RE: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:47:08 +1100 From: smi...@nimnet.asn.au To: son...@otenet.gr CC: nick.chor...@gmail.com; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 287, Issue 16, Message: 8 On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:39:08 +0200 Manolis Kiagias son...@otenet.gr wrote: Look, I'm sorry, but I think this is a huge regression, especially if we're still hoping that people with no prior experience of installing freeBSD, people coming from Linux and such, for essentially or including desktop use, are going to have a rewarding installation experience. I think this is taking base-system-only installation purity to excess. Fine for people installing servers of course, and maybe it will shift more people wanting a GUI environment towards PC-BSD and such if we want to discourage these from using FreeBSD as it is (or maybe, was) but even with my 11 years experience of installing FrreeBSD versions from 2.2 till now, I kept on wondering, how would a newbie fare at this point? The main disadvantage is - access to all packages :) In the case of X, you and I, developers and most people here know to hunt for the Xorg meta-port. But the naive or new installer knows of no such thing, and could beat around in the huge lists of X software for ages, wondering what's required and what's not to get a desktop going. The previous basic setup menus in sysinstall for X were not only useful; I suspect that they are virtually essential for someone, say, coming from Debian or Ubuntu or such, wanting to try FreeBSD on their system, or the genuine first-time installer of FreeBSD. sysinstall used to assume as little prior knowledge or need to pre-read the Handbook and/or FAQ or follow the lists as possible. Now it's seeming much more firmly targeted at the already experienced user, and I feel that's regressive. cheers, Ian to play devils advocate, how many people do you know run a pure version of Linux? next to nobody does because there are distros built (ie, red hat, ubuntu, yellowdog...) that have the structuring together. I agree with the other person who mentioned PC-BSD as I agree that that would be perfect for a true newbie to *nix to install and use FreeBSD. most linux people will know all about packages and should be able to fumble thru the package installer in sysinstall just fine until they find the ports list. if the user is a complete newbie to *nix in general, we would all be refering them to the documentation, or a good published freebsd book. I can definitely state from my beginnings with FreeBSD as my first *nix, the packages system is pretty easy to find software users are looking for. you could technically transpose your comments about users not knowing how to install xorg with a GUI like Gnome or KDE. its still boils down to the well labled meta- package/port. but to sum it up. when i am introducing someone new to *nix and i want them to use freebsd, i point them to PC-BSD as it just works, then when they get comfortable, i show them the rest of what freebsd has to offer them, and sometimes they switch to a straight freebsd install the next time they build a system. -Sean ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 287, Issue 16, Message: 8 On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:39:08 +0200 Manolis Kiagias son...@otenet.gr wrote: Nicky Chorley wrote: Hi, I downloaded the DVD ISO for FreeBSD 8.0 (i386) and verified the MD5 checksum before burning. With regards to choosing distributions for installation, the handbook says If a graphical user interface is desired then a distribution set that is preceded by an X should be chosen and the help for the Choose Distributions section of sysinstall says An X- prefixed before a distribution set means that the Xorg base distribution, libraries, manual pages, servers and a set of default fonts will be selected in addition to the set itself... However, I do not see any distributions listed that are prefixed with X-. The choices are All, Reset, Developer, Kern-Developer, User, Minimal and Custom. Even the Custom option has nothing related to Xorg. That's correct, these have been removed. Hi Manolis, Look, I'm sorry, but I think this is a huge regression, especially if we're still hoping that people with no prior experience of installing freeBSD, people coming from Linux and such, for essentially or including desktop use, are going to have a rewarding installation experience. Is it supposed to be like this (i.e. no distributions containing X are presented on installation), or do I need to download other media from which to install? Note that I'm not asking how to install X and I realise that I can do it post-installation, but I'm just wondering whether I've made a mistake with my download or if the documentation is out of date. You've done nothing wrong, the documentation is in need of an update. Please file a doc-bug PR. Removing X from the distributions is a right step IMO, these are just 3rd party packages and it seems confusing if they get installed along with the base system. I think this is taking base-system-only installation purity to excess. Fine for people installing servers of course, and maybe it will shift more people wanting a GUI environment towards PC-BSD and such if we want to discourage these from using FreeBSD as it is (or maybe, was) but even with my 11 years experience of installing FrreeBSD versions from 2.2 till now, I kept on wondering, how would a newbie fare at this point? If you wish to install X during initial installation you can still do it when you get to the packages stage. I believe you will need the DVD for that. I used the memstick.img (discussed in another thread) and then FTP for installing packages. I've done this before using bootonly CDs, and it has advantages and disadvantages; for me it's been mostly positive. The main advantage is access to all packages. If you know what you want, and which categories they live in, it's great; an hour or so picking and away you go (modulo failures with this FTP site or that). There still exist people with slow net connections and older, slower kit for whom building everything from source would be very tedious. The main disadvantage is - access to all packages :) In the case of X, you and I, developers and most people here know to hunt for the Xorg meta-port. But the naive or new installer knows of no such thing, and could beat around in the huge lists of X software for ages, wondering what's required and what's not to get a desktop going. The previous basic setup menus in sysinstall for X were not only useful; I suspect that they are virtually essential for someone, say, coming from Debian or Ubuntu or such, wanting to try FreeBSD on their system, or the genuine first-time installer of FreeBSD. sysinstall used to assume as little prior knowledge or need to pre-read the Handbook and/or FAQ or follow the lists as possible. Now it's seeming much more firmly targeted at the already experienced user, and I feel that's regressive. cheers, Ian ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:47:08 +1100 (EST), Ian Smith smi...