# Some thoughts about FreeBSD



## offlinebouncer (May 26, 2009)

After 2 month with FreeBSD, I noticed some glitches and stuff that could keep it from reaching the mainstream-desktop:

- Some ports don't compile
- gdm and gnome in general is not working as expected
- lxde is not working right (lxde-meta port)
- some ports are not available as binary-packages (compiling takes too long and is not practible for the regular user)
- poor media-performance, on linux I can watch a movie, copy some folders and chat at the same time, on FreeBSD the movie gets interupted by file-access
- burning as a regular-user is not possible, cause of too restrictive security (pam etc.)....same goes for automatic login with kdm or gdm
- no native flash-player
- no Skype support

Even DesktopBSD or PC-PSD can't come over the performance problems.


----------



## DrJ (May 26, 2009)

I don't really want to start a flame war, but the *BSDs are not looking for the mainstream.



			
				offlinebouncer said:
			
		

> - Some ports don't compile


Most often after a week or so they do again.  It happens.


> - gdm and gnome in general is not working as expected


They do for me, and have for a very long time.


> - some ports are not available as binary-packages (compiling takes too long and is not practible for the regular user)


So what?


> - poor media-performance, on linux I can watch a movie, copy some folders and chat at the same time, on FreeBSD the movie gets interupted by file-access


I've never seen what you complain about.  I don't chat, but I've done plenty of other things while watching a movie, which plays along uninterrupted.


> - burning as a regular-user is not possible, cause of too restrictive security (pam etc.)....same goes for automatic login with kdm or gdm


I burn CDs and DVDs as a regular user all the time.  No idea what you mean on the other.


> - no native flash-player


Again, so what?  I run Flash9 under the linuxator and it works fine.  Flash10 works too on -current.


> - no Skype support


So what?  I run the Linux version just fine.

I will grant that a few months is not enough time to really get the hang of the system.  And it sounds like you did not set up Gnome right.  Many of the things you mention are addressed in the FreeBSD Gnome FAQ, which you can find at freebsd.org/gnome.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (May 26, 2009)

> - poor media-performance, on linux I can watch a movie, copy some folders and chat at the same time, on FreeBSD the movie gets interupted by file-access



My fileserver is a PIII 800, and I can play DVD's fine from that file server over the network with my FreeBSD client using the NFS protocol.
I once experienced some problems watching a 5GB high-def MKV movie though ... My PC (3200+) wasn't fast enough for decoding 

What kind of files are you trying to play and what video player program are you using?



> - no Skype support



Skype works fine on FreeBSD ... Most of the talks on bsdtalk.org for example are done with Skype ...



> - some ports are not available as binary-packages (compiling takes too long and is not practible for the regular user)



Which ports? (Almost) all ports should have a package ... Sometimes the package name is different from the port name though ...


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (May 26, 2009)

seamonkey and gnash, together, here, enable youtube.
I have not installed the linux compat layer(s).
running _7 stable from last year.


----------



## Oko (May 26, 2009)

offlinebouncer said:
			
		

> - no native flash-player
> - no Skype support


This is utterly ridiculous statement. How is BSD fault that few companies do not see BSDs as a viable desktop market and do not feel compel to release their proprietary products for BSDs? We live in the real world in which if you want a product you have to pay for it. You can not make people give you things for free unless you point a gun to their head.

There are far more very good desktop applications which are available only for Windows or OS X than for Linux. Let see  Adobe Photoshop, Frameworker, CAD, most multimedia applications available for OS X and Windows are far better.Does that make Linux bad OS? Yes, for about 99% of casual computer users.

I think you came with a wrong attitude here. When you finish your ice-cream, playing with your friends, and when you grow up one day you might fall in love with Unix. We will welcome you back. 

In the mean time in between cartons you can do some reading about current desktop market trends and see that Linux share despite enormous investment by Canonical and Novel is less than 1%. OS X which is BSD with a Mach kernel has market share close to 9%. That much about reality.


----------



## DrJ (May 26, 2009)

OKO, why don't you say what you *really* believe?


