# Seriously



## rtobyr (Apr 20, 2011)

I'm sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but I really, really prefer the BSD way of doing things vice Linux. I want nothing but success for this project. I therefore have the unfortunate duty of offering criticism (in a respectful manner [but with some humor], of course):

Having installed and used many operating systems (and perhaps more distributions of Linux than all other operating systems combined), I have to say: You guys MUST do something about your installer. Not only was it easier to install Solaris, OpenBSD, Symbian, ReactOS, and Slackware AND build a working Hackintosh, but if I tried to imagine a lay-person doing it... well I couldn't imagine that. It would not be possible.

After getting FreeBSD installed, I decided that I wanted a GUI (shouldn't a "User" install (which is what I chose) include a GUI by default?). Ports is still compiling GNOME2 and its dependencies. Meanwhile, I've already had to answer questions like, "Do I want extra debugging for Perl?"; "Do I want Python to be multi-threaded?"; "Do I want 64 bit integers on i386?"; "Do I want SSL support?"... You may as well ask the lay-person: "Do you want fries with that?"

Please. I beg you. In addition to "User", "Developer", "Kernel Developer", and the other install profiles, add an "I just wanna look at the Internet and work on spreadsheets" profile. It should include kports or something similar. When I install a port, there should be an "I don't know if I want a patch to fix a microcode flaw, so just make those choices for me" option.


----------



## wblock@ (Apr 20, 2011)

PCBSD is there for the end user.

At least two new installers are under way for FreeBSD.

If you don't know the appropriate answers to port options, just pick the default.  Or use packages, where someone else has already made all the choices for you.  The nontechnical end user who is happy to remain that way is still probably better off with PCBSD or one of the various Linux setups.


----------



## Beastie (Apr 20, 2011)

rtobyr said:
			
		

> Having installed and used many operating systems (and perhaps more distributions of Linux than all other operating systems combined), I have to say: You guys MUST do something about your installer.


Something is being done. Also, from sysinstall()'s manual page:


> This utility is a prototype which lasted several years past its expiration date and is greatly in need of death.





			
				rtobyr said:
			
		

> shouldn't a "User" install (which is what I chose) include a GUI by default?)


No. The next question becomes: which "GUI" has to be the default. And whatever the choice is, you can't satisfy everyone. And you can't include *everything* in the install disc/DVD.



			
				rtobyr said:
			
		

> After getting FreeBSD installed, I decided that I wanted a GUI
> [...]
> Please. I beg you. In addition to "User", "Developer", "Kernel Developer", and the other install profiles, add an "I just wanna look at the Internet and work on spreadsheets" profile.


That's why PC-BSD and others exist.


----------



## rtobyr (Apr 20, 2011)

> That's why PCBSD users exist.



Really? Are we that arrogant here? Like I said, I don't want to be disrespectful but...



> That's why PCBSD users exist.



That comes off as truly arrogant.

Can't FreeBSD be attractive to lay-people?


----------



## phoenix (Apr 20, 2011)

It is.  It's called PC-BSD.  As in "FreeBSD with a shiny gui pre-installed, a GUI application installer, point-n-click simplicity with the power of FreeBSD".

What more do you want?  Everything you complained about is "fixed" in PC-BSD.  It's the whole reason PC-BSD exists.


----------



## wblock@ (Apr 20, 2011)

PCBSD is a desktop FreeBSD system operable by laypeople or experts, with a new installer and custom packages.  Exactly what you want.  But feel free to take offense if you're so inclined.


----------



## ckester (Apr 20, 2011)

rtobyr said:
			
		

> Can't FreeBSD be attractive to lay-people?



Why does it have to be?  We've already pointed to an alternative which should be more than adequate to meet their needs.

PC-BSD is built on top of the FreeBSD kernel and world.  It's the closest thing to a "distro" that there is in the BSD world, and it is aimed at those lay-people you want to attract.

Do you go into the forums for Arch Linux and tell them they need to be more like Ubuntu?  Or would you accept their answer that they have some goals for their project that are different from Ubuntu's?  Are they being "arrogant" or simply helpful when they redirect you to Ubuntu after hearing you describe what you're looking for?


----------



## rtobyr (Apr 20, 2011)

I see where you are coming from. You don't see where I am coming from: Why do I need an alternative? Why can't FreeBSD have options for the masses?


----------



## mix_room (Apr 20, 2011)

rtobyr said:
			
		

> You don't see where I am coming from: Why do I need an alternative?


A) You haven't bothered trying packages instead of ports. Much of the software you are complaining about is available pre-compiled. It doesn't get much easier than `# pkg_add -r PKG_NAME`



> Why can't FreeBSD have options for the masses?


Because it takes time and effort. If it were simple, trivial and easy it would already have been done. If you want it so badly: do it. Or pay someone to do it. The only reasons it "can't" be done is that no one has bothered yet. 

And finally: why did you call your thread 'Seriouysly'? That has to be the worst thread title lately. It has no information pertaining to the contents of the thread whatsover.


----------



## vermaden (Apr 20, 2011)

rtobyr said:
			
		

> I have to say: You guys MUST do something about your installer.


There is a project that already adresses that issue (bsdinstaller), its 'work in progress' currently and a temporary solution, the target is to create frontend to PC-BSD scripts.



			
				rtobyr said:
			
		

> Ports is still compiling GNOME2 and its dependencies. Meanwhile, I've already had to answer questions like, "Do I want extra debugging for Perl?"; "Do I want Python to be multi-threaded?"; "Do I want 64 bit integers on i386?"; "Do I want SSL support?"... You may as well ask the lay-person: "Do you want fries with that?"



