be using XFCE simply because the other DEs do not work right. [...] XFCE simply looks primitive to me and I hate both the looks and the ergonomics of it. YMMV.


I don't feel passionately about it, but I have to agree with you at least partially.  I've never been "blown away" by Xfce, but have used it in the past and installed it for others on a few occasions, because the two main alternatives are massively overweight or have other issues.  When you consider that those alternatives consist of some kind of horrible mutant of a tablet/touchscreen UI with virtually no user customisation possible or gigabytes of shiny gloss , transparent stuff and "widgets" - both of which are mostly all about "pretty" and/or imposing someone's idea of how your desktop should work, it's not hard to see why some take the Xfce option.

The two alternatives are also increasingly Linux proprietary, tied to Red Hat's systemd and other freedesktop.org "plumbing" (itself systemd dependent).  However the next release of Xfce4 is supposed to be gtk3 based and will move to gdbus (and who knows what else).  So it's likely that over time, yet more gnome stuff (and other Linuxisms) will creep in.

Facing facts, almost all of this stuff is primarily developed for Linux desktops.  All of the DRM/KMS X.org video driver stack stuff was developed for the Linux kernel and then ported to other OS such as the *BSDs - Linux kernel is the "upstream" for this and AMD and Intel engineers contributing to the kernel are of course being paid to work on Linux, not other OS.

Linux desktops are becoming increasingly systemd based.  Porting them to non systemd OS, even non systemd Linux OS will become more and more labour intensive.

So I have to say that, if they continue to make progress in the direction towards a "*BSD desktop", TrueOS, GhostBSD, etc do seem worthwhile.  The alternatives are to continue with the reliance on increasingly Linux proprietary software or just accept that *BSDs will always be primarily for servers or as bases for other "products" - and being able to run a desktop just a nice little bonus.


----------



## romanaOne (Jul 30, 2018)

Err, didn't, uh, TrueOS recently "jump ship" on itself? Now there is Project Trident?! No idea what's going on here, but ultimately I think it makes regular FreeBSD look better.  Trying to use TrueOS on a Desktop system is what brought me to just using vanilla FreeBSD: installing and updating the things I want is easier than dealing with all these wacky BSD "distros" and sudden, big changes.


----------



## Chris_H (Jul 30, 2018)

romanaOne said:


> Err, didn't, uh, TrueOS recently "jump ship" on itself? Now there is Project Trident?! No idea what's going on here, but ultimately I think it makes regular FreeBSD look better.  Trying to use TrueOS on a Desktop system is what brought me to just using vanilla FreeBSD: installing and updating the things I want is easier than dealing with all these wacky BSD "distros" and sudden, big changes.


Trident is the combination (collaboration) of GhostBSD, and TrueOS, As I understood it. GhostBSD was to head  up the UI, while TrueOS managed the underlying OS.

--Chris


----------



## Omnikron13 (Aug 4, 2018)

ralphbsz said:


> An extreme example is sytemd, which was written from the vantage point of a laptop with a GUI (and has certain advantages in that setting), but is foot-shaped gun when deployed on headless servers.



I'm kinda curious how you came to this conclusion... Wasn't systemd primarily developed by Red Hat, who are more focussed on the enterprise server market than consumer laptops with fancy GUIs? What exactly about systemd is more suited to consumer hardware and GUIs than headless servers?


----------



## Bean6754 (Jun 13, 2019)

Chris_H said:


> What disappoints me about these "other" FreeBSD's. Is that FreeBSD became so fragmented. Which means you have several small groups struggling to keep their version(s) useful, and interesting. When what is truly needed. Is to rejoin the group. Pooling their resources, and skills. Making one _truly_ great product.
> 
> --Chris


I completely agree. One big reason why I use FreeBSD over Linux is because FreeBSD is more focused on the one complete FreeBSD operating-system with: Ports, packages, bhyve, etc.. preventing fragmentation, whereas Linux seems to be very scattered with so many different minor distributions these days.


----------



## tommiie (Jun 13, 2019)

Bean6754 said:


> so many different minor distributions these days


The past few weeks I've heard stories of many distros calling it quits, e.g. Scientific Linux was a major distribution that stops its activities.

Sometimes it's good to have lot's of available options but personally I don't like to have more than a handful of options to pick from.


----------



## Crivens (Jun 13, 2019)

The process of distros calling it off could be seen as a forest fire clearing the ground.


----------



## Jörg Preiß (Aug 11, 2021)

rigoletto@ said:


> For most people a 'Desktop OS' must be something like MacOS or Windows ( both have clearly defined audiences ). Same can be said about a 'Server OS', for some MacOS server is perfect and they don't need anything more than that, there are plenty of business running Windows Servers, others need carefully tailored setups or mainframes... Still, we can discuss, what is easy to use? For me i3 is easy to use, to my father it is black magic.
> 
> Why not do a research about the current users and of a defined target audience, preferences, suggestions etc. and follow the path brought by the result of it? It is easier to get more users/developers joining a community/project when it is clear for people they are the target ( or not ).


Don't know if it helps when an absolute Newbie adds his 5 pence, but anyway: I try out BSD from time to time. My target is to browse the net, develop some stuff, maybe some TeX... delopment is in .NET core, Python or Qt, a little bit Docker - so no low hanging fruits here. But I'd like to give it a try.
I'm coming from Linux, started With SuSE 5.3, currently on Ubuntu, Fedora, MX Linux. So in principle, I know how to start with X11 from scratch - but I do not have the time for it anymore. I am used to select my DE, reboot, and got it. I have a script, which installs all needed packages, depending on the OS, so after 3h or less, I have my running system.
When I try this with FreeBSD, as I did yesterday, I start with a 'startx: command not found'. I tried to install X11 manually, but then it has no configuration... and so on. My experiences here so far:

FuryBSD installs a FreeBSD. Unfortunately discontinued...
MidnightBSD installs DE, but has no package manager. Tried to compile chromium, but failed...
GhostBSD was once running, would be my next try
TrueOS would be another candidate for the next try
I have to agree: it would be really helpful, if there were definitions of target audiences. If FreeBSD is ment as a server/console only system, and another one is the OS for the 'lazy' people - perfect. But starting a fork for DE users without a running pkg (and failing ports) does not make sense IMHO. If GhostBSD does its job, why is it necessary to have TrueOS on top? What is or what do the maintainers say is the difference? Why split the efforts?


