Should I Try DesktopBSD?

mclang · 2007-06-08 09:38:10

Hello

I am interested in trying some BSD distribution. I need good desktop functionality to manage my daily tasks (firefox with java/flash/media, mail, writing, gimp, boinc, mplayer or similar), so is the DesktopBSD my best choice as name implies or would you suggest some other distribution?

And if anybody has any goods/bads about BSD as daily OS, I would like to hear it. Searching google didn't give any definitive answers - or maybe it's my words again

STiAT · 2007-06-08 10:15:10

BSD is not much different from arch. I use arch in daily desktop use, and actually see no need to switch to bsd.

You should consider: Why do i want to change? I don't know DesktopBSD, but i know FreeBSD, and would say arch is far better for desktop usage.

Basically, what DBSD provides is a graphical package manager, a kde distribution, and some kio plugins / applets / services running with kde as well as some well known plugins for kcontrol.

mclang · 2007-06-11 17:14:59

Arch is good and indeed I'm not planning to abandon it anytime soon - it's just that somehow I feel need to chance, to try something different... But if FreeBSD or DesktopBSD is not so much different than Arch, there is no point trying those. Hmm, maybe I should check some ubuntu derivative just for the kicks - to see if e.g Mint would be a good alternative to my parent's computer.

Thank you for the info.

Theoden · 2007-06-12 03:16:27

mclang wrote:

Hello
I am interested in trying some BSD distribution. I need good desktop functionality to manage my daily tasks (firefox with java/flash/media, mail, writing, gimp, boinc, mplayer or similar), so is the DesktopBSD my best choice as name implies or would you suggest some other distribution?
And if anybody has any goods/bads about BSD as daily OS, I would like to hear it. Searching google didn't give any definitive answers - or maybe it's my words again

STiAT wrote:

BSD is not much different from arch. I use arch in daily desktop use, and actually see no need to switch to bsd.

mclang:

If you are really interested in BSD (whether it be FreeBSD or DesktopBSD - which really IS FreeBSD) - you should understand the differences between linux and BSD. And with all respect to STiAT, there IS a big difference between them. Read this link and you will understand both better:

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ra … linux1.php

Once you understand the difference, then decide.

--Theoden

Nene · 2007-06-12 10:23:50

Theoden wrote:

Read this link and you will understand both better:
http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ra … linux1.php

Thanks for the link, very interesting to read.

Last edited by Nene (2007-06-12 10:24:29)

stratego · 2007-07-12 12:47:23

I also want to add that if you're fairly adept to the way arch works (especially the configuration and package management using ABS), then trying out vanilla FreeBSD or NetBSD should be no problem.

I actually found using the *BSDs rather enjoyable as a learning environment (mainly for running servers, but workstations too), all I can say is if you have the time and the determination, there is no harm in trying them out

shining · 2007-07-12 14:17:26

mclang wrote:

And if anybody has any goods/bads about BSD as daily OS, I would like to hear it. Searching google didn't give any definitive answers - or maybe it's my words again

I only tried FreeBSD like one month on one desktop and one laptop,
so this only my personal opinion based on my limited experience

bads :
- less hardware support (that obviously doesn't matter as long as your hardware is supported )
- lack of a good binary package manager, like pacman or apt-get

goods :
- if you like building from source, the ports system is actually pretty good
- it's different in some interesting ways,
so try it if you are bored and are looking for something new, and have some free time to spend

dawei · 2007-07-13 03:11:43

I only tried PC-BSD before which is famous for its PBI package. It has a graphical installer, an easy way to install package.
Visit their site to get more info:http://www.pcbsd.org

oli · 2007-07-13 22:47:20

shining wrote:

mclang wrote:
And if anybody has any goods/bads about BSD as daily OS, I would like to hear it. Searching google didn't give any definitive answers - or maybe it's my words again
I only tried FreeBSD like one month on one desktop and one laptop,
so this only my personal opinion based on my limited experience
bads :
- less hardware support (that obviously doesn't matter as long as your hardware is supported )
- lack of a good binary package manager, like pacman or apt-get
goods :
- if you like building from source, the ports system is actually pretty good
- it's different in some interesting ways,
so try it if you are bored and are looking for something new, and have some free time to spend

Less hardware support is often over-estimated, most of the time people are refering to this saying because of the lack of sound drivers or the lack of the well-known Ati driver. But to be true, it's more a lack of knowledge. Ati isn't there, okay, but I wouldn't go with an Ati card in Linux because of the inferior quality (driver).

