# Rant: are we falling apart or is it just a coincidence?



## blackhaz (Sep 28, 2014)

Hi all,

Just ranting things have gone to hell recently. After doing `pkg upgrade`, Chromium was upgraded to 37 (from 33, I think) which killed Flash and international keyboard input. I simply can't switch to any non-English languages to input text in the browser. Flash won't come back because they dropped the support of whatever it's called technology that made the wrapper work, right? New Cairo ruined my Thunderbird and made X.org to segfault on anything GNOME-related so I had to manually roll back to an older version and `ln -s` the shit out of the libraries to make stuff work again. I can live through it because I have an OS X desktop as a backup but I see this is a very dangerous situation, especially for anybody migrating fresh to the system.

May the force be with us all.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 28, 2014)

No because, out of all the things you mention, the only problem I have is with Chromium.


----------



## AzaShog (Sep 28, 2014)

blackhaz said:
			
		

> Are we falling apart or is it just a coincidence?



Nothing is really falling apart. FreeBSD is not suitable for desktop use, never has been despite some people having the lucky combination of hardware, software and software usage patterns to make it seem like it works 100% without any issues. The desktop has a megaton of software that depends on each other, almost all of which is developed on and for Linux primarily.

FreeBSD excels on the server side, really, and its use as a desktop should be taken as an experiment that might work, but most likely won't without issues.


----------



## wblock@ (Sep 28, 2014)

AzaShog said:
			
		

> blackhaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Despite that, some of us successfully use FreeBSD as a desktop, and even find it better at that than the alternatives.  Some of that is due to differences in what we run, some is due to experience, some is due to expectations.

But this thread is mostly about the new binary package system.  After years of few changes, the package system is finally being overhauled.  It's a big change, and there have been and will be problems along the way.

Ports continue to work.


----------



## wblock@ (Sep 28, 2014)

blackhaz said:
			
		

> New Cairo ruined my Thunderbird and made X.org to segfault on anything Gnome-related so had to manually roll back to older version and `ln -s` the shit out of the libraries to make stuff work again..



Using fake library links is often a cause of problems.  In other words, the cure might actually be the cause.  Yes, there are difficulties with packages, and will be while the system continues to go through major changes.  In the meantime, consider using ports.


----------



## AzaShog (Sep 28, 2014)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> Despite that, some of us successfully use FreeBSD as a desktop, and even find it better at that than the alternatives.  Some of that is due to differences in what we run, some is due to experience, some is due to expectations.



I don't dispute that. Some really do use it successfully as a desktop. I was just commenting on the fact that, since FreeBSD should not be considered as a desktop system (despite some being able to run it successfully, as you say), the borkage does not mean it is falling apart. 



> But this thread is mostly about the new binary package system.



Maybe you're confusing this with another thread? The OP isn't ranting about pkg breaking stuff, but latest updates (to Chromium, Cairo, ...) breaking stuff.


----------



## wblock@ (Sep 28, 2014)

It appeared to me that the breakages mentioned were due to binary packages.  And possibly also some self-inflicted library linking.


----------



## teo (Sep 28, 2014)

AzaShog said:
			
		

> Are we falling apart or is it just a coincidence?



FreeBSD is not suitable for desktop use?

Linux is falling, the private systemd gradually empower Linux is not Unix. People want to use FreeBSD desk and begins to migrate to FreeBSD, and some do not listen only limited to servers.


----------



## youngunix (Sep 28, 2014)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> *Ports continue to work.*


Enough said. 
Convert to -STABLE, read your UPDATING, have some patience and time to adapt to changes. No OS is perfect even that Mac OS X is annoying at times, some just work with little to no tweaking others need some hacking skills.


----------



## crashcoredump2 (Sep 29, 2014)

> Rant: are we falling apart 

Yes.


----------



## worldi (Sep 30, 2014)

blackhaz said:
			
		

> Are we falling apart [...]?



