# Frustrating 9.1-REL installation



## sgunn (Jan 8, 2013)

So I've been using FreeBSD since the 3.x branch.  I love FreeBSD.

But I've got to say, the last couple of releases have been very frustrating to install, mostly because of getting KDE and the X environment up.

Now sure, I know FreeBSD's motto is "The Power to Serve" and it's used as a headless server for a lot of people, but so are all the Linux distros, and they've automatically configured and brought up at least a minimal X enviroment for 10 years.

At work we use SUSE, and I use opensuse for my desktop.  I installed OpenSuse 11.2, it took about 20 minutes, and I had a fully functional kde desktop.

The FreeBSD 9.1 installer doesn't even give you the option to install KDE or Gnome.  Really?

So I downloaded and burned the dvd image for 9.1R.  Did the install.  Supposedly the dvd includes kde, but I didn't see any options to install it.  Maybe I'm just stupid.  I'm sure somebody will tell me that I'm lazy and didn't read some post somewhere, but frankly, why should I need to?

So I go to build Xorg/KDE whatever else I need from ports.  Takes half a day.  Finally get the Xorg test pattern to come up.  Go to start kde, and I get a black screen.  Looks like some sort of problem with libdrm.

I have the ports tree released with 9.1R just a few days ago, and yet, libdrm *will not build* with KMS enabled, which is one of the big features of 9.1 that everyone is excited about.  It complains about missing stuff in the cairo package.

I really don't want to do all this.  I just want to install FreeBSD, get a reasonable KDE environment up and running and install the services and apps I want running.

I don't want to spend a week updating, building and installing KDE.

Am I missing something?  Am I the only frustrated one?  I realize there is a small, overworked, not paid, dedicated group of people working on FreeBSD, but is it too much to ask to just have KDE or Gnome install and work out of the gate on an install?

Stephen


----------



## SirDice (Jan 8, 2013)

sgunn said:
			
		

> Am I missing something?  Am I the only frustrated one?  I realize there is a small, overworked, not paid, dedicated group of people working on FreeBSD, but is it too much to ask to just have KDE or Gnome install and work out of the gate on an install?


I do believe you will be much happier if you use PC-BSD.


----------



## gkontos (Jan 8, 2013)

SirDice said:
			
		

> I do believe you will be much happier if you use PC-BSD.



Or any other penguin fish OS.


----------



## fonz (Jan 8, 2013)

sgunn said:
			
		

> Supposedly the dvd includes kde[red]KDE[/red], but I didn't see any options to install it.


Mount the DVD, locate the packages and use pkg_add(1).

Or, as said by others above, consider PC-BSD. And I don't mean that in a condescending way. PC-BSD is not merely "FreeBSD for dummies" or something. Under the hood, it's "just" a FreeBSD release. Except it has its own installer that installs a preconfigured version of KDE and probably features some graphical configuration tools. In a way, I'm inclined to say it's kinda like a FreeBSD "distribution". If you're looking for something that's easy to install yet still is basically FreeBSD underneath, PC-BSD is worth having a look at.

Fonz


----------



## TroN-0074 (Jan 11, 2013)

SirDice said:
			
		

> I do believe you will be much happier if you use PC-BSD.



I know that is the answer to many inquiries on the forums here when people ask similar questions. But frankly PC-BSD also install a bunch of stuff that the user might not want in his or her computer, so for some people it might not be the right way.

for sgunn perhaps installing all pre-compiled application would be a better answer unfortunately at this point that option is not available in FreeBSD 9.1


----------



## fonz (Jan 13, 2013)

TroN-0074 said:
			
		

> unfortunately at this point that option is not available in FreeBSD 9.1


The old sysinstall did have a package installation option, but apparently that particular functionality has been lost somewhere down the road. However, as said, one can of course still install the packages manually: mount the installation medium, locate the packages and pkg_add(1) them. Simple.

