choice question - newbie - BSD

This is a discussion on choice question - newbie - BSD ; Hi i can not find one basic answer on the net. I try to build a very functional, non windows, desktop system. Is BSD compatible with Linux programs? (i can not see any software installation packages for BSD) Why should ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: choice question - newbie

  1. choice question - newbie

    Hi

    i can not find one basic answer on the net.
    I try to build a very functional, non windows, desktop system.
    Is BSD compatible with Linux programs? (i can not see any software
    installation packages for BSD)
    Why should one install BSD instead of Linux or Solaris? Which are its
    advantages?
    What about drivers?


    Darko

  2. Re: choice question - newbie

    Darko wrote:
    > i can not find one basic answer on the net.


    You have not looked.

    > I try to build a very functional, non windows, desktop system.
    > Is BSD compatible with Linux programs?


    Most Linux software will work fine on BSD. You just need to compile it from
    the ports tree or install the package using pkg_add(1).

    > (i can not see any software installation packages for BSD)


    You have not looked.

    - Philip

    --
    Philip Paeps Please don't email any replies
    philip@paeps.cx I follow the newsgroup.

    hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
    162. You go outside and look for a brightness knob to turn down the sun.

  3. Re: choice question - newbie

    Begin
    On 2007-02-02, Darko wrote:
    > i can not find one basic answer on the net.


    Most basic answers for FreeBSD are found in the FreeBSD handbook. The
    handbook can be found in html on the FreeBSD project site, and in html
    as well as various other formats on the ftp site. It also comes as part
    of the documentation installation distribution.


    > I try to build a very functional, non windows, desktop system.
    > Is BSD compatible with Linux programs?


    FreeBSD can run precompiled linux programs provided you also have
    the linux compatability layer and appropriate libraries installed.
    The handbook has an explanation of this.


    > (i can not see any software installation packages for BSD)


    For FreeBSD, there are quite a few. NetBSD and OpenBSD also have
    their fair share of packages available. Their respective sites
    explain in detail what they offer, if you care to look. How to
    use the packages system is in the handbook.


    > Why should one install BSD instead of Linux or Solaris? Which are its
    > advantages?


    The various BSD descendants explain in detail what they do and what
    their goals are. For someone else's take, you could read, for example,

    http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/


    > What about drivers?


    Vendors will usually not provide drivers unless for windows, so free
    OSes usually provide their own as much as they can. I invite you to take
    a look at the hardware compatability list for each OS and release that
    you want to consider using.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  4. Re: choice question - newbie

    On Feb 2, 5:18 am, Darko wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > i can not find one basic answer on the net.
    > I try to build a very functional, non windows, desktop system.
    > Is BSD compatible with Linux programs? (i can not see any software
    > installation packages for BSD)
    > Why should one install BSD instead of Linux or Solaris? Which are its
    > advantages?
    > What about drivers?
    >
    > Darko


    Use the correct OS for the job. If you need to run all Linux programs,
    use Linux. If every other machine at your location is using Solaris,
    install that. If you need a decent desktop, use Windows or Mac OS X.
    If you need a tightly knit unix based OS that works real well, install
    FreeBSD. It's as simple as that.


  5. Re: choice question - newbie

    On Feb 3, 2:31 pm, c...@backfire.ca wrote:
    >
    > Use the correct OS for the job. If you need to run all Linux programs,
    > use Linux. If every other machine at your location is using Solaris,
    > install that. If you need a decent desktop, use Windows or Mac OS X.
    > If you need a tightly knit unix based OS that works real well, install
    > FreeBSD. It's as simple as that.


    Although I won't argue with that, I will add that since about 2000, I
    have been using a FreeBSD desktop in two organizations where I have
    had the only non-Windows machine in the building. OpenOffice,
    Firefox, xpdf cover my needs to be compatible with co-workers almost
    completely. I listen to Realplayer for Linux continuously all day. I
    need a nearby Windows machine once in a while for MS Access. At home
    I use OSX for video iChat and GarageBand.

    Look in the FreeBSD handbook for installing applications ports.


  6. Re: choice question - newbie

    Begin <1170531119.629015.295160@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups. com>
    On 2007-02-03, craig@backfire.ca wrote:
    > If you need a decent desktop, use Windows or Mac OS X.



    Unfortunately, in today's ``office reality'', you can't really go
    without an internet connection, and time and again just about all
    software from our esteemed friends in redmond has developed defects that
    are often as not remotely exploitable. It has had, and still has, more
    than its fair share of those, even correcting for usage distribution.

    The unacquintedness with different systems, the fear of the unknown, and
    unwillingness or perceived unfeasability to learn new tricks is what
    makes the vast herd of one trick ponies stick to that particular system.
    Oh, and network effect, but that suddenly has much less impact if you
    are acquinted well enough with a few different systems. Well enough, in
    this sense, entails much less knowledge than one might fear.