No. You are compiling GNOME2 and rest of the software You mentioned, someone who just wants GNOME would do *pkg_add -r gnome2* without any needless compiling.



			
				rtobyr said:
			
		

> "I just wanna look at the Internet and work on spreadsheets"


Then FreeBSD is not for You, get PC-BSD which is purely desktop oriented. FreeBSD is like Debian in that case, just core system to start, You add everything You need after install.


----------



## Terry_Kennedy (Apr 20, 2011)

rtobyr said:
			
		

> Having installed and used many operating systems (and perhaps more distributions of Linux than all other operating systems combined), I have to say: You guys MUST do something about your installer. Not only was it easier to install Solaris, OpenBSD, Symbian, ReactOS, and Slackware AND build a working Hackintosh, but if I tried to imagine a lay-person doing it... well I couldn't imagine that. It would not be possible.


I'd like to second this, but from the viewpoint of an experienced user. I've been using FreeBSD since 4.x, having come over from the BSDi exodus (where I was a contributor of drivers and utilities). I've used a variety of operating systems with bizarre installation rituals (DOS/VS Rel 32, anyone?).

However, a recent attempt to install FreeBSD (8.2-RELEASE) on some re-purposed hardware had me feeling like a newbie confronting my first RSTS/E SYSGEN 

All of my other FreeBSD systems are running amd64, so I didn't have a "live" system to clone from. The box I was installing on was an older non-64-bit Xeon system w/ 4GB of RAM and a pair of 2.54TB da devices (actually, 8 drives each on a 3Ware twa controller which was old enough that it didn't support 2TB auto-carving).

Armed with a disc1 and livefs CD (no DVD drive on that system) and 10+ years of FreeBSD experience, I set out to do battle...

Both the disc1 install process and the livefs fdisk / bsdlabel utilities fell down badly - I actually switched to the livefs disc to see what sysinstall had done.

The actual problems with those utilities don't need to be re-hashed - they're well-known. Suffice to say that it was not possible to make multiple FreeBSD slices (to keep each within 2TB) or create a UFS partition > 2TB.

I spent several hours searching for a disc of 8.2 or 8-STABLE of a recent vintage with the new installer, but was unsuccessful - the only ones I could find were for CURRENT. I also found a number of contradictory sources of information on installing with GPT, but was unable to get any of them to work with the stock installer. [As I mentioned above, I had no i386 systems around - if I did, I would have simply rrestore'd from another box to populate the filesystems].

I eventually said the heck with it and made a single 2TB slice and left the remaining .54TB on each drive unused.

Given the constantly-increasing disk sizes available (3TB drives are available now, and even laptops have 1TB drives), this is going to affect more and more users.

It would be very useful if there was a easy-to-find version of the new installer which could install either 8.2-RELEASE or some recent 8-STABLE. Aside from solving my particular issue, it would give the new installer a lot of exposure and probably get more people to give it a thorough test, before it shows up when 9.0 is cut from -CURRENT.

I realize that changing the default installer in RELENG 8 violates POLA, but I think it would be useful to have it available as an option.

This reminds me a bit of a recent discussion on freebsd-fs, where it was proposed that the experimental NFSv4 become the default NFS in -CURRENT. There were comments like "has this been extensively tested enough?", "what's the difference?" and even "you mean there's a new implementation?"


----------



## vermaden (Apr 20, 2011)

Terry_Kennedy said:
			
		

> Suffice to say that it was not possible to make multiple FreeBSD slices (to keep each within 2TB) or create a UFS partition > 2TB.



ZFS fully supports such disks.


----------



## wokko (Apr 20, 2011)

I have only recently installed FreeBSD about two months ago, coming from a Linux background. I found it quite easy to install FreeBSD alongside of my Gentoo installation.

So I think the installer is quite fine.


----------



## Terry_Kennedy (Apr 20, 2011)

vermaden said:
			
		

> ZFS fully supports such disks.


Yup. But again, there's the "you can't get there from here (sysinstall)" issue. I had actually considered ZFS for this, but decided that on an i386 system with only 4GB of RAM (256MB of which shows up as "256MB of memory above 4GB unused"), it was going to be problematic. Therefore I didn't look for any of the "sysinstall with ZFS" cookbook articles.

I am running ZFS on other boxes here and I like it, but those boxes have much newer CPUs w/ at least 32GB of memory each.


----------



## danbi (Apr 20, 2011)

Terry,

While all your comments are valid, and are one of the reasons I still keep around i386 -stable (in jails, just to be able to create boot media), it is very probably that many other OSes would fail on that same hardware configuration. The installer must be updated, there is no doubt in this and there must be -stable ISOs available -- but this is distraction from the OP question.

To the OP:

What the OP really wants is PC-BSD. This IS FreeBSD, prepackaged for desktop usage. It is as much FreeBSD as any other FreeBSD install. You can use the same ports system, do whatever you want just like with any other FreeBSD system. It just comes pre-configured for desktop use. It also has an 'one click' graphical application installer etc. Just like Ubunto, for example. When FreeBSD is updated, PC-BSD is updated too. You don't lose anything, but the learning curve.