Fonz


----------



## sgunn (Jan 16, 2013)

So I thought I'd update this.  After messing around trying to build ports, I decided to reinstall from the DVD.  This went fine, and I installed kde and X11 from the packages on the DVD.  Fine.  That you can do this and how to do this should be somewhere in the release notes or somewhere, but I didn't see it.  Maybe I'm just clueless.

But after all that, the video support I got was VESA.  I was under the impression that intel integrated video support was one of the cool new working features under 9.1?  Apparently not.

So since this machine will not primarily be used as a desktop, I will live with the VESA graphics.  Oh, and KDE started fine, but complained about all sorts of missing services, specifically the virtuoso server, which appears to be running, but isn't recognized by KDE.  And this from the pre-built packages.  Faaantastic.


----------



## fonz (Jan 16, 2013)

sgunn said:
			
		

> But after all that, the video support I got was VESA.  I was under the impression that intel integrated video support was one of the cool new working features under 9.1?  Apparently not.


It's probably not included by default. What I think you need is x11-drivers/xf86-video-intel (and of course adjust /etc/X11/xorg.conf by (re)doing `# Xorg -configure`.

Hope this helps (I'm using that driver, it works fine).

Fonz


----------



## fonz (Jan 16, 2013)

sgunn said:
			
		

> That you can do this and how to do this should be somewhere in the release notes or somewhere, but I didn't see it.  Maybe I'm just clueless.


I suspect it's probably (consciously or not) assumed to be common knowledge. However, with the package installation option dropped from the installer (for whatever reason), perhaps it could indeed be mentioned a bit more clearly indeed.

Fonz

P.S. Personally I wouldn't touch KDE with a ten-foot pole, so I can't help you with that.


----------



## sgunn (Jan 16, 2013)

Yeah, I had the intel driver installed.  I went so far as to remove the vesa driver and re-run Xorg -configure, which resulted in "no driver found"

Thanks for everyone who responded trying to help.  I'll just wait and hope that they get everything ironed out by the 10.x releases.

It is unfortunate that the KDE package is also at least partially broken.

Stephen


----------



## fonz (Jan 16, 2013)

sgunn said:
			
		

> Yeah, I had the intel driver installed.  I went so far as to remove the vesa driver and re-run Xorg -configure, which resulted in "no driver found"


That's a more serious problem. If you're quite sure that x11-drivers/xf86-video-intel is the driver that should work with your hardware, I suggest you file a PR (but since X is in ports, do file it under ports or perhaps contact the port maintainer).

Fonz


----------



## sgunn (Jan 16, 2013)

Fonz,

So my processor is a Pentium G645 LGA 1155, Sandy Bridge, with integrated Intel HD Graphics.  Sounded like it should be supported from what I read.

The motherboard, if it matters, is an ASRock H77M-ITX, with, of course, integrated Intel HD Graphics.

So I realize you're not necessarily the expert, but does that sound like it should be supported?

Stephen


----------



## wblock@ (Jan 17, 2013)

KMS does not work until after WITH_KMS is added to /etc/make.conf and graphics/libdrm, and the xf86-video-* and xf86-input-* ports are rebuilt.

Without KMS, the Intel video driver doesn't work, and you end up with VESA.


----------



## sgunn (Jan 17, 2013)

Wblock,

Thanks for your reply.  I went down that road, and with a clean install of 9.1REL, libdrm does not build for me.

My post on trying to build libdrm is here:

http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=36868

And hey, I just realized that you already saw that post.

No worries, hopefully all with be straightened out in the next release.

Stephen


----------



## fonz (Jan 17, 2013)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> Without KMS, the Intel video driver doesn't work, and you end up with VESA.


Is that still the case? The Intel driver appears to be working just fine on my system without any fiddling whatsoever.


----------



## wblock@ (Jan 18, 2013)

AFAIK, it is still the case.  With 9.1, anyway.  I have not kept track of all the permutations of Intel drivers and xorg version.