----------



## DutchDaemon (May 26, 2009)

offlinebouncer said:
			
		

> - poor media-performance, on linux I can watch a movie, copy some folders and chat at the same time, on FreeBSD the movie gets interupted by file-access



Never seen that. I regularly rebuild the world and the kernel (including -j flag and without renicing anything) whilst watching full-screen video (and checking mail from time to time). Not a glitch. Ever. Oh, and to hell with the mainstream desktop. I hope the BSDs will never betray their server OS origins. The desktop is just a bonus, and as such, remarkably functional.


----------



## Oko (May 27, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Oh, and to hell with the mainstream desktop. I hope the BSDs will never betray their server OS origins.


+1

BSDs already have main stream desktop. It is called OS X. If IX systems can find viable business model to make  money of PC-BSD we might see another one.If that business model involves giving OS for free and charging for services or cloud applications so be it. It might involve charging $30-50 for OS itself. It might involve charging $300 per installation. Hell, why not say that. If there are enough people who are willing to pay $300 for main stream desktop with vanilla BSD under hood I am sure all problems with the desktop will be fixed in no time.


----------



## SirDice (May 27, 2009)

offlinebouncer said:
			
		

> - Some ports don't compile


Which ones?


> - gdm and gnome in general is not working as expected


They work fine here. What is it that you are expecting?


> - lxde is not working right (lxde-meta port)


Don't know this one so can't comment on it.


> - some ports are not available as binary-packages (compiling takes too long and is not practible for the regular user)


That's usually a license issue. 


> - poor media-performance, on linux I can watch a movie, copy some folders and chat at the same time, on FreeBSD the movie gets interupted by file-access


I can watch movies just fine while my machine is doing other things.


> - burning as a regular-user is not possible, cause of too restrictive security (pam etc.)....


http://www.freebsd.org//gnome/docs/faq2.html#q15
http://www.freebsd.org//gnome/docs/halfaq.html
(works for KDE and XFCE too)



> same goes for automatic login with kdm or gdm


Never tried it but shouldn't be a problem.



> - no native flash-player


Linux flashplayer works fine, blame Adobe for not making one available.



> - no Skype support


Dito, blame Skype, not bsd.



> Even DesktopBSD or PC-PSD can't come over the performance problems.


What performance problems? My workstation works like a charm.


----------



## offlinebouncer (May 27, 2009)

*Can't stand any critics?*

1. My attitude wasn't wrong, it's just my experience

I read that FreeBSD wants it's share on the desktop-market, so whats wrong with my statement?

It might be possible to set up FreeBSD to achieve the same results like linux. But how long does it take, and can it be done by a user? BSD's are good for the server, but the desktop is a different playground. Look what happened to Vista! Windows messed up totally. And if windows 7 will be no success, m$ will loose some marketshare to os x or linux.

By the way: OS X is no FreeBSD! It's a MACH-Kernel with Aqua and cocoa. After every update you need to fix the file-permissions cause of poor hfs+ filesystem.

How come FreeBSD only supports ufs2 with soft-upddates? Linux supports jfs, xfs, reiserfs, ext4 etc..
Even with soft-updates enabled, it takes forever to fix the filesystem after an unclean umount.

You should really listen to the people using the system, and bare some critics, right?


----------



## SirDice (May 27, 2009)

offlinebouncer said:
			
		

> But how long does it take, and can it be done by a user?


It will take some time and effort if the user is willing to invest it. If not, stick to DesktopBSD or PC-BSD.



> BSD's are good for the server, but the desktop is a different playground.


I've been using Freebsd as a server and a desktop ever since version 3.x (can't remember exactly which version). The desktop does what it supposed to do. It does what I expect it to do. What more does one need?



> By the way: OS X is no FreeBSD! It's a MACH-Kernel with Aqua and cocoa.


Close. OS-X is based on a Mach microkernel with bits of the FreeBSD-5 kernel stuck to it. Also a lot of the userland tools come from FreeBSD.



> How come FreeBSD only supports ufs2 with soft-upddates?


There's quite a lot more, more then you'll ever need.



> Even with soft-updates enabled, it takes forever to fix the filesystem after an unclean umount.