Yes, it's been common knowledge since the 90ies: The end is nigh! BSD is dying!!!1!  :x 




			
				AzaShog said:
			
		

> FreeBSD is not suitable for desktop use



I've been using it as a desktop since 4.5-RELEASE. It works just fine. However, maintenance requires a bit of technical expertise (and I really really hope it stays that way).


----------



## protocelt (Sep 30, 2014)

worldi said:
			
		

> I've been using it as a desktop since 4.5-RELEASE. It works just fine. However, maintenance requires a bit of technical expertise (and I really really hope it stays that way).



I wouldn't say it requires any real technical expertise really. Just an effort to read, learn, and follow directions. If you don't have a requirement for applications that either don't exist or don't have an equivalent in the ports tree, it works quite well as a desktop operating system IMHO. I use it as my main operating system at home daily.


----------



## zspider (Sep 30, 2014)

worldi said:
			
		

> blackhaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hope it stays that way too, it's fun.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 30, 2014)

I keep forgetting that he's trying to compare FreeBSD to a Linux distro but, to make a fair comparison, he should be comparing PC-BSD to a Linux distro. FreeBSD, as many of us use it, is closer (but not the same) to "Linux from Scratch".


----------



## AzaShog (Oct 1, 2014)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> FreeBSD, as many of us use it, is closer (but not the same) to "Linux from Scratch".



FreeBSD is as close to LFS as it is to Windows... If you really want to compare like that, then it's Gentoo. It even has portage which is basically the ports system done right.


----------



## Crivens (Oct 1, 2014)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> It appeared to me that the breakages mentioned were due to binary packages.  And possibly also some self-inflicted library linking.


I think this is true. I use FreeBSD as my desktop (xfce), and I do not have any trouble with cairo - even tough I track the ports tree pretty close. But I buid from sources and I tend to disable some options which I see as "unproductive" (avahi, hal, pulseaudio, ...). Could be some default options messing things up, or that there are subtle things going on with different compilers.Like when somepackages buid using gcc and use libs build with clang. This should not happen, but you never know.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 1, 2014)

AzaShog said:
			
		

> drhowarddrfine said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's not the comparison the OP is making. He's comparing desktop software and components on FreeBSD to Linux distros and their desktop software.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Oct 1, 2014)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> AzaShog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've used pkgng on 4 systems so far. I now have 4 systems which are broken to the point where I can't use binary packages at all.
(2 problems are bugs, one is a serious defect in functionality, and another is unusable because of performance reasons).

"overhauled" is *not* the same as "improved"; remember Joel's advice from 2000? This is very applicable to pkgng. It's full of bugs and missing features which may get wrinkled out in a few years time, but until then we all have to suffer.


----------



## AzaShog (Oct 1, 2014)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> That's not the comparison the OP is making. He's comparing desktop software and components on FreeBSD to Linux distros and their desktop software.



In fact the OP is not making any comparison at all, Linux is not even mentioned. And I was referring to the comparison that *you* were making, the one I quoted. FreeBSD "as many of us use it" can hardly be compared to Linux From Scratch. LFS is not even a distro/system, it's a handbook and a set of procedures on how to build a Linux distro. Gentoo is at least a "base system" + kernel + ports.

Unless you have some non-obvious knowledge on how "many of us" are using FreeBSD?


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Oct 1, 2014)

In contrast [ to the post not-directly-above ] , I've upgraded one CPU to pkg and it saves a lot of time.  However, I suspect not having it optional and/or backed by the legacy tools (maybe revamped) is a disservice to the robustness of FreeBSD.  Something like

prompt:>>  portmaster-ng 1 ... 10
" your 2, 4, 8 are managed by /var/db/pkg"
" your 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 are managed by `pkg upgrade`"
" Switch which ports between the mangement tools?
" 3 > /var/db/pkg/ , done
" update which set ? 

... All limited by lack of resources probably, but a bit of less reliability may be problematic unless coded back into the operating system somehow.


----------



## wblock@ (Oct 1, 2014)

It is not technically practical to use both package systems.  What the new system really needs is automated testing.  That said, I've had no problems using it with ports.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Oct 1, 2014)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> It is not technically practical to use both package systems.  What the new system really needs is automated testing.  That said, I've had no problems using it with ports.