----------



## sgunn (Jan 18, 2013)

So I was able to rebuild and reinstall libdrm, xf86-intel, and xf86-keyboard & mouse with KMS enabled.  Don't know if it worked this time because I didn't use portsnap to fetch a new copy of the ports, or because I didn't build Xorg from source, or because I didn't include:


```
WITH_NEW_XORG="YES"
```

in make.conf.

However,


```
Xorg -configure
```

still gets me a vesa driver.


----------



## wblock@ (Jan 18, 2013)

[thread=36468]This recent thread[/thread] may help.


----------



## sgunn (Jan 18, 2013)

Hey, hey!  I got the Intel driver working.  Very nice.  Thanks to all who responded.

So for anyone else, I'm pretty sure you need both:


```
WITH_KMS=yes
WITH_NEW_XORG=yes
```

added to make.conf

and then you need to rebuild at least libdrm and xf86-video-intel.  Maybe also libGL, libGLU, and dri.

I'm not sure, but I believe that adding WITH_NEW_XORG causes config options to show up in libdrm to turn on Intel support.

You do not need to rebuild xorg-server.


----------



## neilms (Jan 18, 2013)

sgunn said:
			
		

> I don't want to spend a week updating, building and installing KDE... is it too much to ask to just have KDE or Gnome install and work out of the gate on an install?
> 
> Stephen



But equally, I don't want to spend a week *removing* KDE or Gnome either.


----------



## fonz (Jan 18, 2013)

neilms said:
			
		

> But equally, I don't want to spend a week *removing* KDE or Gnome either.


That's one of the reasons I use ports-mgmt/portmaster: before actually installing anything it lists what it's going to install and asks whether that's ok. If that list contains GNOME or KDE stuff, I have the opportunity to think twice before going ahead and actually having it installed.


----------



## TimeTraveler (Apr 21, 2013)

*Same issue with 9.1 Rel*

I have been having the same issue. I have tried installing KDE4, KDE3, GNOME2 and every time the installation starts it takes forever almost a whole day. All that just to give errors at the end of the installation.

I have tried: 
`# rm /usr/ports/`
`# portsnap fetch`
`# portsnap extract`
`# portsnap fetch`
`# portsnap update`

I tried to installed from DVD but it gives the error:
	
	



```
Unable to fine index file
```

After reading these forums I am a bit confused. I thought the idea when moving from one release to a newer one was to improve it. It seems that with each new release it gets worse which in any case defeats the purpose of moving to a new better and improved release. And then the question arises: Why bother with an OS that is decaying instead of improving?

I can see everyone is giving work around the issue and finally advising to move to a different distribution. Then the question rises: should be better to move to Windows OS?

It seems a common factor among many of the *nix flavors. With each release it seems they are getting worse in user friendliness, deployment and scalability. And finally many wonder why Windows dominates the market, isn't this ludicrous?


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 21, 2013)

Hmm. I've been running 5.0 and 6.0 servers for years and a desktop at version 8.0 from a couple years ago. I just built a new box with Ivy Bridge and Nvidia graphics card, dual monitors, 32GB RAM, SSDs, USB3 ports and installed from scratch 9.1. It was the smoothest and easiest installation I've ever done and I've been doing it in between remodeling my house, painting and, a few days ago, dealing with a flooded basement while running a web dev business. 

iow, I've hardly had the time to pay attention and I've forgotten more than I know over the years but, other than a mistake on my part with VirtualBox, I've not had one issue installating that, i3 window manager, Chromium, Firefox, vim, mupdf, networking, and Gimp from ports.

I've become more of a user than a system hacker and I've never been a sysadmin except when needed for my own company purposes. So I don't get this "things are getting harder/more difficult". If one wants a works-out-of-the-box experience, FreeBSD is not where you should be and that's why one may get directed to PC-BSD, assuming they still want to stay with FreeBSD. 