That's why it runs in the background. Ever tried to fix a b0rked ext3 disk?



> You should really listen to the people using the system, and bare some critics, right?


If the critics are correct, yeah, sure. If they stem from someone who doesn't understand the system, probably not.

First thing you need to do is to let go of your linux background. BSD is a whole different ballpark.


----------



## tangram (May 27, 2009)

offlinebouncer said:
			
		

> - Some ports don't compile


Bit of advice: use portsnap to update ports tree, read /usr/ports/UPDATING and run portmaster -a. 99,9% of the times port compilation borks when dependencies version mismatches. Plus if you have a problem with a specific port just post on Ports Installation and Maintenance and ask for help.



> - gdm and gnome in general is not working as expected



Dunno, I don't use them.



> - lxde is not working right (lxde-meta port)


Dunno, I don't use it.



> - some ports are not available as binary-packages (compiling takes too long and is not practible for the regular user)


Bit of advice: either use ports or packages. Don't mix boths or sooner or latter you'll come across dependencies version missmatches.

I see the ports tree as a bonus. Probably I wouldn't have given FreeBSD a second look if it didn't provide a infrastructure to build for source. Maybe I'm just a sucker for source based systems .



> - poor media-performance, on linux I can watch a movie, copy some folders and chat at the same time, on FreeBSD the movie gets interupted by file-access


No problems here. If you can be more precise (configuration, applications, logs, errors, etc) post a thread in the forum.



> - burning as a regular-user is not possible, cause of too restrictive security (pam etc.)....same goes for automatic login with kdm or gdm


Haven't burned a CD/DVD in FreeBSD. Prefer big fat HDD that tons of CDs/DVDs.



> - no native flash-player


True. But the linux compatibility layer is there for a reason . Flash 9 works fine here.



> - no Skype support


Dunno, I don't use it. Though there linux port for it.



> Even DesktopBSD or PC-PSD can't come over the performance problems.



Honestly you just seems dishearten with you *BSD experience. Either you invest more time in learning and asking questions or imho just stick with another OS. 

If some other systems makes you happy just use it instead. No problem there .


----------



## Carpetsmoker (May 27, 2009)

> I read that FreeBSD wants it's share on the desktop-marke



No it doesn't, some people would like to see FreeBSD move more in the desktop area, most FreeBSD developers and serious users do not.
Usually Linux people who try FreeBSD say that FreeBSD ``should'' do X and implement Y for the desktop or whatever.
As mentioned before, you can use FreeBSD as a desktop OS, many people here do, but it's not the primary goal.



> It might be possible to set up FreeBSD to achieve the same results like linux.



If FreeBSD would ever `achieve' the same `results' as Linux then it's time for me to switch OS's ...
FreeBSD is not Linux.



> How come FreeBSD only supports ufs2 with soft-upddates? Linux supports jfs, xfs, reiserfs, ext4 etc..



Unlike Linux, the FreeBSD developers like to focus efforts on making one *good* filesystem rather than splitting recourses in 100 different filesystems and all the problems associated.
Also, UFS2 supports all kinds of options with the geom framework, including but not limited to RAID-1, RAID-0, journalising, ect.

Also, FreeBSD has support for ZFS.



> You should really listen to the people using the system.



No.

1) Why should the FreeBSD developers have an obligation to you?
2) You don't use the system, you're a new user who has used the system for 2 months.
3) Why should the FreeBSD developers have an obligation to you?
4) Most serious FreeBSD users have very different opinions.
5) Why should the FreeBSD developers have an obligation to you?


----------



## richardpl (May 27, 2009)

offlinebouncer said:
			
		

> You should really listen to the people using the system, and bare some critics, right?



Wrong, http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/


----------



## DutchDaemon (May 27, 2009)

FreeBSD is a meritocracy, not a democracy, let alone an anarchy. You earn the right to criticize, and the price you pay is investing in knowledge. Not in armchairs.