----------



## hardworkingnewbie (Aug 11, 2021)

FreeBSD's slogan is "The power to serve." This gives a pretty clear indication about the main target audience. 

Aside that though it also makes a good desktop. It doesn't come with the shiny bells and whistles compared to desktop centric Linux distributions, but getting it into shape is not so difficult either. 

Aside that, modern X11 is pretty much self configuring nowadays compared to former times. Once installed, you normally just have to start and it detects the rest out of the box if you've installed the drivers matching your system. So getting up and running X11 is for most nowadays a no-brainer.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 11, 2021)

Jörg Preiß said:


> So in principle, I know how to start with X11 from scratch - but I do not have the time for it anymore. I am used to select my DE, reboot, and got it. I have a script, which installs all needed packages, depending on the OS, so after 3h or less, I have my running system.
> When I try this with FreeBSD, as I did yesterday, I start with a 'startx: command not found'. I tried to install X11 manually, but then it has no configuration...


Either you do know or you don't know. You don't.

I can help. Follow the basic outline, substitute pkg for ports and you can be at the desktop within 3 hours:









						Beginners Guide - How To Set Up A FreeBSD Desktop From Scratch
					

I'm going to guide you though the process of getting a fully functional FreeBSD 13.0-RELEASE desktop up and running, complete with system files and security settings, step-by-step as if you've never used UNIX or the command line. Now let's get started:  Insert your boot media and at the Welcome...




					forums.freebsd.org


----------



## Beastie7 (Aug 11, 2021)

Trihexagonal said:


> Either you do know or you don't know. You don't.
> 
> I can help. Follow the basic outline, substitute pkg for ports and you can be at the desktop within 3 hours:
> 
> ...



No mere mortal is going to go through this, then maintain the hassle of all the CLI based post-mortem configuration and tuning. I can attest to that. My Mac works like an appliance by default, while providing a decent terminal emulator for Unix programming/administration (_and apps!_). This guide kind of sets the bar wayyyy too high for what a "beginner" is.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 11, 2021)

Jörg Preiß said:


> If FreeBSD is meant as a server/console only system,


It's not. It tries to cater to both sides, and just gives you the tools. But you're going to have to get your hands dirty and configure _everything_ yourself. It doesn't matter if you configure FreeBSD as a server or as a desktop, you're going to need to _configure_ it to make it work the way you want it. And we like it that way. 



Jörg Preiß said:


> If GhostBSD does its job, why is it necessary to have TrueOS on top?


I think you're misunderstanding the differences between FreeBSD, GhostBSD and TrueOS. Both GhostBSD and TrueOS are derivatives of FreeBSD and have their own ideas on how a desktop system should be set up and try to do this completely automatically. You don't run TrueOS "on top" of anything, TrueOS is based on FreeBSD -CURRENT (development version). GhostBSD was based on a -RELEASE version. TrueOS also tries to do things a little differently when it comes to packaging and maintenance of the OS.


----------



## eternal_noob (Aug 11, 2021)

SirDice said:


> GhostBSD ... TrueOS ... GhostBSD ... TrueOS ... TrueOS ... TrueOS ... GhostBSD ... TrueOS


Now wash your mouth. With soap!


----------



## mer (Aug 11, 2021)

SirDice said:


> It's not. It tries to cater to both sides, and just gives you the tools. But you're going to have to get your hands dirty and configure _everything_ yourself. It doesn't matter if you configure FreeBSD as a server or as a desktop, you're going to need to _configure_ it to make it work the way you want it. And we like it that way.


This is what a lot of people can't seem to understand.  The default install does not give you a shiny desktop environment.  It gives you a system with enough installed that you can create the shiny desktop environment that "YOU" want, not what someone else thinks "YOU" should have.

All these other distributions (including the billions of Linux ones)?  They simply are someone else's idea of the shiny desktop environment you need.  Are there some useful ideas in them?  Of course.  Video device detection, installing the proper bits (drm kmod) is huge, but one could simply make a port pulling pieces in.

sysutils/desktop-installer port/package is a huge step towards doing this;  errors, bugs, omissions I think the maintainer would be open to hearing about them.


----------



## sko (Aug 11, 2021)

Installing and setting up X and a DE is done in a few minutes - the times where you have to hack together the whole xorg.conf by hand are long gone and usually you don't need any xorg.conf at all. Just install xorg, your DE of choice (I'm using XFCE4) and a login manager (e.g. slim), load that via rc.conf, edit the users .xinitrc and you're done.

TrueOS was a nice try - as long as you stayed in exactly the intended use cases and configuration the devs intended. OpenRC was/is a nightmare - when we tried to use TrueOS on our client PCs we had constant race conditions and/or non-working (and thus boot/shutdown-blocking) init-scripts which had to be fixed and re-fixed after every second update or so (usually because yet another dependency broke...). Especially when using a bunch of networked services (or even nfs-shares) that need to be available at boot, it was often a lottery if everything came up as intended - i.e. when using LDAP or NIS, OpenRC often started services that needed the user/group configuration before NIS/LDAP, thus leaving cups, saned and other services unusable or crashed after startup. Yes, you can make dependencies; No, they didn't work as expected/documented. Also during shutdown it often thought a service failed to shut down and blocked the rest of the shutdown process... 
I absolutely don't give a damn about 1-2sec faster boot times (which are neglegible when using SSDs or NVMEs anyways), but startup needs to be 100% reliable, which those "dynamic" inits still can't provide for a lot of use cases...
I still thing TrueOS could have been a success IF they had concentrated on building a working FreeBSD-based desktop and a fully functional Lumina DE, rather than ripping out or anything that just worked in vanilla FreeBSD and replacing it with (linux) stuff that doesn't quite work (e.g. OpenRC and dhcpcd). But to be fair we have to thank them for really pushing the development of what was then called drm-next.