You may look at FreeBSD as a development project. It develops new technologies. Very few "OS" projects do this. The products of the FreeBSD development is a generic operating system, that can be used for great many purposes -- desktop is just one of these and is definitely not the main focus of the OS, as such -- because the desktop is a 'user' thing from the OS perspective. One good example is Apple's OS X -- very similar to FreeBSD UNIX OS below very polished API and GUI. Most users have absolutely no idea that OS X is UNIX. Nor they need to. Look at PC-BSD as not that much polished OS, based on the constantly developing FreeBSD.

Anyway, I too think that sysinstall is one of the most weirdest things in FreeBSD. I always try to avoid it, doing source upgrades of the OS and then creating my own boot media (usually USB based) to install from. Haven't used the release media for years...


----------



## Terry_Kennedy (Apr 20, 2011)

danbi said:
			
		

> The installer must be updated, there is no doubt in this and there must be -stable ISOs available -- but this is distraction from the OP question.


I was just trying to point out (and apparently doing a poor job of it) that the need for a better installer is not just something that affects users new to FreeBSD.

If they can't get past the first steps of creating slices and partitions, then the further shortcomings of the existing installer aren't going to matter too much to the,


----------



## vermaden (Apr 20, 2011)

Terry_Kennedy said:
			
		

> Yup. But again, there's the "you can't get there from here (sysinstall)" issue.



Actually I havent used sysinstall for ages, everytime I install FreeBSD I use a method like that one: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=12082



			
				Terry_Kennedy said:
			
		

> I had actually considered ZFS for this, but decided that on an i386 system with only 4GB of RAM (256MB of which shows up as "256MB of memory above 4GB unused"), it was going to be problematic. Therefore I didn't look for any of the "sysinstall with ZFS" cookbook articles.


Why You need i386? I moved to amd64 and I do not need anything from i386, I even play Diablo II using WINE.

2GB RAM is a reasonable minimum for ZFS, but I also run FreeBSD with ZFS/GPT boot (booting from ZFS pool) with only 512MB RAM on amd64, that was 8.2-RELEASE, I run blogbench to see if I can PANIC it ... but I failed, it only returned me error about lack of memory, it did not rip my head off.

That also was WITHOUT ANY TUNING which is needed with such low RAM, limit ARC and You will even run blogbench with 512MB RAM.

I currently use ZFS on amd64 with 4GB RAM and everything works like a charm.


----------



## Terry_Kennedy (Apr 20, 2011)

vermaden said:
			
		

> Why You need i386? I moved to amd64 and I do not need anything from i386, I even play Diablo II using WINE.


We're getting rather far off-topic here, but...


			
				Terry_Kennedy said:
			
		

> The box I was installing on was an older non-64-bit Xeon system w/ 4GB of RAM...


No 64-bit support on the CPU - SL6VP.


----------



## vermaden (Apr 20, 2011)

Terry_Kennedy said:
			
		

> We're getting rather far off-topic here, but...
> 
> No 64-bit support on the CPU - SL6VP.



So stick with i386, ZFS works also there.


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Apr 20, 2011)

Just to join the discussion.



			
				Terry_Kennedy said:
			
		

> Yup. But again, there's the "you can't get there from here (sysinstall)" issue. ... ( any of the "sysinstall with ZFS" )



I suspect this should digress into the sysinstall-has-not-been-rewritten for CAM/GEOM changes affecting v7 > v8 (or v8 > v9 for that matter.)  If I am correct, a reminder that fdisk has a -f "file" option that if set up properly, with 
	
	



```
man gjournal && man fdisk && man bsdlablel && man newfs
```
 etc, a workaround in each instance can be carefully crafted.  But issues then arise I am disinclined (NOR expert enough) to discuss (4kv disks, Bios - partition size limitations, UEFI incompatilities with raid cards/grub/legacy hardware/???) etc, since the "gotchas" outnumber the resources available to document/post/make guides ... and I've already posted about just some of those issues previously, and I profess to have very vague overviews of some of the issues.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 20, 2011)

At the risk of sounding arrogant myself, FreeBSD is an operating system for professionals. It is not intended for lay people and I don't think anyone would suggest lay people attempt that except for PC-BSD which has that as a goal.

You can say the same for Linux. Many of those distros are not for lay people either but some are, particularly Ubuntu, which can be thought of as their PC-BSD.


----------



## Zare (Apr 20, 2011)

The above post is entirely correct. Why should every OS be "user friendly"? I quoted user-friendly on purpose, because not every user has a same vision of friendly attribute. If i am the user, FreeBSD is way, WAY more friendly than any incarnation of Windows. If my mother is the user, it would be completely opposite.

But the topic is about sysinstall. I've had a fair share of pain with it, but i've used it for 10 years now and it's done it's job. A lot of it is missing - GEOM and ZFS support come first to mind. But IMHO the choice with new bsdinstall is valid; we'll have to do manual installations if we want newer functionalities right now, until bsdinstall goes mainstream, however doing a new framework grounds-up is a better choice than patching something that clearly belongs in another era.


----------



## kpedersen (Apr 20, 2011)

I too am a little disappointed by the FreeBSD installer (both sysinstall && bsdinstall)

I wish it was made simpler by getting rid of any menu based system and just asking a series of questions (like OpenBSD / NetBSD) where I can just keep tapping enter accepting the sane defaults and not having to navigate the menus with a keyboard.

What FreeBSD should never use by default (And luckily I don't think it ever will) is a X11/GUI installer. They just piss me off and have limitations when installing via a serial console.