----------



## DrJ (May 27, 2009)

_Look what happened to Vista! Windows messed up totally. And if windows 7 will be no success, m$ will loose some marketshare to os x or linux._

Others have covered most of the other points, but I find these comments to be contrary to my experience too.  Vista really is an OK system -- I built a box using Vista-64 for my wife, and it works just fine.  Very stable, and it is not nearly as slow as what you read if you use modern hardware.  I've been testing the W7 beta and RC releases, and it really is very good.

I personally prefer FreeBSD, but that is a preference only.

And so what if MS loses marketshare?  Let Apple and Linux battle for marketshare.  Linux has about 1% of the desktop; the BSDs are about 5% of Linux.  What happens to MS is really of no concern to the BSD crew.

Last, when people talk about Linux they usually mean *buntu or one of the other ones that use a GUI to set up the system (like Suse or Redhat).  No one talks about Debian.  Keep in mind that Debian is to *buntu as FreeBSD is to PC-BSD.  If you want convenience and BSD, use PC-BSD.  If you want to do everything yourself, and understand how to customize and fix everything that might come your way, use FreeBSD.  It will never be the system that the mythical user "Joe Sixpack" will use.

And that is perfectly OK.


----------



## phoenix (May 27, 2009)

offlinebouncer said:
			
		

> It might be possible to set up FreeBSD to achieve the same results like linux. But how long does it take, and can it be done by a user?



FreeBSD is a beautiful system ... for those willing to learn.    If you are expecting an OS full of hand-holding wizards, and automated tools, and whiz-bang GUI admin tools, then FreeBSD isn't for you.  If you want to learn how a Unix OS works, how all the pieces fit together, how to make your hardware scream, and how to make a computer work the way *you* want it to, then FreeBSD is for you.

Yes, it may take you a month or two to figure things out, and to get things installed and configured correctly.  *BUT* you'll know so much more about Unix in general and FreeBSD in particular, that you'll seem like a guru to your Ubuntu-using buddies.  

It's like the old saying:
  Linux is for those who hate Windows.
  FreeBSD is for those who love Unix.

Or, to put it another way:
  Ubuntu is for those who want to point-and-click without learning.
  FreeBSD is for those who enjoy learning.



> By the way: OS X is no FreeBSD! It's a MACH-Kernel with Aqua and cocoa.



There's a whole bunch of FreeBSD in MacOS X, and code still flows from the FreeBSD Project to/from Apple.  You may want to do a bit of reading on the history of the XNU kernel.  



> How come FreeBSD only supports ufs2 with soft-upddates?



FreeBSD supports a whole lot more than "just" plain UFS2 filesytems, thanks to the wonderful GEOM framework.  Want RAID0 (gstripe(8)), RAID1 (gmirror(8)), RAID3 (graid3(8)), RAID5 (graid5(8)), journalling (gjournal(8)), encryption (geli(8)), networked-RAID (ggated(8)), thin-provisioning (gvirstor(8)), or a bunch of other storage-related goodies?  It's all there, and more.  

Plus, it's all stackable in any order that you want, so you can come up with some amazing setups.  Just try that using the Linux md/lvm/xfs stack.    All using the tried, tested, known-good, working UFS2 filesystem.

Then there's ZFS support.  Also using the GEOM framework underneath.

And then there's support for ext2, XFS, NTFS, UDF, FAT, and more.



> Linux supports jfs, xfs, reiserfs, ext4 etc..



JFS has been pretty much abandoned from what I can tell.  XFS is good.  ReiserFS is dead in the water.  Ext4 is basically just a placeholder for btrfs.  ext2 and ext3 have basically been EoL'd.  Yes, Linux supports a bazillion filesystems ... but how many have been supported for 20 years?  And how many will be supported 20 years from now?  



> Even with soft-updates enabled, it takes forever to fix the filesystem after an unclean umount.



Use gjournal.  Or background fsck.  Or ZFS.



> You should really listen to the people using the system, and bare some critics, right?



Custructive critism is always welcomed.  Well-described and filled out bug reports are always welcomed.  Those willing to get their hands dirty finding/fixing things are always welcomed.  Those willing to learn and adapt and share knowledge are always welcomed.