And just FTR: TrueOS is dead and gone and Project Trident is now just another linux distro. The only thing left is the Lumina DE, which looked really promising, but with the driving force behind it (Project Trident) being linux-centric, it is no longer a "BSD-native DE" and I suspect it will sooner or later drag in linuxisms and dependencies on crap like dbus, pulseaudio and other cruft (if this hasn't already happened - I haven't followed the development for quite a while).




Beastie7 said:


> My Mac works like an appliance by default, while providing a decent terminal emulator for Unix programming/administration (_and apps!_).


Then maybe you are the wrong audience for a proper, multi purpose OS, but should rather stay in one of those completely governed and predefined ecosystems with their app-stores...


----------



## Beastie7 (Aug 11, 2021)

sko said:


> but should rather stay in one of those completely governed and predefined ecosystems with their app-stores...



So I suppose the quoted individual in my signature is also the wrong audience?  That's completely irrelevant to what I said. macOS's merits on usability has nothing to do with Apple's way of handling it's ecosystem. I'm comfortable in both environments, actually (_ie hence the administration bit_), but there's this thing called time people care about. Yes, it's a multi purpose OS... for servers/embedded. Perspective goes along way people!



eternal_noob said:


> Now wash your mouth. With soap!



Bad moderator.


----------



## mer (Aug 11, 2021)

sko said:


> I absolutely don't give a damn about 1-2sec faster boot times (which are neglegible when using SSDs or NVMEs anyways), but startup needs to be 100% reliable, which those "dynamic" inits still can't provide for a lot of use cases...


This.  When you have a system with uptimes of at least 24 hours, whats a few extra secs waiting?  Heck I even go and bump the timeout in the bootloader back to 10 secs so I have enough time to get my old brain and fingers into action.  Yes, I still use a desktop not a laptop.

Laptops:  reliable suspend and resume, not "faster boot times".

I don't have an issue with beginners/newcomers/call them what you will being confused or overwhelmed.  I think we were all there at some point, but maybe just a long time ago that we've forgotten the frustration.  

I think the basic problem is expectations from doing a default install.  I'd guess that one could easily tweak install scripts to do a lot more (heck plenty of examples around, Michael W Lucas has them in a few of his books), to do a lot of the things that are talked about in this thread.  It would make it easier for a beginner to get to a functioning graphical desktop, but would it enhance their understanding of the system?  
Trihexagonal guide to setting things up (vermaden also has a good series) is a bit more "I'm not going to hold your hand, but I'm going to try and give you what you need and what you can use to start figuring out things on your own".

The old "give a man a fish" vs "teach a man to fish" principle.

X configuration and use has improved drastically over the years.  The biggest issue is when you have different video devices in the system;  config get a bit manual.
For a single device system, my experience:
Intel graphics supported by the i915 driver, simply install drm-kmod, run startx and it just works.
Nivida devices:  simply install the appropriate nvidia-driver (this can get tricky with older devices), create a minimal "driver-nvidia.conf" to tell X to load the nvidia driver (otherwise you wind up with default VESA modes).  You can search this forum and find plenty of info, but here is all I needed to do:
/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/driver-nvidia.conf (could also go in /usr/local/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d)
`Section "Device"
        Identifier "NVIDIA Card"
        VendorName "NVIDIA Corporation"
        Driver "nvidia"
EndSection`
That's it, nothing more.

Installing and configuring your desired graphical login manager and desktop environment is simply pkg install FOO and following any messages.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 11, 2021)

mer said:


> When you have a system with uptimes of at least 24 hours, whats a few extra secs waiting?


A fairly decent server or workstation will take longer to pass its POST than it'll take for it to boot. If you have any RAID or HBA cards POST will take even longer.


----------



## bsduck (Aug 11, 2021)

Jörg Preiß said:


> MidnightBSD installs DE, but has no package manager. Tried to compile chromium, but failed...


MidnightBSD is a joke. It's a FreeBSD fork (unlike GhostBSD which is a custom desktop system built on FreeBSD) supposed to "include all the software you'd expect for your daily tasks", yet it has much less packages available than FreeBSD, and most of them are heavily outdated (I'll just mention Firefox 80 as an example, have a look at http://www.midnightbsd.org/ftp/MidnightBSD/mports/packages/amd64/2.0/ for more...).



Jörg Preiß said:


> If FreeBSD is ment as a server/console only system, and another one is the OS for the 'lazy' people - perfect.


To compare to the penguins world, think of FreeBSD like of Arch Linux: you can make it whatever you want, but you have to do it yourself.


----------



## hardworkingnewbie (Aug 11, 2021)

bsduck said:


> To compare to the penguins world, think of FreeBSD like of Arch Linux: you can make it whatever you want, but you have to do it yourself.


That's not really a good analgon given the fact that Arch Linux is a rolling release distribution, where your packages are always cutting edge, while FreeBSD has a fixed release cycle.

A much better counterpart in the Linux world for comparison is Debian.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 11, 2021)

hardworkingnewbie said:


> That's not really a good analgon given the fact that Arch Linux is a rolling release distribution, where your packages are always cutting edge, while FreeBSD has a fixed release cycle.


Ports/packages are not tied to specific releases. Only the base OS has a fixed release schedule but only for the -RELEASE versions, -STABLE and -CURRENT are constantly moving.


----------



## bsduck (Aug 11, 2021)

hardworkingnewbie said:


> That's not really a good analgon given the fact that Arch Linux is a rolling release distribution, where your packages are always cutting edge, while FreeBSD has a fixed release cycle.


That's true, but I couldn't think of a Linux distribution which is both "do-it-yourself" and fixed release.

Debian is not a good analog either because:
1. you can install a fully featured desktop from its installer
2. all packages are fixed release, while we get regularly updated packages on a fixed release base system


----------



## kpedersen (Aug 11, 2021)

bsduck said:


> Debian is not a good analog either because:
> 1. you can install a fully featured desktop from its installer
> 2. all packages are fixed release, while we get regularly updated packages on a fixed release base system


If you get the DVD iso, you do have X11 and desktop environments on that media. The old sysinstall installer also used to allow you to install it during setup.

FreeBSD is only using "quarterly" packages by default. You can easily change that to "release_1", "release_2", etc.

Yes, these are not by default but still very easy things to change in order to emulate something like Debian.