    Because of its well known tendency for defects and a vendor arguably
    more interested in fixing DRM issues than security issues, it is not
    commendable to use such a system connected to any network without third
    party software and hardware specifically setup to attempt to mitigate
    the effects of it frequently dropping its pants and bending over. Its
    vendor calls that ``good for the economy''. I call it purveying shoddy
    goods.

    I'd narrow your qualification down to ``If you somehow desperately need
    a specific redmondian setup, use that. For a desktop, use MacosX, or
    invest a bit in acquiring the knowledge to run a different system with
    a suitable desktop suite.'' If your produce is mostly paper or equally
    well transferrable as an open and standardized format, and that doesn't
    even have to be plain text, there really is no reason to not do it other
    than perhaps your or other people's ignorance.

    It is about time we moved on from that stage, for it is sad that vast
    herds of workers can do no more than be driven by the machine, where
    they really should drive the machine to do their bidding instead. As
    long as ``productivity'' is measured by the machine the knowledge worker
    is not the driving force, but the machine is.



    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  7. Re: choice question - newbie

    That's quite poetic. I never considered the choice of an OS to be a
    political issue.


  8. Re: choice question - newbie

    Begin <1170534499.736024.96700@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.c om>
    On 2007-02-03, craig@backfire.ca wrote:
    > That's quite poetic. I never considered the choice of an OS to be a
    > political issue.


    You don't say.

    Oh, and do quote and attribute material at least enough material of what
    you're responding to for context, please.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  9. Re: choice question - newbie

    On 3 Feb 2007 12:28:19 -0800, craig@backfire.ca wrote:
    > That's quite poetic. I never considered the choice of an OS to be a
    > political issue.


    Oh, but it is.

    As long as people fall for the fallacy of "the majority must be right;
    they are the majority after all", and use that as an argument for using
    unfree software, it is a political issue. See any audio recording of
    Richard Stallman's excellent speeches on the importance of free
    software, and it will be obvious why software choices can be very
    important political issues


  10. Re: choice question - newbie

    craig@backfire.ca wrote:
    > That's quite poetic. I never considered the choice of an OS to be a
    > political issue.


    Hmmm. Guess you're new to Usenet.
    --
    Tore


  11. Re: choice question - newbie

    craig@backfire.ca wrote:
    > Use the correct OS for the job. If you need to run all Linux programs,
    > use Linux. If every other machine at your location is using Solaris,
    > install that. If you need a decent desktop, use Windows or Mac OS X.
    > If you need a tightly knit unix based OS that works real well, install
    > FreeBSD. It's as simple as that.


    All right, that's your opinion. But the OP specifically said he (she?)
    wanted a "non windows, desktop system". So I just want to say that I
    have gradually started using FreeBSD as my main desktop OS. One of my
    reasons for doing so is that Win2K has begun to BSOD on me - so much for
    "decent desktop". And FreeBSD works quite well as a desktop, but one
    should keep certain shortcomings in mind.

    Speaking to the OP:

    The major shortcoming is that the handbook and the forums are very much
    geared toward sysadmins who know their systems in depth and only need to
    ask about occasional technical details. Documentation and forums for
    typical desktop users are simply missing at present, but that does NOT
    mean that FreeBSD is not a good desktop OS. For my own part, I have
    gradually discovered little details that make it much more easy and
    pleasant to make a good desktop, and I wish they were documented in some
    central location where newbies could find them.

    The other shortcoming is that printer setup and some other hassles are
    not as convenient as in Windows. For that reason, FreeBSD should only
    be used by people who are prepared to expend some effort on handling
    certain aspects of the setup.

    Having said this, it does not take genius to install a basic FreeBSD
    with X. And, once that hurdle is overcome, su to root and issue the
    command "pkg_add -r gnome2-lite". I think Gnome is a good place to
    begin for newbies, but I also think many of them will outgrow it
    quickly. After all, it's just a bundle of programs - many of which
    duplicate functionality that is already present in the OS - and you can
    get by just as well with a simple window manager and the programs you
    really need. (I currently use IceWM.)

    In conclusion, I think FreeBSD is a good desktop OS, for those who are
    prepared to tackle some problems along the way. The things that are
    really missing are documentation and discusson geared toward typical
    desktop users. But it does not cost very much to try it out. And no
    one here can tell whether Linux or Solaris would be better for you.
    --
    Tore


  12. Re: choice question - newbie

    Giorgos Keramidas wrote:

    > On 3 Feb 2007 12:28:19 -0800, craig@backfire.ca wrote:
    >> That's quite poetic. I never considered the choice of an OS to be a
    >> political issue.

    >
    > Oh, but it is.
    >
    > As long as people fall for the fallacy of "the majority must be right;
    > they are the majority after all", and use that as an argument for using
    > unfree software, it is a political issue. See any audio recording of
    > Richard Stallman's excellent speeches on the importance of free
    > software, and it will be obvious why software choices can be very
    > important political issues


    May i applaud you...