Most of the time you have to consult the MLs to get the proper information. There are indeed sound-drivers for HDA, Envy24, Soundblaster Audigy 2-4 and so on. Or some patches, like in Linux, to fix some mices (like Microsofts Notebook Optical Mouse 3000). So less hardware support? Not really. The development model is different, so it's a different approach to quality too - there are lot of patches, but you'll not see them in a release without proper testing. But you can patch and compile the world yourself.

shining · 2007-07-14 11:25:47

oli wrote:

shining wrote:
mclang wrote:
And if anybody has any goods/bads about BSD as daily OS, I would like to hear it. Searching google didn't give any definitive answers - or maybe it's my words again
I only tried FreeBSD like one month on one desktop and one laptop,
so this only my personal opinion based on my limited experience
bads :
- less hardware support (that obviously doesn't matter as long as your hardware is supported )
- lack of a good binary package manager, like pacman or apt-get
goods :
- if you like building from source, the ports system is actually pretty good
- it's different in some interesting ways,
so try it if you are bored and are looking for something new, and have some free time to spend
Less hardware support is often over-estimated, most of the time people are refering to this saying because of the lack of sound drivers or the lack of the well-known Ati driver. But to be true, it's more a lack of knowledge. Ati isn't there, okay, but I wouldn't go with an Ati card in Linux because of the inferior quality (driver).
Most of the time you have to consult the MLs to get the proper information. There are indeed sound-drivers for HDA, Envy24, Soundblaster Audigy 2-4 and so on. Or some patches, like in Linux, to fix some mices (like Microsofts Notebook Optical Mouse 3000). So less hardware support? Not really. The development model is different, so it's a different approach to quality too - there are lot of patches, but you'll not see them in a release without proper testing. But you can patch and compile the world yourself.

My hardware was supported, but it was sometimes of a worse quality :
* driver for sound blaster audigy : that was probably the worst, I couldn't even switch between digital/analog output, so I wasn't even able to play audio CD.
Besides, the stereo channels were reversed in games, making it impossible to play any FPS games.
* intel wireless drivers : that one was easier to set up than it first looked, it was nearly as easy as on Linux.
But if I remember correctly, it gave me more troubles, it was more unstable, I often had to reload it.
* nvidia drivers : I think these worked pretty fine for the most part, I think I had a few issues with them than I didn't have in Linux,
but don't remember which ones (or maybe I fixed them by playing with some options like nvagp)
* logitech mouse : there was no util like logitech_mouse / lomoco / lmctl to set the DPI correctly.
But I was able to contact some guy that hacked a little C program which does it for freebsd
Also it wasn't possible to customize the mouse polling rate like on Linux ( options usbhid mousepoll=2 ), but I made a one line hack in the usb driver which did the same

I also remember having some troubles with the scheduler when I first tried it (maybe two years ago), like the system felt very sluggish when compiling,
and sound skipped awfully. But I think this was solved when I tried a second time (maybe fbsd 6.0)

Another strange issue is that the only supported linux filesystem driver was apparently ext2, and it didn't even work correctly when I tried it.

Anyway, most of these issues are related to (stupid) gaming, so well bsd can't be flamed for that.
But the issues don't seem hard to fix anyway.
For the usage I've on my laptop, the biggest problems were the wireless a bit behind, and the source orientation.
And for a server, I don't think there are any real issues.

oli · 2007-07-15 12:44:21

If you remember too that FreeBSD != Linux maybe you'll have some success in future. It's not about a flameware, but there are huge differences of doing things.

>Another strange issue is that the only supported linux filesystem driver was apparently ext2

Because it's no Linux vice versa you'll not get full UFS2 softupdates support. But you can read easily from ext2 and ext3.