When I was a ham radio operator, there were those who got their license without any knowledge of radio or electronics (by hook and by crook). The derogatory term for them was "appliance operators" cause they only wanted to use the push-to-talk button on their microphone and nothing else. They never built their own equipment, didn't know how it worked and couldn't care less. 

But they had nowhere else to turn except CB radio. In the computer world, I'm not sure Linux distributions are appropriate for that kind but, at least, there is always Windows for those who only want to be "appliance operators".


----------



## ShelLuser (Apr 22, 2013)

Ok, pardon me if my post seems like a small rant. I suppose it is to some extend but the thing is, I've seen threads like these appear almost everywhere I go and they all share the same origin, or so I think. It doesn't matter if we're talking about (software) synthesizers on the Ableton forum, ASP.NET programming on their forums, right down to Java programming and your average Linux distribution forum or mailing list.

There is nothing wrong with some negative or positive feedback because in the end it will most likely only help the product evolve, even if it is only slightly. Negative comments can be picked up to make things better whereas positive comments are always nice to receive because that's a signal towards the "powers that be" that there are people around who appreciate their work.

However, there's one thing which you should always realize; no operating system, no program, not even a specific synthesizer will be the answer for all your needs or problems. This isn't saying that it can't full-fill that role, but whether it does or doesn't mainly depends on one thing: your own personal needs and requirements. And how the product at hand fits in also heavily depends on yourself.

But always realize that there is also very realistic possibility that a certain product isn't the best choice for whatever you're trying to do. As clichÃ©d as it sounds I would never recommend picking up a product solely because of its name, reputation or pricetag. Not even the "coolness" factor should be important here.

Instead, try focussing on what really matters: _does it work for me_?

And like I mentioned earlier, there's nothing wrong with sharing some sharp criticism. But you should always realize that if something doesn't work for you then this doesn't mean it also doesn't work for others.

For example, the complete lack of a graphical installer was actually a key issue for me in my evaluation last week. Of course I'm using FreeBSD in a server environment and not so much a desktop environment, but that's besides the point since we're discussing FreeBSD as a whole after all.

In this particular case my suggestion would actually be to look into a Linux distribution instead. It provides the same graphical environment consisting of X.org, KDE or GNOME (or whatever window or desktop -manager you fancy). The main difference is both the underlying operating system as well as the several provided tools to help you set things up more easily and quickly. Of course this also heavily depends on the distribution you chose.

And sure, if the whole X.org fiddling gets boring or turns into a major annoyance then there's also nothing wrong with resorting to a Windows environment. If it works and it helps you get the job done, why not? Last I checked it was also a very highly rated choice for gamers, might provide some fun on that front as well ;-)

Oh well, just my 2 cents on this matter though.


----------



## zspider (Apr 22, 2013)

I agree with @drhowarddrfine. For those who want turnkey systems, PC-BSD or some common version of Linux like Ubuntu is a better choice.


----------



## TimeTraveler (Apr 23, 2013)

It is very interesting how the subject is shifting to the user in stead of the product. If you arm get broken you place a band-aid to make it heal. You go to the doctor and get the right treatment. Similarly here, if there are several people complaining about the slowness and issues with multiple lib missing from the OS then it must be a bug somewhere, after all there are humans who are developing those applications.

Here is one issue I found with the 9.1 version while trying to compile vim, the installation from the ISO image that I downloaded was looking at ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/ports-current which it was causing the installation to fail because the directory is empty... To correct that issues I had to remove all the posts and updating by running portsnap fetch and then update. Do it look like user error or a bug? Here is another glitch I found after installing FBSD 9.1. The /usr/ports/x11/kde4 was empty, while all other folder contained files to be able to run make install clean, meaning no files in that folder, which drive to the question user or bug? 

When using any application, the application needs to be design with the user in mind. If you are asking "does it work for me?" then you are asking the wrong question. The right question is does it work? Does any one goes an by a Cadillac with not pistons in the engine? It is imperative the product works from the start. While they will be minor glitches here and there it is ok, as long as the product or the dealer presents the right solution.