Did GhostBSD ever jump back to upstream FreeBSD when TrueOS was discontinued. This is a little why these desktop oriented spins are not quite so reliable. History seems to keep repeating itself and the newer users never quite realise.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 11, 2021)

kpedersen said:


> Did GhostBSD ever jump back to upstream FreeBSD when TrueOS was discontinued.


Looks like they're using 13-STABLE as a base now.





						GhostBSD 21.05.11 ISO now available | GhostBSD
					






					ghostbsd.org


----------



## recluce (Aug 11, 2021)

Jörg Preiß said:


> Don't know if it helps when an absolute Newbie adds his 5 pence, but anyway: I try out BSD from time to time. My target is to browse the net, develop some stuff, maybe some TeX... delopment is in .NET core, Python or Qt, a little bit Docker - so no low hanging fruits here. But I'd like to give it a try.
> I'm coming from Linux, started With SuSE 5.3, currently on Ubuntu, Fedora, MX Linux. So in principle, I know how to start with X11 from scratch - but I do not have the time for it anymore. I am used to select my DE, reboot, and got it. I have a script, which installs all needed packages, depending on the OS, so after 3h or less, I have my running system.
> When I try this with FreeBSD, as I did yesterday, I start with a 'startx: command not found'. I tried to install X11 manually, but then it has no configuration...


Not sure why you need to make your life difficult. If you don't have the time or interest to configure a FreeBSD desktop manually, have it done for you automatically. desktop-installer is available in Ports (and I assume as a package), it does all that for you and installs the DE of your choice. 
Please note that I have only installed Mate and XFCE with it, so I do not know how well it does other DEs - there is plenty of choices. But for those two, it worked 100% in giving me a working desktop environment.


----------



## bsduck (Aug 11, 2021)

kpedersen said:


> If you get the DVD iso, you do have X11 and desktop environments on that media. The old sysinstall installer also used to allow you to install it during setup.


It's not just a matter of having the packages available on the media. To get a comfortable working environment you'll still have to configure a few things (locale, devfs...), load required services and video drivers, install a display manager, and so on. Debian does all of this automatically. You just boot the installer, choose your language/keyboard, select "KDE Plasma desktop", wait, reboot, and SDDM is there to log you to a ready to use desktop. I don't say it's better, it's just not comparable. There's more automation in Debian.



kpedersen said:


> FreeBSD is only using "quarterly" packages by default. You can easily change that to "release_1", "release_2", etc.


Fortunately quarterly packages are much more up to date than Debian stable.
Four version upgrades in a year is much better for average desktop software than one upgrade every two years!


----------



## astyle (Aug 11, 2021)

SirDice said:


> Ports/packages are not tied to specific releases.


Hmmmm... Actually, they are.... There's always some concern about breaking the ABI for some of the packages when upgrading from say, 11-RELEASE to 13-RELEASE.  Isn't this why we have release-targeted repos?


----------



## mer (Aug 11, 2021)

bsduck said:


> There's more automation in Debian.


That is exactly the point and what things like PC-BSD, TrueOS, Trident, GhostBSD all tried to increase the level of automation.

But what does that all mean for a FreeBSD install?  The default installer does a level of preconfiguration (time zone, network stuff), but obviously not enough to create a usable desktop by default.

Expectations and documentation.  Get the required level of automation wrapped up into a port, then it becomes trivial and easy to document:
To install one of the common desktop environments, on the initial reboot after the installer has finished do a "pkg install foo" and follow the instructions in the package message.


----------



## Tieks (Aug 11, 2021)

mer said:
			
		

> The default installer does a level of preconfiguration (time zone, network stuff), but obviously not enough to create a usable desktop by default.



Installing FreeBSD requires using the command line to configure a lot of things. That's not just a waste of time, it's a good learning experience. It is IMO the best way to really get to know your system.
I see people sometimes who need a DE and 6 file managers just to get their disks mounted. In the end, the learning experience might have saved 'em more time than the auto-installer did.


----------



## mer (Aug 11, 2021)

Tieks said:


> Installing FreeBSD requires using the command line to configure a lot of things. That's not just a waste of time, it's a good learning experience. It is IMO the best way to really get to know your system.
> I see people sometimes who need a DE and 6 file managers just to get their disks mounted. In the end, the learning experience might have saved 'em more time than the auto-installer did.


I'm not disagreeing with any of this, in fact, I whole heartedly endorse all of it, mostly because I've been doing it that way for a long time.

That's my biggest issue with Windows:  which GUI and how many clicks do I need to configure or even look up something.


----------



## astyle (Aug 11, 2021)

mer said:


> I'm not disagreeing with any of this, in fact, I whole heartedly endorse all of it, mostly because I've been doing it that way for a long time.
> 
> That's my biggest issue with Windows:  which GUI and how many clicks do I need to configure or even look up something.


Command line in Windows is next to impossible: Even if you get the syntax correct, "effective permissions" will most likely be the culprit behind the unintelligible error message that comes from the failure. In Windows, using a GUI sometimes helps the matters. One use case would be cleaning out Windows.old after an upgrade: It's faster to use the Disk Management GUI than to do `del Windows.old` in PowerShell, and discovering you don't have the perms to delete a tiny file buried 25 levels deep.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 11, 2021)

Beastie7 said:


> No mere mortal is going to go through this,


I have previously stated I may have overestimated "mere mortals" in innate ability. 

It started out as notes to myself so I wouldn't forget how to do it while offline a year and not using those skills daily.



Beastie7 said:


> then maintain the hassle of all the CLI based post-mortem configuration and tuning.


I explain step-by-step in excruciating detail how to use the command line with a target audience of a Windows user who has never used it  

I walk them through the process start to finish, show them what System and Security files need editing once they hit the desktop with examples provided, a pf firewall ruleset for general purpose use in addition to a CUPS version and endow them with valuable CLI experience as they work. 

The term postmortem Latin for "an examination carried out after death" and use of it incorrect in this instance.



Beastie7 said:


> I can attest to that.


Don't sell yourself short. You're still here, aren't you?



Beastie7 said:


> My Mac works like an appliance by default, while providing a decent terminal emulator for Unix programming/administration (_and apps!_).