_"I only want to install an operating system... Not go to an art exhibition!"_ - Ludwig van Beethoven 1816

Pretty much sums it up...


----------



## AndyUKG (Apr 20, 2011)

rtobyr said:
			
		

> Really? Are we that arrogant here? Like I said, I don't want to be disrespectful but...
> 
> That comes off as truly arrogant.
> 
> Can't FreeBSD be attractive to lay-people?



Hi,

  Just my opinion on this. 
Sorry I can't understand why you find this arrogant. I use FreeBSD exclusively for servers, I believe that's what the developers concentrate on, and I like that fact. Another group of people concentrate on making it more user friendly, hence PC-BSD. What's the problem? :S
I guess Solaris has been make more desktop friendly in recent years, there are various reasons for this, but server OS's such as AIX, HP-UX, Solaris are normally not designed for laypeople, they are designed to be as reliable as possible in a server environment. That's why they are so good in that role, as is FreeBSD. There are core things that need work such as better driver support (I know they work very hard on this, just they don't have infinite resources) that would seem to be a much higher priority than making it easier to install GNOME for someone who wants a desktop OS.

thanks Andy.


----------



## jnbek (Apr 20, 2011)

Gonna throw my two cents into this mix. I've used FreeBSD since 4.4, I love FreeBSD, I have all the daemon stickers attached to everything, except my new guitars which I plan to correct shortly. I have no problem with sysinstall, my only complaint with it being when they moved it from /stand/ to /usr/sbin/ back in 200(4|5). However, after 10 years of using FreeBSD, I do share a concern about the fact the installer interface hasn't changed at all, with the exception of asking about which language(s) of documentation to install. I long have tried to evangelize FreeBSD to people, many of whom are Linux geeks, who found themselves lost after rebooting and after (insert some excuse, lack of driver, laziness, etc here).. Have gone off and installed (Insert some newbie *nix here). While admittedly, I've not installed PC-BSD recently, I do think the fact it's a separate 'distro', located in a different place is not conducive to newbie adoption. When people hear of FreeBSD, they're going to want choices. One of Ubuntu's biggest draws is it offers it's Server (think FreeBSD) and it's Desktop (think.. umm well Ubuntu) on the same page, under the same name. PC-BSD suggests another distro, not the same as FreeBSD. In my low valued opinion, I think the two projects should be equally available in the same place, and marketed as Server and Desktop versions. That way, everyone hearing about FreeBSD will be able to taste the nectar of goodness the rest of us have come to know and love, in any manner they choose to.
</two_cents>


----------



## jrm@ (Apr 20, 2011)

Terry_Kennedy said:
			
		

> Therefore I didn't look for any of the "sysinstall with ZFS" cookbook articles.



The PC-BSD installer supports installing FreeBSD and includes some options missing from sysinstall such as support for ZFS filesystems.


----------



## UNIXgod (Apr 20, 2011)

rtobyr said:
			
		

> I see where you are coming from. You don't see where I am coming from: Why do I need an alternative? Why can't FreeBSD have options for the masses?



Usually I would begin with something along the lines of "FreeBSD is many things to many people" and then babble about the philosophy that sysadmins need no gui for their network appliances. Which is a fact. People need something vanilla to begin with which doesn't enforce bloat such as an unessential windowing system to run their services.

PC-BSD fills the need for the focusing on the desktop user vs FreeBSD's generic unix install. pfsense is also another product of this which enforces the user focused and direct choices on tools to use for firewalling, nat, routing and nas.

There is a new sysinstall being developed which I imagine will be nice for installing the OS.

What I would be interested in is a nice low level tool such as a live cd which boots into a pure command prompt. If sysinstall in any form is preferred the user can run it from there. If PC-bsd's installer a dvd version of the live cd could be there and started from the prompt with simply startx or some wrapper such as startdesktop-install.(install-desktop.sh?)

Of course the options for those who don't need sysinstall or don't care to install x-windows + desktop from gui or have no need for gui will have a third option to configure pre-installation tasks directly from the live environment.

Just an idea. I am perfectly content with the process it is now. There is a reason why FreeBSD does not force gui from the install or have a gui install itself. The reason is that x11 is a piece of software that we can install if we desire or need. Some of us simply don't need it. FreeBSD is not GNU and GNU is not UNIX. Nor is it a distro of all third party software wrapped around a kernel. It is a complete operating system which just so happens to give you the option to be a server, a client or both. Simply stated: it's all about choices and the freedom to make those choices without some distro forcing it's policy on you. 

As for being more assessable to people new to open source operating systems. If you point out where it is not clear in the handbook on how to do these  pre and post install tasks (such as install x11) I would be most interested in what comes off as being over ambiguous.


----------



## phoenix (Apr 21, 2011)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> What I would be interested in is a nice low level tool such as a live cd which boots into a pure command prompt.



Frenzy, mfsBSD, and the bsdinstall CDs all do this already.



> If sysinstall in any form is preferred the user can run it from there. If PC-bsd's installer a dvd version of the live cd could be there and started from the prompt with simply startx or some wrapper such as startdesktop-install.(install-desktop.sh?)



Oh, you mean for an installation CD, where you can then choose your own installer UI.  That's the goal of the bsdinstall/pc-sysinstall project(s):  create a separate installer backend that can be managed from any frontend.