----------



## Brandybuck (May 27, 2009)

Regarding Skype, it does work for me, and I use it for chat all the time. But the audio does not work. It used to work, but recent version do not. I suspect that it wants to use ALSA instead of OSS, but I'm not sure.

In any case, that's Skype's problem.


----------



## Oko (May 27, 2009)

Brandybuck said:
			
		

> Regarding Skype, it does work for me, and I use it for chat all the time. But the audio does not work. It used to work, but recent version do not. I suspect that it wants to use ALSA instead of OSS, but I'm not sure.
> 
> In any case, that's Skype's problem.


Do your homework before posting. Skype 2.0 does work with audio
on FreeBSD. There is enough ALSA emulation in Linux emulation layer of FreeBSD to work. You can also downgrade the port and compile Skype 1.3 or 1.4 which use OSS. The only thing that doesn't work is video input with USB cameras due to lack of drivers for those on FreeBSD. It is probably possible to input video using web-cam or a camera supported by bktr driver.

For the record Skype works on Open and NetBSD. On the first one OpenBSD there is no enough emulation for the sound. On the second one I believe you should be able to use audio at least with Skype 1.4 version in pkgsrc.

OpenBSD and NetBSD do have uvideo driver for USB cameras. So both ways video should be possible.

In all above systems Ekiga and few other SIP soft-phones work without a glitch.


----------



## DrJ (May 27, 2009)

Oko said:
			
		

> You can also downgrade the port and compile Skype 1.3 or 1.4 which use OSS.


That's what I use; all you have to do is remove the IGNORE flag in the makefile.  The newer version required linuxator versions higher than fc4; my experience with those has not been great for other ports.  It does work for Skye, though.

So I just stay with the old version.


----------



## vivek (May 27, 2009)

Most university professor recommends FreeBSD for kernel hacking and operating system course because of clean code and documentation. Many users runs FreeBSD on both desktop and servers.


----------



## Oko (May 27, 2009)

phoenix said:
			
		

> FreeBSD supports a whole lot more than "just" plain UFS2 filesytems, thanks to the wonderful GEOM framework.  Want RAID0 (gstripe(8)), RAID1 (gmirror(8)), RAID3 (graid3(8)), RAID5 (graid5(8)), journalling (gjournal(8)), encryption (geli(8)), networked-RAID (ggated(8)), thin-provisioning (gvirstor(8)), or a bunch of other storage-related goodies?  It's all there, and more.
> 
> Plus, it's all stackable in any order that you want, so you can come up with some amazing setups.  Just try that using the Linux md/lvm/xfs stack.    All using the tried, tested, known-good, working UFS2 filesystem.
> 
> ...




I was too slow to answer that one but Phoenix covered 
very well. I just want to add couple of other things.

ReiserFS dead here too. 


JFS was ported by IBM who developed it 20 years ago. There are 
quite a few people here who do have experience with AIX so they can probably tell you better how good is Linux implementation.
If I need JFS I personally would go with AIX.

What about XFS another system this time donated and ported by SGI. As an old SGI user I can just tell you that you should try to use XFS in production and then come and brag about it among people who use ZFS and soft updates. 

Ext3 is laughable.

Ext4 is as observed above place holder for Btrfs which I heard is much better than ZFS. The only problem is that btrfs exists only in dreams of few RedHat developers. 

Ah yes. You do have TUX3. Last time I heard it can actually even do In/Out. That looks like a solid student final exam project to me. 

Last time I checked NTFS, UDF, FAT, and NFS are not Linux file systems. FreeBSD does support all of them as well as other BSDs. By the way NFS implementation in Linux really SUCKS.

Speaking of nice simple journalling file system have you looked lately Hammer of DragonFly? 
Also NetBSD has moved support for all file systems from kernel to userland.
You can Google about implications of that fantastic decision.


----------



## fronclynne (May 27, 2009)

*I like my analogies like a like my women: short.*



			
				offlinebouncer said:
			
		

> stuff that could keep it from reaching the mainstream-desktop


I fervently pray that FreeBSD never gets "good" enough for the mainstream desktop market.
I like my operating systems like I like my women:  primitive, hairy, and unfriendly.