Are they the apps that came installed and learned to love? Or the apps you love and complied from source?

You have a store bought appliance by default like every other one made.

I have a custom built desktop from ground up with only the apps I chose to suit my needs compiled from source like no other. So do they.



Beastie7 said:


> This guide kind of sets the bar wayyyy too high for what a "beginner" is.


It's what is formerly known as a Task Analysis and I have written many.

It doesn't get any easier than that. 

Using FreeBSD on a day-to day basis not so easy and vanilla FreeBSD not for everyone. If they fail at following the tutorial, I have done them a Service in saving them from their overly zealous ambitions.


----------



## Beastie7 (Aug 11, 2021)

Trihexagonal said:


> Are they the apps that came installed and learned to love? Or the apps you love and complied from source?
> 
> You have a store bought appliance by default like every other one made.
> 
> I have a custom built desktop from ground up with only the apps I chose to suit my needs compiled from source like no other. So do they.



Well, I have most major open source, and commercial apps at my disposal. No emulation hacks, no tweaks, no wrestling in the shell.

But I understand; some LEGO masters are quite stoic. I prefer peace, and the fisher price path. 



Trihexagonal said:


> I have previously stated I may have overestimated "mere mortals" in innate ability.



Fair enough.



Trihexagonal said:


> Don't sell yourself short. You're still here, aren't you?



I'm just eating my popcorn, that's all.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 12, 2021)

Beastie7 said:


> But I understand; some LEGO masters are quite stoic. I prefer peace, and the fisher price path.


I have scrutinized the passing of celluloid images referred to in your culture as Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

It is as apparent to me now the mindset of the pod person is a consequence of the imperfection inherent in the human bean as a sub-species to those of root by nature.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Aug 22, 2021)

sko said:


> OpenRC



<https://forums.ghostbsd.org/viewtopic.php?p=9967#p9967> _moving back to FreeBSD RC_.

Postscript

*The switch to FreeBSD rc.d is coming | GhostBSD* (2021-08-20)


----------



## Jörg Preiß (Sep 15, 2021)

Tieks said:


> Installing FreeBSD requires using the command line to configure a lot of things. That's not just a waste of time, it's a good learning experience. It is IMO the best way to really get to know your system.


This is true (of course) - but it is pita if it has to be done each and every time. I change my OS from time to time on my laptops - tired of MxLinux / try SuSE again / use Fedora... but my script gets my environment together in less the 4h. If I'd have to fiddle out the correct X server configuration again and again, then it is a lot of experience... but a lot of a waste of time too.


----------



## astyle (Sep 15, 2021)

Jörg Preiß said:


> This is true (of course) - but it is pita if it has to be done each and every time. I change my OS from time to time on my laptops - tired of MxLinux / try SuSE again / use Fedora... but my script gets my environment together in less the 4h. If I'd have to fiddle out the correct X server configuration again and again, then it is a lot of experience... but a lot of a waste of time too.


You can use poudriere-image(8) to run `poudriere-image  -t iso` to create an ISO of an existing install that you can just `dd` onto another disk


----------



## scottro (Sep 15, 2021)

Quick note that the man page still considers it alpha. But sounds like a great tool.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 16, 2021)

astyle said:


> … `poudriere-image -t iso` to create an ISO of an existing install that you can just `dd` onto another disk …



☑ to ports-mgmt/poudriere and ports-mgmt/poudriere-devel

If the intention is another disk, then something other than ISO might be ideal. 

I should probably aim for ZFS i.e. `zrawdisk` … I might experiment in a week or so. 

<https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/wiki/poudriere-image.8>

<https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/wiki/poudriere-image.8-devel>


----------



## Jörg Preiß (Sep 16, 2021)

astyle said:


> You can use poudriere-image(8) to run `poudriere-image  -t iso` to create an ISO of an existing install that you can just `dd` onto another disk


But that does not help if different laptops need different X video drivers, does it?


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 16, 2021)

Jörg Preiß said:


> … if different laptops need different X video drivers, …



GhostBSD uses an approach that covers much of the diversity, so a single image can be good for a variety of graphics hardware. 

NomadBSD also uses an approach that covers much of the diversity: 









						NomadBSD/initgfx at master · nomadbsd/NomadBSD
					

Livesystem based on FreeBSD. Contribute to nomadbsd/NomadBSD development by creating an account on GitHub.




					github.com
				




CultBSD also uses an approach that covers much of the diversity …


----------



## scottro (Sep 16, 2021)

My *very* limited experience with Nomad BSD seemed to take a lot of time to set its image for a second laptop after having first been used on a different laptop.One, a Lenovo Yoga 2, the other, a T495 with AMD and different screen size.

I wonder if we should break this into a new thread. GhostBSD not using a defunct O/S isn't really the best title for what we're discussing now.


----------



## Vull (Sep 16, 2021)

Jörg Preiß said:


> But that does not help if different laptops need different X video drivers, does it?


Before FreeBSD-13.0 was released, I found that setting up X video drivers was non-trivial and very demanding, but, not so much nowadays. No more xorg.conf files or other configuration text files are strictly necessary for me to set up either the kde5 or mate mega-port packages. It's my habit to create a ~/.xinitrc file for initial testing, but if I just wanted to use lightdm or some other display manager right off the bat, then I don't think I would need any ~/.xinitrc either.

Assuming I wanted to prepare an ISO image (which I don't) for kde5 or mate, I'd just stack it with multiple video drivers. This is the approach I think Linux Mint was taking as of LM version 19, and may likely be the approach they still use. To test this theory, I loaded up my Lenovo laptop system (which I'm using right now) with unnecessary drivers. I actually use xf86-video-ati on this system, but, as of right now, I also have xf86-video-amdgpu and xf86-video-intel on this system, with no ill effects. I have no nvidia system with which to test my theory, so it might not work there, but I suspect that it very likely might.

In /etc/rc.conf I have `lightdm_enable="YES"` and `kld_list="acpi_video"` but no other X11 related configuration. The system then auto-configures everything else that I need when X starts.

For instance, if I run this configuration on my Lenovo laptop, it will automajickally load radeonkms.ko, but if I run the same configuration on my HP laptop, it will load i915.ko with no questions asked, and no end-user configuration hints supplied in kld_list or elsewhere.