In my case for instance, have the task at hand to find a new desktop for laptops. This was a great opportunity to present the solid FBSD OS as we have been using it for Web Dev, DNS, and WWW as servers. There are plenty of flavor to choose if one one to move to Linux. Lint is one of the top of the line right now. But again the idea is not to tell people, look!, my product is kind of so, move away from it and find another one. The idea is to bring more and more people to use the product by improving it and no to leave it at a below average.

Sorry for the rundown but credit has to be render where it belongs.


----------



## kpa (Apr 24, 2013)

I think people are still missing what FreeBSD really is. It's never going to be a polished end product because the goals of the project (how I see it) are not in that area. It's more like a workshop for building stuff rather than the built stuff itself. Pick the tools that you want to use and DIY (do it yourself). Those who don't want to tinker with the internals of an operating system to get a system they like there are other options that have already been mentioned.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 24, 2013)

@kpa is saying it right and that is what some are failing to realize. 



> Does any one goes an by a Cadillac with not pistons in the engine? It is imperative the product works from the start.



We're not selling Cadillacs. We've got the engine. We also have the wheels and bumpers and everything you need to put the car together, but you have to put it together. If something doesn't fit, it's because the specification might have changed. Wait for us to drill new holes or you can drill your own.


----------



## sgunn (Apr 25, 2013)

The smaller the user base for an operating system, the less people are going to contribute time, money and expertise to it.  Eventually, if the base gets small enough, the OS dies.

A crappy installer drives away people who might otherwise use FreeBSD.  I far prefer the design philosophy behind FreeBSD.  I like that the packages are controlled.  I like that the OS is controlled.  I like that security is designed in.  There's a lot to like.

But make no mistake about it, the FreeBSD installer is crappy, especially compared to, well, just about anything else.  Take your pick: Windows, SuSe, Redhat.  They all provide graphical installers that bring up everything, including your choice of Gnome or KDE.  And that's just a beautiful thing.  And just because an installer _can_ install KDE doesn't mean it _has_ to, so I don't want to hear from the cranks who say how angry they would be if they had to _remove_ KDE, or how anybody who's serious about FreeBSD would never want an X environment up on their box.

There's this guy you may have heard of called Linus who kind of agrees:

http://http://news.oreilly.com/2008/07/linux-torvalds-on-linux-distri.html

And the KDE support is abysmal.  Fortunately, at least one component of this, the video driver support, appears to have been identified as a major issue, and is being worked on.  So I'm not giving up on FreeBSD yet.  But jeez, I'm tired of hearing about how it not having a decent installer and support for KDE isn't a minus.  It is.  Know anybody who is still using CP/M?

Stephen


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Apr 25, 2013)

Newer, older, and third-party FreeBSD installers perhaps were thrown a curve by bios changes and disk architecture changes. As that may continue to be a problem even if a new installer were crafted or one of the present ones fully updated, maybe it would be better to have a printable guide-flowchart showing command lines to use to install in each particular instance? And the reasoning behind each one?  Even if such a  project were booklet-sized, it could serve as a better standard of operating system install than exist in other operating systems and distributions... [Just a thought.] [Online errata to double-check that could be updated ...] One 
would know more about the end result and options before beginning, leading
to more informed choices, quicker resolution of glitches, etc...


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 25, 2013)

sgunn said:
			
		

> A crappy installer drives away people who might otherwise use FreeBSD.


What people are you talking about? 


> But make no mistake about it, the FreeBSD installer is crappy, especially compared to, well, just about anything else.  Take your pick: Windows, SuSe, Redhat.  They all provide graphical installers that bring up everything, including your choice of Gnome or KDE.


Oh. You mean end users that need hand holding and not professionals. Well, then you've got the wrong operating system. 

