Speaking of which: are there any "distros" out there ship a combination of FreeBSD and the latest Gnome desktop? I think that would be a better combination than Ubuntu's Debian+Gnome combo, personally.
Yes, the only FreeBSD 'distro'. FreeBSD is not fragmented like the 100 and 1 Linux distros Download the FBSD isos, install the gnome packages. Not new enough, build from source using ports. While it probably doesn't include the absolutely latest Gnome, the FreeBSD people tend to appreciate stability over cutting edge features, so its probably going to be a little behind the bleeding edge, for something popular like gnome though, it should match up with the latest stable release within a very short period
Dig up Desktop BSD. Quite nice, if not my cup of tea. IMHO, BSD is for servers, but if I were tempted to use BSD for desktops, it'd be Desktop BSD.
That being said, it seems VERY clean and useful, but it does use KDE (no load time on my laptop, when accessing menus, which means something has been fixed on BSD that hasn't been fixed on Linux KDE yet.)
I think one can force it to use something other than KDE and still keep the "Desktop Tools", which make Desktop BSD quite useful. (Only OS that detected my SD M
No, those are forks.
FreeBSD is not just a kernel like Linux. FreeBSD is the entire package. You don't have other distros, you have forks of the original.
Well, both PC-BSD and DesktopBSD claim to not be forks. DesktopBSD explicitly identifies itself as a distribution of FreeBSD and PC-BSD says "PIF" (PC-BSD is FreeBSD).
Here are the references:
[pcbsd.org]http://faqs.pcbsd.org/index.php?action=artikel&cat=14&id=304&artlang=en [pcbsd.org]
Of course, I appreciate the fact that FreeBSD's base is an integrated system which is maintained as a unit as opposed to Linux distributions which are sourced from multiple projects.
Incorrect. Both track the main FreeBSD tree. Consider them "value add" packages of software and tweaks layered on top of the official FreeBSD. A fork would be traced to a single point in time with ever-growing divergence (think DragonflyBSD). Both DesktopBSD and PC-BSD include updated bases of the main FreeBSD with their own updates. For example, PC-BSD 1.0 was based on FreeBSD 6.0. The current version of PC-BSD, 1.4.1, is based on FreeBSD 6.3. PC-BSD 2.0 will be based on FreeBSD 7.0. In fact, a lot of the D
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Thursday March 06, 2008 @10:28AM (#22662604)
FreeBSD is not fragmented like the 100 and 1 Linux distros
I'm a FreeBSD fan, but what kind of logic is that? You pick one example out of a fragmented set, and compare it to an entire other set of operating systems.
You act as if NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin, etc, do not exist. Of course and item cannot be fragmented if if you define it's containing set as "itself". Makes about as much sense as:
Ubuntu is not fragmented like the 100 and 1 BSD distros
Of those you listed, Only DragonflyBSD and Darwin use a FreeBSD kernel, Darwin considerably modified, to the point that it might as well be counted on its own. You can not drop the FreeBSD kernel in any of them and have things work, except for Dragonfly, but even then it still requires (minor) modification. Compare/Contrast to Linux distributions. The kernel, assuming version matchs, is rather interchangable between the distros. Its the file system layout, the utilities included, and default configuration
'the GNU/Linux kernel' and 'the utilities and userland tools required to make it usable'.
You got it almost right, but the Linux kernel is The Linux Kernel. The GNU part was added by Stallman because they provided "the utilities and userland".
However, I agree with you that FreeBSD has nothing to do with netBSD and openBSD. Only that they all are "based" on the BSD distribution of Unix. But if you want to go that far, then Linux would be based on the System V distribution of Unix and all of them would be diff
You act as if NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin, etc, do not exist. Of course and item cannot be fragmented if if you define it's containing set as "itself".
Read the question again. The question as about FreeBSD + GNOME. Not *BSD + Gnome. Grandparent is right. The only one that might, loosely, be considered a "distro" would be FreeBie (A freebsd liveCd). None of the other things you mentioned are FreeBSD. If you want to complain about set definition, take it up with the questioner.
There is no such thing as a BSD distro. FreeBSD is an entire operating system which includes the kernel and the core utilities needed to manage it. The nice thing about FreeBSD is consistency, it doesn't matter what server you login to things are going to be laid out the same and have the same options. Most systems will have extra packages installed but everything goes under/usr/local so you can just look around.
This is going to scare you, but BSD stands for "Berkeley Software Distribution", so BSD is automatically a distro. How can there be no such thing as a BSD distro? Maybe the definition of the word has changed since then. BSDs are each like a single Linux distribution with a selection of tools from the open source world, as well as a lot of project-specific code and legacy code from BSD heritage.
that everything needs to be compiled from source (ala gentoo) or that everything is precompiled for somebody else's needs (ala debian)
If you want to compile from source, you can, that's how Ports works. If you want to use precompiled versions you can install packages. You don't need to have multiple distros to be able to configure the system the way you need, you start with a core OS (which you can rebuild from sou
I thought I had just gone through explaining how you didn't need distros to get choice. You can do everything you want to do with a distro using ports and packages. FreeBSD has a "hell of a package management system". The FreeBSD core doesn't include the GUI (even X11 is optional) and you can build less than the core (PicoBSD, for example, which we used to make automatic "ghost"-like Windows NT install floppies at ABB).
Basically, almost all the options you're talking about are possible with FreeBSD... includ
We're getting into semantic Hell here. FreeBSD doesn't have distros because FreeBSD itself is very much like a distro. It's not a requirement from the FreeBSD team--rather, FreeBSD is a complete operating environment akin to a Linux distribution.