This type of simplified configuration requires the drm-kmod package. I don't believe it would have worked on FreeBSD version 11 or 12, so I'll ask 13.0-RELEASE to take the bow. (Roll on snare drum. Everybody claps. Curtains.)


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 17, 2021)

Vull said:


> … to use lightdm or some other display manager right off the bat, then I don't think I would need any ~/.xinitrc …



SDDM on FreeBSD was recently made more foolproof. ~/.xinitrc is no longer required for a _User Session_. This makes it easier for end users to engage in troubleshooting if, say, _Plasma (X11)_ does not work as expected.


----------



## Jörg Preiß (Oct 6, 2021)

Jörg Preiß said:


> I'd have to fiddle out the correct X server configuration again and again, then it is a lot of experience... but a lot of a waste of time too.


I was wrong


----------



## teo (Oct 7, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> SDDM on FreeBSD was recently made more foolproof. ~/.xinitrc is no longer required for a _User Session_. This makes it easier for end users to engage in troubleshooting if, say, _Plasma (X11)_ does not work as expected.


The sddm, in my opinion,  is too much unnecessary software bloating the system and consuming more machine resources.


----------



## astyle (Oct 7, 2021)

teo said:


> The sddm, in my opinion,  is too much unnecessary software bloating the system and consuming more machine resources.


it's actually pretty lightweight, and a VERY necessary piece of software. How else are people supposed to log into a DE?


----------



## scottro (Oct 7, 2021)

I think you're joking, but for those novices who see it and don't get it, you can log into a desktop environment the same way you do a window manager. Have something like `exec gnome-session`, or whatever the command is to start your desktop environment, in your $HOME/.xinitrc.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 7, 2021)

scottro said:


> I think you're joking …



No joke for people who prefer a GUI  

If I don't write again, it's because I'm going down for the third time, I just can't keep my head above water with the weight of SDDM crushing down upon me. Help.


----------



## astyle (Oct 7, 2021)

scottro said:


> I think you're joking, but for those novices who see it and don't get it, you can log into a desktop environment the same way you do a window manager. Have something like `exec gnome-session`, or whatever the command is to start your desktop environment, in your $HOME/.xinitrc.


There's x11/slim, x11/xdm, x11/gdm... It's important to a lot of people to have a GUI login manager. The only reason I do `/usr/local/bin/startplasma-wayland.sh` is because login managers don't work very well under Wayland yet. Once x11/sddm is working under Wayland, I'm gonna install it in a BIG hurry.


----------



## Argentum (Oct 7, 2021)

astyle said:


> it's actually pretty lightweight, and a VERY necessary piece of software. How else are people supposed to log into a DE?


Personally I keep x11/slim also installed as a backup option. Does almost the same work, needs a little bit configuration and is more lightweight.


----------



## teo (Oct 7, 2021)

astyle said:


> it's actually pretty lightweight, and a VERY necessary piece of software. How else are people supposed to log into a DE?


As is traditionally done the manual configuration via ~/.xinitrc  terminal,  or via graphic manager e.g. slim.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 7, 2021)

Thanks, 



Argentum said:


> Personally I keep x11/slim also installed as a backup option. …



Is that, SLiM instead of LightDM through habit? (Am I oversimplifying?)

I ask only because upstream, SLiM activity ceased more than seven years ago.


----------



## Argentum (Oct 8, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Probably. As I said, I am not using it every day. Just a backup option.
I have also x11/xdm installed and working when needed. For everyday use I am on sddm.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 8, 2021)

The kind of people who use Windows or Mac, or even Ubuntu, want out of the box desktop systems that can do everything they need. They don't want to tinker with their systems. The thing is, these systems are actually really good when they work, but when they don't the lack of understanding is a real hindrance. That's what makes BSD and Linux a great OS for experienced users, they let those users make informed choices about what works for them.
However for everyone else, most people, these users need automatic updates, software centers and integrated software like Firefox, Libreoffice etc, and yes accessibility software. Some ports are better maintained than others but out of the box support for them is practically non existent compared to other desktops.

If FreeBSD (or even Linux) wants to penetrate the desktop market it needs more than a desktop environment. It needs to be the default operating system on any purchased computer. See why Android and Chromebook have been so successful. Desktop users see an operating system as part of a device not something they can hotswap.


----------



## Vull (Oct 8, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I use lightdm out of habit, with both KDE and Mate. It's both stable and reliable in my experience. Recently re-tested sddm, and, although a previous version had tested out as a big resource hog earlier this year, in the Spring, this more recent version seemed to be acceptably "slimmer." Even so, lightdm still consumes slightly less CPU on average during times when the desktop is idle, although not enough to really matter all that much.

I like sddm and KDE, but still tend to prefer lightdm and Mate, and for similar reasons: they both seem just a little bit more lightweight, stable, reliable, and maybe even a little easier to configure. Start ups at boot time are also a bit faster, but mainly it's about stability and reliability.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 8, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 said:


> If FreeBSD (or even Linux) wants to penetrate the desktop market



The desktop market, by which I assume you mean general users, has never been the target for FreeBSD. That it ports such software in is a side issue for others to work on. Some of us like that because we consider FreeBSD to be a professional operating system for professional users and serious amateurs and hobbyists.


----------



## Argentum (Oct 8, 2021)

Argentum said:


> drhowarddrfine said:
> 
> 
> > The desktop market, by which I assume you mean general users, has never been the target for FreeBSD. That it ports such software in is a side issue for others to work on. Some of us like that because we consider FreeBSD to be a professional operating system for professional users and serious amateurs and hobbyists.


*Agree!* For me the important point of FreeBSD has been the '*S*' - freeb*S*d which stands for 'source'. In FreeBSD the source is in perfect order and this is the greatest value of it. In FreeBSD community many build their systems from source. In commercial world users have no access to the source and in Linux world only very few are able to build their systems.
Building from source has an important *philosophical* implication - if there is a problem, that problem is *inside your box*! There is nobody to blame, but there are many who can help you. With commercial systems you can blame the company and usually only that company can help you.