  13. Re: choice question - newbie

    On 02/04/2007 05:52 AM, Tore Lund wrote:
    > craig@backfire.ca wrote:
    >> Use the correct OS for the job. If you need to run all Linux programs,
    >> use Linux. If every other machine at your location is using Solaris,
    >> install that. If you need a decent desktop, use Windows or Mac OS X.
    >> If you need a tightly knit unix based OS that works real well, install
    >> FreeBSD. It's as simple as that.

    >
    > All right, that's your opinion. But the OP specifically said he (she?)
    > wanted a "non windows, desktop system". So I just want to say that I
    > have gradually started using FreeBSD as my main desktop OS. One of my
    > reasons for doing so is that Win2K has begun to BSOD on me - so much for
    > "decent desktop". And FreeBSD works quite well as a desktop, but one
    > should keep certain shortcomings in mind.
    >
    > Speaking to the OP:
    >
    > The major shortcoming is that the handbook and the forums are very much
    > geared toward sysadmins who know their systems in depth and only need to
    > ask about occasional technical details. Documentation and forums for
    > typical desktop users are simply missing at present, but that does NOT
    > mean that FreeBSD is not a good desktop OS. For my own part, I have
    > gradually discovered little details that make it much more easy and
    > pleasant to make a good desktop, and I wish they were documented in some
    > central location where newbies could find them.
    >
    > The other shortcoming is that printer setup and some other hassles are
    > not as convenient as in Windows. For that reason, FreeBSD should only
    > be used by people who are prepared to expend some effort on handling
    > certain aspects of the setup.
    >
    > Having said this, it does not take genius to install a basic FreeBSD
    > with X. And, once that hurdle is overcome, su to root and issue the
    > command "pkg_add -r gnome2-lite". I think Gnome is a good place to
    > begin for newbies, but I also think many of them will outgrow it
    > quickly. After all, it's just a bundle of programs - many of which
    > duplicate functionality that is already present in the OS - and you can
    > get by just as well with a simple window manager and the programs you
    > really need. (I currently use IceWM.)
    >
    > In conclusion, I think FreeBSD is a good desktop OS, for those who are
    > prepared to tackle some problems along the way. The things that are
    > really missing are documentation and discusson geared toward typical
    > desktop users. But it does not cost very much to try it out. And no
    > one here can tell whether Linux or Solaris would be better for you.

    ^^^

    I think, you might want to say *can't* in above said sentence; obviously
    you don't have enough exposure and, or experience with Linux or Solaris
    systems.

    No doubt, FreeBSD is starting to excel on desktops too, but most of the
    people I know still prefer Linux based distros for reasons of hardware
    compatibility and, or drivers; Although I was well aware of FreeBSD and,
    or other *BSD variants since long, but I only started with FreeBSD
    5.1-RELEASE on my Dell Inspiron 4150, and am brave enough to switch over
    to FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT. It is notable that I even being an avid user
    and, or advocate of Linux myself, still respect and love to use, study,
    preach, advocate, eat and, or sleep FreeBSD too.

    I love cleanness, compactness and, or originality of FreeBSD; a big
    thanks to FreeBSD developers and, or community

    To the OP, I know it is difficult to try each and, or every Linux
    distro, but the Ubuntu, Fedora, Gentoo, FreeBSD, Darwin and, or Solairs
    are only few which you must try the LiveCD's (If available) yourself and
    decide which one fits your budget requirements and, or needs best.

    Kindly note that Ubuntu and, or Knoppix are not Debian, particularly in
    the view of Debian developers; similarly NetBSD, OpenBSD and, or even
    DesktopBSD and PC-BSD are not FreeBSD.

    No comments on Solaris, Darwin and, or Mac OS/X, I don't use these now a
    days.

    --
    Dr Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
    Anu's Linux@HOME Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
    Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Distros: Ubuntu, Fedora, Knoppix
    Home: http://cto.homelinux.net/~bsd/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/

  14. Re: choice question - newbie

    In article <52k99oF1oiiiqU1@mid.individual.net>,
    jpd wrote:
    >Begin <1170531119.629015.295160@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups. com>
    >On 2007-02-03, craig@backfire.ca wrote:
    >> If you need a decent desktop, use Windows or Mac OS X.


    [Huge hunks deleted - wjv.]

    >

    .....

    >It is about time we moved on from that stage, for it is sad that vast
    >herds of workers can do no more than be driven by the machine, where
    >they really should drive the machine to do their bidding instead. As
    >long as ``productivity'' is measured by the machine the knowledge worker
    >is not the driving force, but the machine is.
    >


    A friend of mine in the Unix world tells the story of his wife who
    went to work for a company and all the finished documents had to be
    in Word format.

    They noticed that she was 4 to 6 times faster turning out work than
    others in the office.

    She created/edited all the documents she wrote in 'vi' and then
    converted them to Word.

    That was the worker driving the machine. Too bad it happens so
    seldom.

    Bill


    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

+ Reply to Thread