The goal is to have the "bsdinstall" TUI and the "PC-BSD installer" GUI both work using the same backend, scripted install setup.  That way, those who want a point-n-click GUI can have one; and those who want a serial-console-friendly UI can have one; and those who want a purely scripted install can have one; and so on.  All using the same installer code (possibly even on the same CD/DVD).


----------



## gkontos (Apr 21, 2011)

I have received lately some criticism on a recent review that I made on the new bsdinstaller.
Despite other people who hate the old sysinstall I happen to be a big fan of it. I like the fact that it gives me a quick and clear approach on what I want to install and where. I also like the fact that I can perform all my necessary post installation. But what I like most is the speed. 

Having said that I must also admit that I never use sysinstall anymore. In fact I haven't used it for more than a year. Why? Because all installations that I perform use a GPT partitioning scheme with labels and half of them are root on ZFS based.

So, yes I was happy with the idea of a new installer. I thought that the new installer would give me all those features so that I don't need to boot from fix it anymore.

I was pleased to see that the new installer is not GUI based so that I can still use a serial console instead. I didn't see any option for a kickstart installation though. Nor did I see any option for a pure binary upgrade. It is true that most boxes are connected to the net but I would still like to have this option for a firewall. So, what exactly can we expect from a installer.

a) Pre installation 
b) Installation / Upgrade
c) Post installation

All that bundled with the new features that we all begin to use plus speed.


----------



## rtobyr (Apr 21, 2011)

Maybe I am just misunderstanding the information that is out there about the different BSD's. Everything I've read can be paraphrased as this:

NetBSD is designed for portability.
OpenBSD is designed for security.
FreeBSD is the general purpose BSD. It's good for end-users.


----------



## rtobyr (Apr 21, 2011)

If FreeBSD is really only for professionals, then I humbly suggest that you update these Wikipedia articles. They don't even list PC-BSD as "significant" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BSD_operating_systems

This graphic should be changed also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bsd_distributions_usage.svg


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 21, 2011)

Those are just showing usage of the different BSD systems and mentioning PC-BSD as one of the varieties out there. Doesn't mean it's 'significant' or insignificant. The articles don't need changing.


----------



## wblock@ (Apr 21, 2011)

rtobyr said:
			
		

> Maybe I am just misunderstanding the information that is out there about the different BSD's. Everything I've read can be paraphrased as this:
> 
> NetBSD is designed for portability.
> OpenBSD is designed for security.
> FreeBSD is the general purpose BSD. It's good for end-users.



PCBSD is FreeBSD with a GUI, good for end users that don't want to set up their own.


----------



## rtobyr (Apr 21, 2011)

> Those are just showing usage of the different BSD systems and mentioning PC-BSD as one of the varieties out there. Doesn't mean it's 'significant' or insignificant. The articles don't need changing.



OK look: my point is this: if we want to make all BSD's more popular (dare I say it: more competitive with Linux), then we need to attract the lay-people. We therefore need to make it very plain to folks who are Googling/Wikipedia-ing about BSD's that PC-BSD is the beginner's BSD. The Ubuntu of BSD's if you'll forgive me for the awkward comparison. By the way, if you were posting after reading Wikipedia's "Comparison of BSD Operating Systems", then pay attention to the details: *I* edited that article to include PC-BSD seconds after my previous post. Look at the citation that is included in the PC-BSD section. It cites this very thread. Before my edit, PC-BSD was no more than a row in a table about BSD operating systems.

I say again: If you want BSD to be competitive with Linux, then the community MUST do a better job of promoting PC-BSD. If the masses can't use a product, then it's less successful. Canonical is running in the black. How many BSD projects can say that?


----------



## rtobyr (Apr 21, 2011)

Oh, and to those of you who suggested that I do a better job of contributing, I have this to say to you:

1. Programming is only a hobby for me. I could not contribute anything that way.

2. I have had past employers donate money to open source products that we used; however, I now work in the public sector. Such a donation would be committing the crime of "Gift of Public Funds."

3. Wanting to contribute to the Open Source movement, I've asked in many forums what options are left. The only two answers: promote the product (which I've done by editing Wikipedia), or give constructive criticism that will help the product to become better (which is the purpose of this thread).


----------



## UNIXgod (Apr 21, 2011)

rtobyr said:
			
		

> OK look: my point is this: if we want to make all BSD's more popular (dare I say it: more competitive with Linux), then we need to attract the lay-people...PC-BSD is the beginner's BSD. The Ubuntu of BSD's if you'll forgive me for the awkward comparison.



I think we all understood what you said in the first post. BTW when I first heard of the PC-BSD project the first thing that came to mind was ubuntu's over simplification of end user xdesktop install and configuration now for BSD users. You may have misunderstood my explanation about what FreeBSD is.

As for competing with linux? Last time I checked FreeBSD was still top market share in the web server market. netcraft confirm?

as for the lay-people concept. There are already many open source projects available for for the average M$ windows user to get acclimated to UNIX. There are many tutorials that date back to DOS user era to convert skills to the shell. 

If learning curve is an issue PC-BSD is a project to alleviate that. It is still left to the user( lay-people as you call them) to take the initiative upon themselves to better their computational skills through reading the handbook and utilising the system tools man pages. Of course this would also apply to any third party software, services, and tools they install as well.

This marketing thing kills me though. Do people really fantasize that there is war between linux and BSD? gnome and kde? vi and emacs? postgres and mysql? apache and lighttpd? postfix and qmail? etc.