@nimnet.asn.au wrote: In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 287, Issue 16, Message: 8 On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:39:08 +0200 Manolis Kiagias son...@otenet.gr wrote: Removing X from the distributions is a right step IMO, these are just 3rd party packages and it seems confusing if they get installed along with the base system. I think this is taking base-system-only installation purity to excess. Imagine the following situation: A user wants to run Linux applications on FreeBSD. He selects the Linux ABI service for startup via sysinstall. The corresponding _enable setting will be added to rc.conf, and - surprise! - a package will be installed. The same thing happens when a user installs X. Of course, X is not part of the base system, but in the same way that sysinstall (down)loads and installs packages when a specific service is selected, it should act the same way for X. I know that X has become a problematic and very complex thing, not just a few packages (as it was in the past with XFree86). X should be installabe in a manner made easy, just like the Linux ABI. In the case of X, you and I, developers and most people here know to hunt for the Xorg meta-port. The average user intending to run a desktop system won't be happy with compiling stuff... But the naive or new installer knows of no such thing, and could beat around in the huge lists of X software for ages, wondering what's required and what's not to get a desktop going. Therefore, I always liked the choice for X in sysinstall: It basically installed all the components to get X up and running. No big trouble getting the correct xorg-driver-* packages, installing and removing them, the xorg-input-* packages with the same story... -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
Ian Smith wrote: In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 287, Issue 16, Message: 8 On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:39:08 +0200 Manolis Kiagias son...@otenet.gr wrote: However, I do not see any distributions listed that are prefixed with X-. The choices are All, Reset, Developer, Kern-Developer, User, Minimal and Custom. Even the Custom option has nothing related to Xorg. That's correct, these have been removed. Hi Manolis, Look, I'm sorry, but I think this is a huge regression, especially if we're still hoping that people with no prior experience of installing freeBSD, people coming from Linux and such, for essentially or including desktop use, are going to have a rewarding installation experience. Is it supposed to be like this (i.e. no distributions containing X are presented on installation), or do I need to download other media from which to install? Note that I'm not asking how to install X and I realise that I can do it post-installation, but I'm just wondering whether I've made a mistake with my download or if the documentation is out of date. You've done nothing wrong, the documentation is in need of an update. Please file a doc-bug PR. Removing X from the distributions is a right step IMO, these are just 3rd party packages and it seems confusing if they get installed along with the base system. I think this is taking base-system-only installation purity to excess. On the other hand, I feel it is confusing when you find yourself essentially selecting packages in the menus for the base-system components. The DVD *still* has the packages, and you are still asked if you wish to install any. Xorg is just one click away - select the meta-package and the entire thing goes in. Fine for people installing servers of course, and maybe it will shift more people wanting a GUI environment towards PC-BSD and such if we want to discourage these from using FreeBSD as it is (or maybe, was) but even with my 11 years experience of installing FrreeBSD versions from 2.2 till now, I kept on wondering, how would a newbie fare at this point? Having shown the FreeBSD installation to people only acquainted with Windows or Ubuntu, I always get the same reaction: Completely disheartening, confusing, complex. You need to know too many things and when everything is done right, you are just rewarded with a console login. This is a fact: FreeBSD is not for the faint of heart, and definitely not for someone who wants a desktop in five minutes. You have to get past the initial shock and devote a lot of time to learn your way around the system. This requires considerable effort and there are lots of people who have neither the time nor the inclination to dig deep into an OS - they just want a working desktop. IMHO an extra click for the Xorg is not that much important in the grand scheme of things. I think it would be best if beginners are informed beforehand that they really need to study: you will not get a working desktop FreeBSD 'by chance' or because someone else configured the defaults for you and you just restored an image to your hard drive (as I understand, this is what most desktop-oriented Linux distros do these days) Now if we delve deeper into this we are going to hit philosophical questions like Do we want ignorant users? Is our setup procedure so discouraging that even would-be-knowledgeable users abandon the system early? Should we provide an Ubuntu-like BSD install? I can live with sysinstall myself, although I don't really like it. There are numerous problems with it (and we had a long thread in the past about it, so I am not going to repeat myself) with the added fact that as the system progresses to new features (journaling, ZFS, gpart ...) sysinstall stands still and does not provide any way to use them during initial setup. I've introduced more than a few beginners to FreeBSD. I always warn them beforehand what to expect - I only continue with those who are prepared to study the handbook and a few (hundred...) pages of my introductory notes. All of them are now happy, satisfied users. But none expected to have a working desktop in five minutes. There are other distributions for that (PC-BSD, Ubuntu) If you wish to install X during initial installation you can still do it when you get to the packages stage. I believe you will need the DVD for that. I used the memstick.img (discussed in another thread) and then FTP for installing packages. I've done this before using bootonly CDs, and it has advantages and disadvantages; for me it's been mostly positive. The main advantage is access to all packages. If you know what you want, and which categories they live in, it's great; an hour or so picking and away you go (modulo failures with this FTP site or that). There still exist people with slow net connections and older, slower kit for whom building everything from source would
Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
Polytropon wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:47:08 +1100 (EST), Ian Smith smi...@nimnet.asn.au
wrote:
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 287, Issue 16, Message: 8
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:39:08 +0200 Manolis Kiagias son...@otenet.gr wrote:
Removing X from the distributions is a right step IMO, these are just
3rd party packages and it seems confusing if they get installed along
with the base system.