----------



## astyle (Oct 8, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 said:


> The kind of people who use Windows or Mac, or even Ubuntu, want out of the box desktop systems that can do everything they need. They don't want to tinker with their systems. The thing is, these systems are actually really good when they work, but when they don't the lack of understanding is a real hindrance. That's what makes BSD and Linux a great OS for experienced users, they let those users make informed choices about what works for them.


Be careful how you put it. I'm a Wayland user on FreeBSD, waiting for SDDM to catch up. And I use ports with EVERYTHING enabled. And I'm studying Poudriere to make KDE upgrades less painful - I just got Apache HTTPS going without mod_rewrite, and turned off the insecure HTTP. One of my goals is to get AMD GPU computing going under FreeBSD, even though NVidia/Intel/Windows is an easier combination to get quickly going with. And yes, with all that, I still want to use SDDM (when it's ready, of course).

Argentum :  the 'S' in BSD is *S*oftware, not *S*ource...


----------



## Vull (Oct 8, 2021)

Brandywine School District. Berkeley Standard Distribution. A rose by another moniker.


----------



## Argentum (Oct 8, 2021)

astyle said:


> Argentum :  the 'S' in BSD is *S*oftware, not *S*ource...


I know and I can read the Wikipedia, but few decades ago I had a strong belief that it stands for source. And there was no Wikipedia and Google back then...


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 8, 2021)

drhowarddrfine said:


> The desktop market, by which I assume you mean general users, has never been the target for FreeBSD. That it ports such software in is a side issue for others to work on. Some of us like that because we consider FreeBSD to be a professional operating system for professional users and serious amateurs and hobbyists.


Not for FreeBSD but for derivatives like Ghost and Nomad yes, point was it won't happen because the average person doesn't even realise you can install another operating system, let alone install one which does not quite meet the needs that Mac or Windows does (and that's not a dig at BSD just a fact that for the average user desktop support is better because they've had billions thrown at making it so in deals with hardware manufacturers for driver support, courting game developers etc)

I can get by with FreeBSD completely fine, I can also get by with shell perfectly fine, but I wouldn't suggest that someone without any interest in software could do that.

And just to be clear I do think FreeBSD is a much better system for desktops, it just lacks the out of the box polish, driver support, software support and other stuff that comes along with the small community.


----------



## macondo (Oct 8, 2021)

Every mind is a different world, to each its own: desktop environments and display managers, 
if you don't use it, you are not as advanced as Windows.

I believe in K.I.S.S. , window managers and startx , keep it simple, let it work.

The other day I installed KDE5  Plasma for kicks, wanted to know the big fuss about it: 573 packages! (gotta be nuts ! (in my book) and ssdm.
It took me 62 minutes to download it, at the end there were some packages with problems or so (i did not dwell on it) , rebooted  and it worked smooth and pretty as ever.

Not for me,  icewm  and .xinitrc (exec icewm), but like I said: to each his own.


----------



## Argentum (Oct 8, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 said:


> Not for FreeBSD but for derivatives like Ghost and Nomad yes, point was it won't happen because the average person doesn't even realise you can install another operating system, let alone install one which does not quite meet the needs that Mac or Windows does (and that's not a dig at BSD just a fact that for the average user desktop support is better because they've had billions thrown at making it so in deals with hardware manufacturers for driver support, courting game developers etc)


Today it looks like an average person does not even know that there is such thing as Operating System. Probably this is Moving average. A huge population below that average does not even know that there is CPU.


----------



## Argentum (Oct 8, 2021)

macondo said:


> Every mind is a different world, to each its own: desktop environments and display managers,
> if you don't use it, you are not as advanced as Windows.


I used to be an *Apple II user *and there was no Window Manager. Just BASIC prompt.


----------



## astyle (Oct 8, 2021)

Argentum said:


> I used to be an *Apple II user *and there was no Window Manager. Just BASIC prompt.


I played Number Muncher on that.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 8, 2021)

Vull said:


> Brandywine School District. Berkeley Standard Distribution. …



Bastard Sentence Dissectors. 

(Most of us, at some time or another.)


----------



## astyle (Oct 8, 2021)

Bayer Stool Dewormer - a pill for dogs. At some point, you gotta take care of your best friend.


----------



## bsduck (Oct 8, 2021)

The German Bobsleigh and Luge Federation (www.bsd-portal.de) advertises "high tech, high speed, high performance"... I agree, BSD is an appropriate acronym for this.


----------



## teo (Oct 9, 2021)

macondo said:


> Every mind is a different world, to each its own: desktop environments and display managers,
> if you don't use it, you are not as advanced as Windows.
> 
> I believe in K.I.S.S. , window managers and startx , keep it simple, let it work.
> ...


Why don't you use jwm? jwm is lighter and more elegant as far as you can see than icewm.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 9, 2021)

macondo said:


> … like I said: to each his own.







> … Plasma for kicks, … 573 packages! (gotta be nuts ! (in my book) …



Someone else might express surprise at the 357 packages that currently form the base OS 

That's the same three digits, in a different order. I'm not only a BSD, I'm also a BND.

Whatever the _n_umbers of packages that form an operating system or desktop environment: the user experience is more important than a number, and KDE Plasma helps to keep things simple for me on FreeBSD. YMMV, To Each His Own, etcetera etcetera etcetera


----------



## bsduck (Oct 9, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> I'm also a BND


I should be more careful about what I tell you...


----------



## macondo (Oct 9, 2021)

teo said:


> Why don't you use jwm? jwm is lighter and more elegant as far as you can see than icewm.


You are right. But I like icewm looks, besides I started with icewm when I was more of a newbie, I got the same keybindings on both, except 'win key + space bar' to type commands,I lkie icewm's better, muscle memory I guess.
Something simple I guess. Jwm is easier to configure... works as fast, uses less memory. What do I know?


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Oct 9, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> Bastard Sentence Dissectors.
> 
> (Most of us, at some time or another.)


Oh, like when you dissected this sentence:
"There are consequences for your actions".

Out of this one:
"There are consequences for your actions and you're going to take responsibility for them."


Branded Someone Dishonest


----------



## jammied (Oct 10, 2021)

eternal_noob said:


> Now wash your mouth. With soap!