>But I think this was solved when I tried a second time

FreeBSD 5.x e.g.: disabled DMA and disabled preemtive multitasking. But you could activate it. The default 4BSD scheduler has got the same performance like the new CFS scheduler in Linux. SCHED_ULE or SCHED_SMP is even better (in FreeBSD 7).

>nvidia drivers : I think these worked pretty fine for the most part

As I said, the differences are huge. You have to read the manual or better the readme from Nvidia. Don't use FreeBSD AGP together with Nvidia drivers.

>driver for sound blaster audigy

No problem, emu10kx driver in ports is available since FBSD5.x and better than the one delivered for SBLive and Audigy I in the system. Last not least there is the possiblity of using 4techs OSS drivers.

ralvez · 2007-07-15 13:17:30

I used DesktopBSD for about 6 months in one of my spare machines. I think it was version 0.95
The set up was incredibly easy (as easy as: put the disk in the drive, click OK, OK, OK ... done) and took no more than 10 min.
The default desktop was KDE, with some added tools of their own.There is a "linux compatibilty layer" built in the OS and therefore you can run Linux Apps. without problems ... well, mostly.

The biggest annoyance, at the time I tried it, was that Flash was not working well in Firefox and even getting it to work at all was a pita.

I also disliked their firewall (I think it was something called pf).

The directory structure is somehow different from Linux, but I guess that is expected but overall it is a nice OS and the "user manual" is the best I have seen in my life. Very detailed instructions for everything!!.

Why I did not stick with it? Well, I think that Linux is just as good an OS and seems to grow at a faster pace and I feel more comfortable with it.

I think it is worth the experience though, it will give you another perspective on OS design and management and just that will make a better professional out of you.

Rick

shining · 2007-07-15 13:21:07

>>Another strange issue is that the only supported linux filesystem driver was apparently ext2
>
>Because it's no Linux vice versa you'll not get full UFS2 softupdates support. But you can read easily from ext2 and ext3.

ext2 in Linux is equivalent to UFS2 with softupdates in fbsd ? and Linux can't write to that ?
Reading from ext2 in fbsd wasn't a problem indeed, only writing.

>>nvidia drivers : I think these worked pretty fine for the most part
>
>As I said, the differences are huge. You have to read the manual or better the readme from Nvidia. Don't use FreeBSD AGP together with Nvidia drivers.

That was most certainly the problem I had, not too hard to fix (it was probably just a kernel recompilation for disabling built in agp support).

>>driver for sound blaster audigy
>
>No problem, emu10kx driver in ports is available since FBSD5.x and better than the one delivered for SBLive and Audigy I in the system. Last not least there is the possiblity of >using 4techs OSS drivers.

IIRC, I did have a look at other drivers (most probably these two ones). Maybe they fixed one problem, but caused another. I don't remember exactly, but I think I was still not totally happy with them.

Don't get me wrong, I liked FBSD over all, it just looked slightly less polished than Linux for my usage.
Maybe that isn't even true, and I'm not being fair, but it doesn't even matter because I'm perfectly happy with Linux anyway, so I'm staying on that.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-06-08 09:38:10

Should I Try DesktopBSD?

#2 2007-06-08 10:15:10

Re: Should I Try DesktopBSD?

#3 2007-06-11 17:14:59

Re: Should I Try DesktopBSD?

#4 2007-06-12 03:16:27

Re: Should I Try DesktopBSD?

#5 2007-06-12 10:23:50

Re: Should I Try DesktopBSD?

#6 2007-07-12 12:47:23

Re: Should I Try DesktopBSD?

#7 2007-07-12 14:17:26

Re: Should I Try DesktopBSD?

#8 2007-07-13 03:11:43

Re: Should I Try DesktopBSD?

#9 2007-07-13 22:47:20

Re: Should I Try DesktopBSD?

#10 2007-07-14 11:25:47

Re: Should I Try DesktopBSD?

#11 2007-07-15 12:44:21

Re: Should I Try DesktopBSD?

#12 2007-07-15 13:17:30

Re: Should I Try DesktopBSD?

#13 2007-07-15 13:21:07

Re: Should I Try DesktopBSD?

Board footer