If FreeBSD market share drops someone let me know so I can sell my shares early =)




			
				phoenix said:
			
		

> Frenzy, mfsBSD, and the bsdinstall CDs all do this already...
> The goal is to have the "bsdinstall" TUI and the "PC-BSD installer" GUI both work using the same backend, scripted install setup.  That way, those who want a point-n-click GUI can have one; and those who want a serial-console-friendly UI can have one; and those who want a purely scripted install can have one; and so on.  All using the same installer code (possibly even on the same CD/DVD).



downloading mfsBSD now. gonna play with frenzy later. Thank you for the heads up on the future of bsdinstall. Sounds like every end will be covered.


----------



## carlton_draught (Apr 21, 2011)

Difficult learning curve is both a blessing and a curse. It means you have to invest more time, but it also means that there are some barriers to entry for other people who would do the same thing.

I think a decade ago when I was a windows addict, I had a similar attitude to the TS. Other people would try and get me to use Linux, saying "It's so powerful, and so much better!". I'd try it and give up in frustration. But having now used Linux and Unix, I have to say that yes, both are more powerful than Windows. And FreeBSD has more in the way of reliability features than Linux.

I guess a few things I've learned about open source since then:

If you really must have something and it doesn't exist yet, either do it yourself or pay for it to be done. 
With great power comes great learning curve.

Developers have invested the time in becoming familiar with how the systems work. They improve things because it suits them, or they are paid for it. Any additional (especially non-paid) development work is likely to come at the expense of them or their families. Suggesting that someone else does a lot of work for your benefit is a lot like standing in front of your house after a load of wood has been dropped off, saying to no one in particular "Geez, my house would look much prettier and increase the value of the properties on the street if it was split and packed away into my wood shed. I'm not much of a woodcutter myself..."

Potential ways I see that FreeBSD (or variant) will become an Ubuntu:

A Mark Shuttleworth comes along and decides to do the same thing with FreeBSD. If you want to do this, first step is earn a big pile of cash. I'll let you figure out that one.
You gift some of your salary (really, just time you have invested, the same way you are asking developers to donate their time which can just as easily be put towards earning themselves some money) towards what you want.
Get better at programming, either as a hobby or as part of a job programming. Then make an impact yourself, leading by example. Probably in something like PC-BSD where it might be well received.


----------



## vermaden (Apr 21, 2011)

Dunno if someone mentioned that, but if someone do not like sysinstall/bsdinstall/manual way You can still use PC-BSD CD/DVD and their graphical QT installer to install plain FreeBSD, PC-BSD has such option from 8.0 if I recall correctly.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 21, 2011)

How does the saying go? Linux is for people who hate Windows. FreeBSD is for people who love Unix.


----------



## kpedersen (Apr 21, 2011)

_Linux is for people who hate Windows. FreeBSD is for people who love Unix._ - William Shakespeare 1583

Sounds about right 

It seems that people are insulted when PC-BSD is suggested to them. Which is a little sad.

Sometimes for a desktop system it does not seem practical to manually set everything up and it might be useful to use PC-BSD's "sane" defaults.

Perhaps a thing to remember is that PC-BSD is still more technical and geeky than Mac OS X and some very smart and geeky people use that.


----------



## vermaden (Apr 21, 2011)

I also like that one (yes oftop ;p)

_"What was the goal of the Linux community--to replace Windows? One can imagine higher aspirations."_
*Bill Joy*


----------



## AndyUKG (Apr 21, 2011)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> As for competing with linux? Last time I checked FreeBSD was still top market share in the web server market. netcraft confirm?



I was curious about this claim, and a bit dubious. I had a search and it doesn't seem like BSD has much of a market share compared to Linux and Windows, this wiki article uses multiple sources, all of which give a low market share to BSD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Servers

I'd like to see BSD promoted as a server OS before worrying about how easy it is to install onto a desktop, a selfish view I'll admit 

cheers Andy.


----------



## roddierod (Apr 21, 2011)

What about DesktopBSD? Has that project stalled again? Of it and PC-BSD, I prefered it's approach. I see it's forums are down and last snapshot was December of 2010.


----------



## danbi (Apr 21, 2011)

AndyUKG said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Servers



Took just the first row:

Linux 63.7%
All UNIX   2.7%

Very funny. Those people seems to suggest Linux is not UNIX? 

On the other hand, it starts with a sentence like this "Server market share of software sold through commercial channels can be measured by two methods..."

So it obviously does not even consider FreeBSD, which is not *sold* to anyone.

Also, according to "Security Space" all UNIX is BSD. Good one! 

It is however true, that the number of FreeBSD desktops is small.

PS: This thread has already gone way off-topic.


----------



## phoenix (Apr 21, 2011)

Sigh, how many times do we have to go through this?  Linux is not UNIX(tm).  Nor is it even Unix.  It's a Unix-clone, a work-alike, a wannabe.  There is no code history with any Unix-like system.  It's not even POSIX-compliant.  There's a reason Linux is never lumped in with Unix stats.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 21, 2011)

phoenix said:
			
		

> Sigh, how many times do we have to go through this?  Linux is not UNIX(tm).


You're right! I keep forgetting this!


----------



## n0r (Apr 21, 2011)

I do not agree with OP on this subject, I hate easy to install systems. the easier something is to install the harder it is to configure and get a _know-how_ of how the system works. When you substitute the intelligence of the user by mechanical/computerized systems you often end up with something that works but seldom work good or like you want it to, It is better to have a _"clean"_ system that the user then configure for him/her self and get to know it while doing so.