Ok, a bit of late reply, but did I just see TikTok trends hitting the FreeBSD forums?


----------



## shkhln (Oct 10, 2021)

jammied said:


> Ok, a bit of late reply, but did I just see TikTok trends hitting the FreeBSD forums?


Nope.


----------



## jammied (Oct 10, 2021)

Now I have read the entire thread, I am going to drop in with my two cents.

Firstly, I am a FreeBSD desktop user. The main thing I immediately care about is that I can get it to do what I need it to do on the desktop.

I do think creating all these desktop based forks is harmful, if things are less fragmented and in turn there is less duplication, it makes it more practical to ensure the core code base is maintained to the best possible standard (less repetition, less labour wasted).

That said, I am not keen on seeing a general flurry of "average" desktop users. Quite simply, if to some extent FreeBSD is an OS for people who really know what they doing, it means that there is less risk of situations where the BSD community is grappling with people who have their own ideas but (however well intentioned they are) don't necessarily fully understand what they are doing, something that I could ultimately envisage leading to an inherent deterioration in the quality of the FreeBSD code base.

In summary: part of the reason I use FreeBSD generally is I feel as if is more of an attractive option to be people who are inherently more technically competent and I can get it to do what I need it to do.


----------



## Alexander88207 (Oct 10, 2021)

This thread seems to have gone off the rails.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 10, 2021)

Alexander88207 said:


> This thread seems to have gone off the rails.



_You don't say?_ 

No offence to the opening poster – in 2018, Chris_H could not have predicted this – but the historic jumping ship to TrueOS, a fairly huge thing at the time, recently became somewhat irrelevant:

What init system would you prefer to use under GhostBSD? | GhostBSD
<https://forums.FreeBSD.org/threads/66877/post-528347> ▶ The switch to FreeBSD rc.d is coming | GhostBSD ◀ <https://old.reddit.com/comments/pedr6b/-/>
GhostBSD 21.09.06 ISO's now available | GhostBSD



> … switch from OpenRC to FreeBSD rc.d and numerous fixes and improvements. …






jammied said:


> … I do think creating all these desktop based forks is harmful, if things are less fragmented and in turn there is less duplication, it makes it more practical to ensure the core code base is maintained to the best possible standard (less repetition, less labour wasted). …











						Please stop FreeBSD fragmentation
					

One of the biggest set backs to Linux is people that instead of putting their effort in to making one distro better they take and spend...




					old.reddit.com
				




… "Stop" is not the way.


----------



## jammied (Oct 10, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> _You don't say?_
> 
> No offence to the opening poster – in 2018, Chris_H could not have predicted this – but the historic jumping ship to TrueOS, a fairly huge thing at the time, recently became somewhat irrelevant:
> 
> ...


I did do a quick bit of research after my last post. The main BSD where I can see distinct merit to its existence as separate build is that of OpenBSD. This is because I feel it genuinely achieves something that requires a separate BSD build for. Essentially, OpenBSDs additional emphasis on security and being formed of entirely "open code" that is consistently licenced in the way Theo has defined is what warrants the existence of said distinct BSD variant. To do this within the original FreeBSD project may unavoidably cause FreeBSD to be less useful to some users.

However, I think a lot of other objectives could and should be achieved by just creating new FreeBSD packages that tailor a significant part of its functionality for specific use cases. For instances, lets consider the code that handles FreeBSD bootup. I am not as familiar with that currently as I would like to be but I think I can safely say that different components of that code could if need be broken down into distinct packages. If needbe, you could then create packages that create special boot code to better suit desktop use cases and then create a special FreeBSD installer for desktop uses that installs packages specifically for desktop use and sets up your installation in a way that is specifically tailored for desktop use.

The point has already been made about the existence of the package "desktop-installer", if you want a build of BSD tailored for desktop use cases, it would make considerable sense to just build upon the work the maintainers of said package have started.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 10, 2021)

jammied said:


> desktop-installer



It's great, but no substitute for a live DVD/USB.


----------



## jammied (Oct 10, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> It's great, but no substitute for a live DVD/USB.


Agreed, and when I talk about building upon the work of desktop-installer, I am specifically thinking of doing things like integrating the functionality of desktop-installer into an ISO that is still a FreeBSD iso but one that includes a installer for desktop use and setup to install desktop software packages by default. 

I think it is worth thinking about Ubuntu, what they initially did for desktop use is create a CD for specifically installing a desktop build of Ubuntu. The ISO basically provided a GUI interface for the Debian installer. Underneath the GUI installer was still the same basic code that was used in a server install of Ubuntu (or Debian), however, it had a more user friendly interface put on top of it.


----------



## bsduck (Oct 10, 2021)

jammied said:


> The main BSD where I can see distinct merit to its existence as separate build is that of OpenBSD. This is because I feel it genuinely achieves something that requires a separate BSD build for. Essentially, OpenBSDs additional emphasis on security and being formed of entirely "open code" that is consistently licenced in the way Theo has defined is what warrants the existence of said distinct BSD variant. To do this within the original FreeBSD project may unavoidably cause FreeBSD to be less useful to some users.


You're talking of a "separate build" like if OpenBSD and FreeBSD were alternative versions of the same OS. They're not! Both are quite different operating systems, and none is "the original" in regard to the other.

Both FreeBSD and NetBSD are direct descendants of the original Berkeley BSD that were first released in 1993, and OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD only two years later. Although retaining common features and sharing code now and then, the three have vastly diverged since then.

DragonFly, which was forked from FreeBSD in 2003, is still closer to its parent (they still use FreeBSD ports for example), but I think it has undergone too many changes to be considered an alternative build either.

What I would call separate builds are GhostBSD, pfSense, TrueNAS, etc.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 10, 2021)

jammied said:


> 𡀦… like integrating the functionality of desktop-installer into an ISO that is still a FreeBSD iso but one that includes a installer for desktop use and setup to install desktop software packages by default. …



Smart ☑

Still: GhostBSD live has the distinction of a desktop environment from the outset. An excellent first impression, from a UX perspective.

GhostBSD is, I believe, also remarkable for its use of ports to build the base OS; <https://forums.FreeBSD.org/threads/pkgbase.79917/post-536054>


----------