----------



## DutchDaemon (May 27, 2009)

What version of Amy Winehouse are you running?


----------



## Zare (May 28, 2009)

We don't need freeBSD to go into desktop waters. We don't need hordes of Ubuntu-type kiddies doing troll propaganda because they've installed freeBSD by click-click-next principle and they like it because it's "not Windows". What's more amusing, Linux people think their system should be a rolemodel in the *nix world; freeBSD should do this because Linux does it, freeBSD should have that because Linux has it. 

That's *beep**beep**beep**beep**ng amusing. What's more amusing, freeBSD has, and always will have basis for a good, rock-solid desktop system. Linux never had and never will. Separated kernel/userland development, bazaar, 300 tons of distributions, which can be even binary incompatible with each other. So many options, so much "freedom". And when it comes down, you can't see a forest because of so many trees.

So to conclude this rant;



> - Some ports don't compile



Yes they do. Keep your tree up to date, or don't touch binary repositories.



> - gdm and gnome in general is not working as expected



GNOME sucks. Major. However, it, and it's puny display manager, work on freeBSD with optimum efficiency.



> - lxde is not working right (lxde-meta port)



Contact the port maintenance. LXDE is certainly not a priority even inside X11/WM/DE circles, so it's porting probably isn't responsive as KDE or something.



> - some ports are not available as binary-packages (compiling takes too long and is not practible for the regular user)



Yes they are. My advice would be to go to freshports, search for a port, and then you'll see where it's located in the tree, and whats it's package name.



> - poor media-performance, on linux I can watch a movie, copy some folders and chat at the same time, on FreeBSD the movie gets interupted by file-access



I have a 4.77MHz 8088. What's a movie?



> - burning as a regular-user is not possible, cause of too restrictive security (pam etc.)....same goes for automatic login with kdm or gdm



I hate saying this...but RTFM.



> - no native flash-player
> - no Skype support



Post that to Adobe and Skype. That's certainly not freeBSD's problem. 



> By the way: OS X is no FreeBSD! It's a MACH-Kernel with Aqua and cocoa.



It's not a freeBSD. XNU is larger part Mach, smaller part freeBSD 5, and Darwin userland is larger part freeBSD and smaller part others. On top of that you have cocoa, carbon, quartz, and the rest of fancy Mac stuff.



> How come FreeBSD only supports ufs2 with soft-upddates? Linux supports jfs, xfs, reiserfs, ext4 etc..
> Even with soft-updates enabled, it takes forever to fix the filesystem after an unclean umount.



Every operating system worth mentioning in computer history had, at most, one main file system and one other file system. Except Linux, which has 10 of 'em, and if SGI didn't port XFS, all of 'em would be bullshit.

freeBSD has UFS, fs that has been developed for decades. And ZFS as an secondary "option". I don't see anyone in UNIX community that sees that as a drawback for freeBSD.


----------



## kamikaze (May 28, 2009)

About the video issue. Just set mplayer to use a decent amount of cache. The default is ridiculously low.


----------



## hedwards (Jun 3, 2009)

Honestly, this thread is a bit on the flamy side, but FreeBSD doesn't really need any more market share. Sure it would be nice to see it at something like 5% of the total market, but really only if it's being engineered under similar philosophies as are currently in place. You start getting much larger than that and people start pressuring developers for things like a GUI installer. Neglecting to notice that sysinstall is a GUI, albeit somewhat aged.

I've rarely had problems with multimedia, the only thing I can think of is that the buffer isn't properly sized or the OP is trying to play DVDs without making sure that DMA is enabled and functioning properly.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Jun 3, 2009)

Actually, sysinstall is a TUI (Text User Interface), not a GUI (Not very Graphical, is it?).

Problem is some people think ``shiny icons'' is the same as ``usability''.
It's not, FreeBSD sysinstall is a hell of a lot more usable than many of the graphical Linux installed that are out there.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Jun 3, 2009)

I think all thoughts have been adequately expressed by now, which usually means the thread will gain entropy very quickly  

Closed.


----------