There are a few systems out there that come with a _play-and-go_ CD/DVD or pre-installed and they may be good to try out an OS. But they are terrible when you want to configure the system and use it as anything else then a desktop workstation. Often you end up with some strange bug in the system which takes forever to fix just because you don't know which configuration files you need to look in or which settings you need to look at.

I do believe that anyone who decide on having a go at FreeBSD know more then the average guy/gal out there. Most who try any *BSD should be comfortable with a command line and using the man _[command]_ to get all the info they need. If that fails there are often good guides to find which tell you what you are doing while you use them.


----------



## tingo (Apr 22, 2011)

rtobyr said:
			
		

> OK look: my point is this: if we want to make all BSD's more popular (dare I say it: more competitive with Linux), then we need to attract the lay-people.



Well, that is the point isn't it? Your goal stated above isn't a goal for the FreeBSD Project (AFAIK). It might be a goal for some people in the community, but so far it haven't made it to a goal for the FreeBSD Project.

And, IMHO, popularity for it's own sake shouldn't be a goal for FreeBSD either. Let everybody and their grandmother use Ubuntu / Windows / Android / whatever; if somebody wants to use FreeBSD, they'll have to learn it. Just my two cents.


----------



## ikreos (Apr 22, 2011)

If FreeBSD ever decides that popularity or being competitive is more important, I'll go back to using my Amiga 1200. Its bad enough they have to support GNU extensions to some programs (granted though they may be useful). That's the reason I switched to FreeBSD. They know whats 'more' important.

Plus there aren't 100's of different 'distros' that have their own way of doing things. There are a few derivatives that collaborate towards common goals but also have their own set of specific goals. If a new derivative of *BSD popped up every month like Linux distros do, I wouldn't be using it. Although I see PC-BSD as a good thing and a way to 'ease' people new to the system into it, I just hope it doesn't spark into a wildfire (if you get the meaning). I for one am glad *BSD is not as 'popular' as other systems. Popularity is a double-edged sword. </rant>

Sounds off topic but that's just my 0.02<insert currency symbol here>.

On topic:
Though I've never had problems or the need for what it does not provide, I do agree the installer needs to be updated. If you have been following then you know that it is being done. All good things come in time.


----------



## captobvious (Apr 22, 2011)

I am a complete n00b at FreeBSD; but I prefer it the way it was engineered. Ease of use and power rarely go together. 

Why isn't everyone a world class athlete? Or cello player? Or martial artist?

Most people drive automatic transmission cars; but can they drive a track course in their automatic as well as they could in a manual?

If you need your computer to fulfill the average user's needs, you probably do not 'need' FreeBSD.

If you want advanced features, you need to train to be competent it their use.

At least that is what I tell myself before I go whining on the boards when I break something... 

Thanks everyone for the help!


----------



## vermaden (Apr 22, 2011)

phoenix said:
			
		

> Sigh, how many times do we have to go through this?  Linux is not UNIX(tm).  Nor is it even Unix.  It's a Unix-clone, a work-alike, a wannabe.  There is no code history with any Unix-like system.  It's not even POSIX-compliant.  There's a reason Linux is never lumped in with Unix stats.



AIX also is not UNIX, AIX is affectionally known as It *Ain't uniX*


----------



## Blueprint (Apr 23, 2011)

Once you look past all its borrowed mainframe technology, it's pretty unix-y to me. As someone that makes a living maintaining AIX servers I certainly don't feel lost using FreeBSD in my spare time.


----------



## rtobyr (Apr 26, 2011)

I could be wrong about this because I've not been able to check for a while, but last time I did check, there are no BSD VMware Tools/drivers, but they are available for most of the major Linux distros. Why do you suppose that is? IMHO, it's because more sysadmins are comfortable with Linux because it's easier to start learning. First, I start with the dumbed-down Ubuntu or Fedora. After time, I work my way up to Debian or CentOS without a GUI, but I need to start with the Barney-style distro first. I, like many sysadmins taught myself how to use Linux by starting with the easy distros. Because there are easy distros to start with, Linux is popular in more small or medium sized IT shops. The Fortune 1000 companies can afford to hire real Unix sysadmins (and yes, I know why Linux is not Unix, so let's not mince words with technicalities). Everyone else hires people like me who were formally trained on Windows servers, and learned Linux on my own. That's an over-simplification/generalization, but you know what I mean.

If it were much more clear what the BSD learning path is; if everyone knew that PC-BSD is the beginner's BSD, then more sysadmins would learn it. Then there would be more demand for it. Then VMware would make guest OS drivers/tools for BSD's. I can & would run FreeBSD vice CentOS on my VMware servers, but because so few VMware customers demand it, there is only limited support for that.

I think that the BSD community could do a better job of making clear what the learning path is: PC-BSD then FreeBSD (or--and don't take offense--OpenBSD, who despite what Torvalds thinks, are NOT a bunch of "masturbating monkeys"). In turn, the popularity of BSD servers would grow among small & medium IT shops. In turn, VMware would support it. In turn, the popularity of BSD's would grow even more.

I've worked in 6 IT shops (all of them "medium" sized, supporting 50 - 250 users). None of them used any BSD. Because I work in a Superior Court in California, I know that none of the other 57 Superior Courts in California, the Supreme Court of California, nor my local county's government use any BSD. Many of those 65 shops use Linux. Some use Solaris. One uses VMS, one uses AIX, and one even uses OS/2. We can improve that. I'm sure we can if we just do a better job of making clear what the learning path is.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 26, 2011)

All the vmware tools and drivers are available in ports and on the vmware site for FreeBSD.

