Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 2 Sep 2003 04:46:39 -0500
From:      Vulpes Velox <kitbsdlist2@HotPOP.com>
To:        Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Cc:        freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster
Message-ID:  <20030902044639.5910102c.kitbsdlist2@HotPOP.com>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030901143026.029afce0@localhost>
References:  <1062427379.15322.12.camel@suzy.unbreakable.homeunix.org> <29508631.20030901165843@mail.ru> <1062427379.15322.12.camel@suzy.unbreakable.homeunix.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20030901143026.029afce0@localhost>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 14:55:21 -0600
Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> wrote:

> At 10:31 AM 9/1/2003, Joao Schim wrote:
> 
> >Hey Mario,
> >
> >Well its my experience that FreeBSD is not only the best option for
> >firewall and Internet services but it is also very capable of running
> >desktop apps with the greatest stability. So that makes me wonder why you
> >seem to have that idea that FreeBSD isn't ment for Desktop.
> 
> This attitude, which was heavily pushed 5-7 years ago by the "leaders"
> of the FreeBSD project, stemmed from several things. The first was an 
> attempt to differentiate FreeBSD from Linux, which was outstripping the BSDs 
> in the press and elsewhere. One way to compete successfully (in a Darwinian 
> sense, especially) is to claim a niche. Your fitness is then determined by 
> how well you fit into the niche, rather than your overall superiority. Since
> Linux had all the press and all the money behind it, the developers thought
> they'd do better competing for the server niche. A fine short term strategy,
> but a bad long term one.
> 
> The second was a desire by these same developers to limit the scope of the 
> project to make it more manageable and ensure that there was enough manpower
> to keep it going. FreeBSD, unlike Linux, is a complete OS rather than a
> kernel. The "userland" -- the programs users run every day -- is maintained
> along with the OS. Being a desktop OS implies supporting the entire desktop
> environment. This was more than the people who were orchestrating the project
> (particularly Jordan Hubbard) wanted to take on at the time, or perhaps felt
> that they COULD take on at the time. So adamant were they that they literally
> drove out of the project some folks who disagreed with this strategy and
> focus.
> 
> Alas, the results can be seen today. While there's absolutely nothing wrong
> with FreeBSD as a desktop OS, the project's failure to encourage and
> participate in the creation of BSD-licensed desktops for UNIX-like OSes has
> essentially led to a situation where there are none to be had. The only
> desktops that run -- balkily and with only partial compatibility -- are GPLed.
> Not only do they bring with them the baggage of the license and the FSF's
> agenda, but for ideological reasons the developers have no desire to make them
> compatible with the BSDs. Yes, there are folks out there who are trying to
> make them run. But just try to install, say, KDE and get printing, power
> management, the built-in PPP utility (which is designed to mimic Windows'
> "Dial-up Networking"), or other similar features to work. You're in for a very
> frustrating experience. 

Yeah, a simple interface is needed to make a decent desktop. I have slowly been
starting to look at throwing something together using fluxbox as the wm and then
writing something a little like dfm and begining a bit of work on creating
various X front ends for configing stuff. Currently my only real problem is
hosting for the site/ftp. Going to check into sourceforge on that later.

> I was recently asked to set up a FreeBSD machine as a desktop for a school,
> and they had nothing but frustration. Every day or so, they found some part of
> KDE that didn't quite work right with FreeBSD or needed expert knowledge and
> special configuration to use with FreeBSD. They just put Windows back on that
> machine.
> 
> It doesn't seem as if this situation is likely to change, either. The 
> incompatibilities between the BSDs (not just FreeBSD, but all of the BSD)
> and the Linux desktops seem to grow daily. Both KDE and GNOME are pretty much 
> becoming by, of, and for Linux exclusively. Even FVWM (which, I understand, 
> was once BSD-licensed) is now GPLed.
> 
> So, the result of the desire of these developers (many of whom are no longer
> involved with the project) to force BSD into the mold of a "server-only OS"
> has, alas, been to make it so... at least until someone, somewhere starts
> up a BSD desktop project. I'd love to run BSD on my desktop, but due to the
> poor compatibility and portability of the GPLed Linux desktops, I'll have
> to keep MacOS X or (ugh!) Windows on my desk for the moment.

Speaking as a person that runs FreeBSD on a desktop, it runs insanely well. KDE
issues run deeper than it being mainly meant for use on Linux. It is a insanely
horridly put together wm/desktop enviroment/what ever the else it bloody well
refers to it's self as. I have no love for it or QT. As far as Gnome is
concerned, I have not messed with it enought to develop any opinions one way or
another.


My only complaint is the very limited number of TV cards for BSD with the only
ones supported being Brooktree cards. Those are cool. I have one myself, but
they are limited in that they don't do hdtv. Also a better TV program than FXTV
is needed. I would love to put on together, but as of currently, the ability to
do that is beyond me.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030902044639.5910102c.kitbsdlist2>