Yeah, it works fine with ports, it's `pkg install` and `pkg upgrade` that are problematic. `pkg_add -r` and `portmaster -P` worked a lot better.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 1, 2014)

AzaShog said:
			
		

> drhowarddrfine said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He's mentioning Thunderbird and Chromium and Flash and my point is that if you are going to complain about those working in FreeBSD vs anything else then you can't be pointing at FreeBSD base and must compare to PC-BSD. That's my point.


----------



## AzaShog (Oct 2, 2014)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> He's mentioning Thunderbird and Chromium and Flash and my point is that if you are going to complain about those working in FreeBSD vs anything else then you can't be pointing at FreeBSD base and must compare to PC-BSD. That's my point.



Okay, I see what you mean now. But I disagree, PC-BSD is not just a "desktop variant" of FreeBSD. It's an entirely separate OS, for all intents and purposes, that also wants to be a server OS too, so I think it actually has an identity crisis. Meanwhile, I tried it on my few years old desktop machine few weeks ago and I couldn't log into it post installation, having it hard crash all the time, so I gave up.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 2, 2014)

AzaShog said:
			
		

> But I disagree, PC-BSD is not just a "desktop variant" of FreeBSD.


The first three sentences on the front and top of their web site home page all exclaim it's a desktop operating system based on FreeBSD so I don't see how you can say it's not.


> Meanwhile, I tried it on my few years old desktop machine few weeks ago and I couldn't log into it post installation, having it hard crash all the time, so I gave up.


I checked it out for a while last year and had no issues with it whatsoever. I've played with it before that, too, and never had any problems.


----------



## teo (Oct 2, 2014)

PC-BSD is far from called a sitema, heavy. PC-BSD does not have 32-bit OS, it is better to build FreeBSD with desk.
The question is, while they are working on that project can not build a good system, this project is several years old.


----------



## AzaShog (Oct 2, 2014)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> The first three sentences on the front and top of their web site home page all exclaim it's a desktop operating system based on FreeBSD so I don't see how you can say it's not.



I said it was not a *variant* of FreeBSD, it's an entirely *separate OS* for all intents and purposes, with its own server variant even (TrueOS), and until recently its own packaging system... If it were just a variant of FreeBSD, it would be something you can install and run on FreeBSD base. And yes, I know you can "turn" FreeBSD into PC-BSD, that's not what I mean.

Because to extend your logic, I know of another desktop OS "based" on BSD... why not use that then.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 2, 2014)

AzaShog said:
			
		

> I said it was not a *variant* of FreeBSD, it's an entirely *separate OS* for all intents and purposes, with its own server variant even (TrueOS)


I think you're trying to make it something it's not. PC-BSD has the complete FreeBSD system built in and only surrounds that with some of its own packages and packaging system. The same is true of TrueOS.

This whole thread we're running now may be entertaining but I find it quite boring so I won't continue with it. 

btw, I'm writing this from PC-BSD running in a VM on my current system with Chromium running Lumina though I had switched from KDE.


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Oct 2, 2014)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> It is not technically practical to use both package systems.  What the new system really needs is automated testing.  That said, I've had no problems using it with ports.



Permit a rephrasing of sorts of my post... what I learned since I posted it.  Maybe some ports could be managed by `pkg` and a subset managed by a registration-into registration-out-of [by some new command] the files produced by the sum of pkg info -R port and pkg info -r port; one could thus install and record a port that otherwise could not be installed due to, say, a manpage name conflict one would not care about.   In a more involved sense, those two `pkg info` commands could maybe serve as a registration  alternative local.sqlite.but-txt or something.  Unclear here but plausible maybe...


----------



## wblock@ (Oct 2, 2014)

The old package tools are dead.  Please stop trying to reanimate them.  We know how that story ends.

The new package tools are better.  That is the place to focus efforts on improvement.  Test.  Submit PRs.  But don't do it with one foot in the past.


----------