I go to lots of places that use Windows and not Linux but I don't think there's anything wrong with Linux because of it. I do wonder what the problem is that a sysadmin would need PC-BSD in order to get interested in learning how to use FreeBSD. It was available when I first got started but never found a need to use it and I turned out alright.


----------



## ikreos (Apr 26, 2011)

I have to disagree that Linux is easier to start using first. In my personal experience I have found that FreeBSD with it's wealth of quality documentation was much much easier to configure and setup that any Linux distro I have used over the years. I have also learned more about UNIX in general in the past month using FreeBSD than I have using Linux, and I'm mainly a desktop user. I'm kicking myself in the ass for not installing FreeBSD 4x when I downloaded and burned the disc all those years ago.

Wow, I don't usually participate in discussions but this one got me going for some reason.


----------



## ckester (Apr 26, 2011)

Well, now that we're talking sysadmins rather than desktop users, I'll say that the "learning path" is to stay with FreeBSD, but to get yourself a copy of Michael Lucas's Absolute FreeBSD if the FreeBSD Handbook isn't enough for you.

Seriously.


----------



## AndyUKG (Apr 26, 2011)

danbi said:
			
		

> On the other hand, it starts with a sentence like this "Server market share of software sold through commercial channels can be measured by two methods..."
> 
> So it obviously does not even consider FreeBSD, which is not *sold* to anyone.



Maybe you should have kept reading the second paragraph before coming to that conclusion 

ta Andy.


----------



## danbi (Apr 26, 2011)

I find it amazing that this argument still continues. Probably the only reason it still continues is because people in general don't remember history. Most never cared to learn it, most were deluded by promises. It all repeats 

(some history rambling self-censored)

It is enough to note, that Apple never looked at "Linux" being the foundation of their next generation OS. That would tell a lot. Hardly anyone will buy it, that MacOS X is difficult to learn.

Linux even after so many years continues to be bunch of kludges, without well defined architecture. It may work for users, much as Windows does, but I fail to see how it would appeal to any admin.

It is true, that there is software for "Linux" that is not available for FreeBSD, but this is because of the licensing. Let me clarify it:

If you are an vendor, that has a piece of code, whatever. If you release it under the GPL license, none of your competitors would be able to use it to create competing product. They will have to publish their modifications and additions as well. Thus, you are preventing your competitors to build on your work. Perfect for the large companies, eh?

With the BSD and compatible licenses, once you publish it, the code becomes public. Anyone may do as they please with it, as long as they give due credit. Your competitors may take your code, add to it, fix your bugs, keep parts of their modifications for themselves. It was demonstrated many times, that for a software developer it is stupid to hide the code, because bugs stay undiscovered. 

But this is all matter of choice.


----------



## carlton_draught (Apr 26, 2011)

Nice post. I'm glad someone brought up Apple - which is perhaps almost as good to point someone to as PCBSD. (I've never used OSX btw.)


			
				danbi said:
			
		

> It is enough to note, that Apple never looked at "Linux" being the foundation of their next generation OS. That would tell a lot. Hardly anyone will buy it, that MacOS X is difficult to learn.


There are a few other important reasons Apple choose FreeBSD over Linux, not having anything to do with design.

BSD license: if you invest a lot of money into putting a good GUI on a solid foundation (FreeBSD), close the source of all your contributions, have a pile of money and a expertise at GUI design, then it will be very difficult for your competition. They will need a pile of money, expertise at GUI design, and the Apple reality distortion field to compete. And there is no head start.
BSD license: You can close the source and charge money for what you started with + your contribution. This allows you to charge what the market will bear. There is no creating a CentOS with your OSX.
BSD license: You still get to take and use millions of dollars of someone else's research for nothing, and charge a mint for it. Xerox PARC anyone?
The last thing they would want to do is something like Ubuntu, where you can just make a trivial change and distribute the same thing for free.


----------



## danbi (Apr 26, 2011)

Even if Apple would give away it's OS + GUI for free (because they sell hardware) - why would they make their OS like what Windows is: anyone could use just the DOS part of Windows, to have the GUI load their application, or making their OS what "Linux" is: many versions, general conception of poor quality, although some are not "that" bad. Bad OS reputation will surely damage their hardware sales, or their integration efforts. Effectively sticking the label "commodity" to whatever they sell.

It is ironic, that people perceive MacOS to be only the GUI. It is the integration and fine tuning, and polishing that make it appealing. It is also ironic, that people ignore open source contributions of Apple like CUPS (and lots of surrounding technology). How many of the "Linux distributors" have contributed significant code, or technology? I may be wrong, but my belief is that GPL is severely limiting their initiative to do so.

Anyway, we now bark at completely different forest than the topic 

sysinstall needs replacement, this is already in the works and resolved.
In any case, I believe you should try MacOS X. PC-BSD, however good the foundation and cutting-edge the technologies, has a long way to even try to compete with MacOS X for the desktop. Same goes for any Linux.


----------



## jnbek (Apr 26, 2011)

face it, Apple chose FreeBSD because it's awesome!!  </foolish outburst>


----------



## phoenix (Apr 26, 2011)

This thread has gone around in enough circles, wended its way through enough flames, and come back around full-circle to a sufficient conclusion.  I'm closing it up now.


----------