There's nothing technically or legally preventing me from creating a new installer that uses the FreeBSD kernel and FreeBSD userland, with some modifications to the default packages installed. In fact, people [desktopbsd.net] have [pcbsd.org] done [pfsense.com] just that. PFSense even calls it a distributi
Gnome in FreeBSD is at something like 2.20 -- pretty damn recent. Just install FreeBSD, and either use pkg_add to grab the most recent binaries or build your own gnome by grabbing the latest ports tree ("portsnap fetch extract"'ll do that ) then "cd/usr/ports/x11/gnome2 && make install clean". Done.
You have to be wary with pkg_add. It will only grab packages from the -version-release branch (which are not updated--they're static for that release.) For example, if you're running 6.2, you'll find that pkg_add tracks this URL for packages: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6.2-release/Latest/ [freebsd.org]
And the software is over a year old.
If you want updated packages, you will need to set some environment variables to force you to track a -stable URL (such as ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/po [freebsd.org]
You don't need a "distro". Just install the latest GNOME on FreeBSD. Done. While I am a huge KDE fanboy myself, the FreeBSD/GNOME team has done some amazing work.
It's that year again! (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, what?
BSD Desktops (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Download the FBSD isos, install the gnome packages. Not new enough, build from source using ports. While it probably doesn't include the absolutely latest Gnome, the FreeBSD people tend to appreciate stability over cutting edge features, so its probably going to be a little behind the bleeding edge, for something popular like gnome though, it should match up with the latest stable release within a very short period
Silly, ignorant children. (Score:2)
Quite nice, if not my cup of tea. IMHO, BSD is for servers, but if I were tempted to use BSD for desktops, it'd be Desktop BSD.
That being said, it seems VERY clean and useful, but it does use KDE (no load time on my laptop, when accessing menus, which means something has been fixed on BSD that hasn't been fixed on Linux KDE yet.)
I think one can force it to use something other than KDE and still keep the "Desktop Tools", which make Desktop BSD quite useful. (Only OS that detected my SD M
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:BSD Desktops (Score:4, Informative)
There are FreeBSD-based PC-BSD [pcbsd.org] and DesktopBSD [desktopbsd.net] Both of them are using KDE, though.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
FreeBSD is not just a kernel like Linux. FreeBSD is the entire package. You don't have other distros, you have forks of the original.
Re:BSD Desktops (Score:5, Informative)
http://desktopbsd.net/wiki/doku.php?id=doc:faqs [desktopbsd.net]
Of course, I appreciate the fact that FreeBSD's base is an integrated system which is maintained as a unit as opposed to Linux distributions which are sourced from multiple projects.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, a lot of the D
Re:BSD Desktops (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a FreeBSD fan, but what kind of logic is that? You pick one example out of a fragmented set, and compare it to an entire other set of operating systems.
You act as if NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin, etc, do not exist. Of course and item cannot be fragmented if if you define it's containing set as "itself". Makes about as much sense as:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare/Contrast to Linux distributions. The kernel, assuming version matchs, is rather interchangable between the distros. Its the file system layout, the utilities included, and default configuration
Re: (Score:2)
You got it almost right, but the Linux kernel is The Linux Kernel. The GNU part was added by Stallman because they provided "the utilities and userland".
However, I agree with you that FreeBSD has nothing to do with netBSD and openBSD. Only that they all are "based" on the BSD distribution of Unix. But if you want to go that far, then Linux would be based on the System V distribution of Unix and all of them would be diff
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eivind (ex/inactive FreeBSD kernel developer).
Re: (Score:2)
You act as if NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin, etc, do not exist. Of course and item cannot be fragmented if if you define it's containing set as "itself".
Read the question again. The question as about FreeBSD + GNOME. Not *BSD + Gnome. Grandparent is right. The only one that might, loosely, be considered a "distro" would be FreeBie (A freebsd liveCd). None of the other things you mentioned are FreeBSD. If you want to complain about set definition, take it up with the questioner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you "need" distros? (Score:2)
What's the advantage of having multiple distros?
that everything needs to be compiled from source (ala gentoo) or that everything is precompiled for somebody else's needs (ala debian)
If you want to compile from source, you can, that's how Ports works. If you want to use precompiled versions you can install packages. You don't need to have multiple distros to be able to configure the system the way you need, you start with a core OS (which you can rebuild from sou
Re: (Score:2)
You can do everything you want to do with a distro using ports and packages. FreeBSD has a "hell of a package management system". The FreeBSD core doesn't include the GUI (even X11 is optional) and you can build less than the core (PicoBSD, for example, which we used to make automatic "ghost"-like Windows NT install floppies at ABB).
Basically, almost all the options you're talking about are possible with FreeBSD... includ
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FreeBSD doesn't have distros because FreeBSD itself is very much like a distro. It's not a requirement from the FreeBSD team--rather, FreeBSD is a complete operating environment akin to a Linux distribution.
There's nothing technically or legally preventing me from creating a new installer that uses the FreeBSD kernel and FreeBSD userland, with some modifications to the default packages installed. In fact, people [desktopbsd.net] have [pcbsd.org] done [pfsense.com] just that. PFSense even calls it a distributi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If FreeBSD is the only FreeBSD distro, then what are (among others) PC-BSD and Desktop BSD?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6.2-release/Latest/ [freebsd.org]
And the software is over a year old.
If you want updated packages, you will need to set some environment variables to force you to track a -stable URL (such as ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/po [freebsd.org]
Re:BSD Desktops (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
What year again?