This isn't a competition. FreeBSD is not here to compete with Windows on the desktop. Nor is it here to compete with Ubuntu and other desktops. Like I said before, if you're looking for something out of the box and you need a graphical interface to make your computer work, then you need to look elsewhere and that's what systems like Windows are for.

A lot of us don't use FreeBSD for a desktop at all. And a lot of us don't use or want Gnome or KDE either. So what purpose is having a default of either have?

Personally, I've not used the installer in several years. Graphical installers are limited in their functionality but you need to do that for amateurs who can't or won't take the time to find out how their systems work. That's why I always tell people that FreeBSD is a professional operating system and if they can't handle what it takes to bring things up then they should stay with Windows or, perhaps, Linux Mint but, even then, most amateurs can't handle Linux either. They just want to push a button and have things work without thinking about it.

FreeBSD is a professional operating system. Just like a construction worker wouldn't bring the family van to his work site, he's going to want to drive a Mack truck to do the heavy lifting and leave the simpler family van at home for the family to get around in.

So there is no problem with installing FreeBSD if you quit thinking it needs to work and act like Windows. If you need that, then one should just stay with Windows.

I can't wait for the next thread to say FreeBSD is a bad operating system cause it doesn't run Windows games.


----------



## zspider (Apr 25, 2013)

We've been over this a thousand times, literally. If you want turnkey FreeBSD, use PC-BSD. It almost seems like there's an element who think that because they don't understand the system, or are unwilling to spend the time learning, that no one else should be able to either. It defies logic.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 25, 2013)

zspider said:
			
		

> We've been over this a thousand times


Yep. And it's wearing thin.


----------



## roddierod (Apr 25, 2013)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> What people are you talking about?
> Oh. You mean end users that need hand holding and not professionals. Well, then you've got the wrong operating system. [SNIP]



That was a great post...it should be a sticky IMO.


----------



## mix_room (Apr 26, 2013)

sgunn said:
			
		

> But make no mistake about it, the FreeBSD installer is crappy, especially compared to, well, just about anything else.  Take your pick: Windows, SuSe, Redhat.  They all provide graphical installers that bring up everything, including your choice of Gnome or KDE.  And that's just a beautiful thing.  And just because an installer _can_ install KDE doesn't mean it _has_ to, so I don't want to hear from the cranks who say how angry they would be if they had to _remove_ KDE, or how anybody who's serious about FreeBSD would never want an X environment up on their box.



The Windows installer is, in my opinion, much worse. You have to click through plenty of useless boxes that add no information, don't really get any choice of things to do, the whole things takes ages and is generally a bore. The OpenBSD installer lets you chose plenty of things, isn't graphical, and I have always found it to be very nice to work with. I can install a base OpenBSD system in about 10 minutes, while it takes 3 minutes just to start the Windows installer. Which one of them is bad?


----------



## TimeTraveler (Apr 27, 2013)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> We're not selling Cadillacs. We've got the engine. We also have the wheels and bumpers and everything you need to put the car together, but you have to put it together.




First sorry for the spelling, now I saw some horrible mistakes. 

If FreeBSD is just the frame then it should be just the frame and nothing else. Unfortunately it seems that FreeBSD offers bolts and nuts to put things together and not just build upon their platform. Would you call it a framework? Then don't offer anything else than the foundation. Since it is call and operating systems it will offer more than just the basics. It is just car in pieces that needs to be assembled.



			
				drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> If something doesn't fit, it's because the specification might have changed. Wait for us to drill new holes or you can drill your own.



Or perhaps the measurements are wrong and the pieces doesn't fit together. Which it is very common in many car manufacturer. So, again the pieces don't fit and need to be force to be aline properly.

Compare to other OS such Debian, CentOS and even Ubuntu has a core installations, yet their apps are installed by using either apt-get and yum with minor user intervention. FreeBSD is still forcing user to go and find missing pieces of the puzzle as if we are still looking for dependency. I believe it needs to to catch up with new OSs.


----------



## TimeTraveler (Apr 27, 2013)

zspider said:
			
		

> We've been over this a thousand times, literally. If you want turnkey FreeBSD, use PC-BSD. It almost seems like there's an element who think that because they don't understand the system, or are unwilling to spend the time learning, that no one else should be able to either. It defies logic.



What is your logic in this case? If you are using logistic analysis then it is falling through the cracks. KDE installation failure is all over and I have tried many recommendations but when the OS code is pointing to the wrong location it seems to be a bug problem. I believe there is a group that is in denial.


----------



## TimeTraveler (Apr 27, 2013)

mix_room said:
			
		

> The Windows installer is, in my opinion, much worse. You have to click through plenty of useless boxes that add no information, don't really get any choice of things to do, the whole things takes ages and is generally a bore. The OpenBSD installer lets you chose plenty of things, isn't graphical, and I have always found it to be very nice to work with. I can install a base OpenBSD system in about 10 minutes, while it takes 3 minutes just to start the Windows installer. Which one of them is bad?



You need to use Windows more often! Since Windows Vista the installation has been simplified to about four clicks and in some instances with partitioning and installing about 10 clicks. The installation can take just as long as FreeBSD if not shorter.


----------



## TimeTraveler (Apr 27, 2013)

Talking to some of the members in this group seems a waste a time. They are doing more damage than actually helping. IMHO, this is way the FreeBSD area it is not growing it is stock in an architecture that hasn't change for many version, that I recall since version 4.2 when I started to use it.

LAST POST!!!


----------



## zspider (Apr 27, 2013)

TimeTraveler said:
			
		

> What is your logic in this case? If you are using logistic analysis then it is falling through the cracks. KDE installation failure is all over and I have tried many recommendations but when the OS code is pointing to the wrong location it seems to be a bug problem. I believe there is a group that is in denial.



KDE and Gnome are very complex beasts, even on Linux they can be quite troublesome. FreeBSD does not need a fancy graphical installer, a desktop on demand, or any of that. 

We've already prescribed what you demanded (see previous posts), but yet you refuse to listen. Which is why I have come to the conclusion people like you must have some sort of agenda and you've done little to convince me otherwise either.


----------



## wblock@ (Apr 27, 2013)

Server user: this install program is terrible, it does not even install nginx and PHP!

Command-line user: this install program is terrible, it does not even install bash.

Desktop user: this install program is terrible, it does not even install KDE!

Embedded user: this install program is terrible, it installs all kinds of stuff that isn't needed and takes too much space!

The point is that there are conflicting needs for these different types of users.  It is nearly impossible to have an installer that will satisfy them all.  The bug we see here is the hardest kind to fix, a bug in expectations.  FreeBSD is an operating system, not a packaged distribution meant for a specific use.  Others have created distributions that are more like what some users expect: PC-BSD, FreeNAS, pfSense, and so on.  Avoiding those and saying FreeBSD does not meet your needs is missing the point.


----------



## kpa (Apr 27, 2013)

This is what I'm always reminded of when I read these threads, die with your boots on.



> Yeah, another prophet of disaster
> Who says this ship is lost
> Another prophet of disaster
> Leaving you to count the cost
> ...


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 28, 2013)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> The point is that there are conflicting needs for these different types of users.  It is nearly impossible to have an installer that will satisfy them all.  The bug we see here is the hardest kind to fix, a bug in expectations.  FreeBSD is an operating system, not a packaged distribution meant for a specific use.  Others have created distributions that are more like what some users expect: PC-BSD, FreeNAS, pfSense, and so on.  Avoiding those and saying FreeBSD does not meet your needs is missing the point.



And we tell people like those in this thread this over and over again but they don't listen or learn and then claim BSD is "stuck in the past". Such threads and posts are false, non-constructive, show a lack of knowledge, are insulting, serve no useful purpose and a waste of time. 

Personally, I'd delete or close such threads.


----------