I think this is taking base-system-only installation purity to excess.
Imagine the following situation: A user wants to run Linux
applications on FreeBSD. He selects the Linux ABI service
for startup via sysinstall. The corresponding _enable setting
will be added to rc.conf, and - surprise! - a package will
be installed.
The same thing happens when a user installs X. Of course, X
is not part of the base system, but in the same way that
sysinstall (down)loads and installs packages when a specific
service is selected, it should act the same way for X.
I know that X has become a problematic and very complex
thing, not just a few packages (as it was in the past
with XFree86).
X should be installabe in a manner made easy, just like
the Linux ABI.
In the case of X,
you and I, developers and most people here know to hunt for the Xorg
meta-port.
The average user intending to run a desktop system won't
be happy with compiling stuff...
Exactly. Most desktop users want a working system in the minimum of time
(Can't blame them for that).
Even with packages, we cannot beat an image-based distro, esp. since it
will also provide all essential default settings.
But the naive or new installer knows of no such thing, and
could beat around in the huge lists of X software for ages, wondering
what's required and what's not to get a desktop going.
Therefore, I always liked the choice for X in sysinstall: It
basically installed all the components to get X up and running.
No big trouble getting the correct xorg-driver-* packages,
installing and removing them, the xorg-input-* packages with
the same story...
There is an X.org meta-package that installs everything though. It is
just a problem with the beginner not knowing what to select. This can be
tackled in two ways IMO, first is by creating a First time FreeBSD
desktop installer type article, second would be adding a menu choice in
sysinstall Install a standard X desktop {GNOME,KDE}. I must admit I
much prefer the first solution.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
Exactly. Most desktop users want a working system in the minimum of time (Can't blame them for that). Even with packages, we cannot beat an image-based distro, esp. since it will also provide all essential default settings. If I might butt in: If the user-to-be wants a working system in 5 minutes could there be a link on the FreeBSD homepage itself directing them to PC-BSD (or similar) .ISOs? Perhaps with an addendum that, while they can download and install FreeBSD 'straight up, no chaser' using an image from the FreeBSD page, it *isn't* going to be 5 minutes and perhaps a derivative version might be their best bet. Just a thought, r ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
all I gotta say is I just spent 3 days compiling gnome2 for fbsd..
It shouldn't take that long or be that hard/complicated.
Most of it was stupid crap that I would of thought should of been taken care
of by now.
Applications complaining about which version of python is installed,
complaining about needing newer versions of this or that and stopping the
process. Than off to find the proper port to install (and having to use
FORCE PKG REGISTER) to appease the original install. Back to the gnome
install let it run again until the next application configuration screen.
You can't just do a make config in the meta port for the entire process..
That would be too easy..
Last time I did a Xorg installed I just ended up doing a pkg_add because I
grew tired of the problems I kept having with ports griping about this and
that being outdated or whatever. This time I wanted to see the process
through and figure I might learn a thing or two.
I digress though...
My intention with fbsd wasn't for a desktop though; but why install linux to
get a feel for X(org) when we can do it on fbsd? Yet why should it feel like
I'm a circus poodle trying to make it work?
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Manolis Kiagias son...@otenet.gr wrote:
Polytropon wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:47:08 +1100 (EST), Ian Smith
smi...@nimnet.asn.au wrote:
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 287, Issue 16, Message: 8
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:39:08 +0200 Manolis Kiagias son...@otenet.gr
wrote:
Removing X from the distributions is a right step IMO, these are just
3rd party packages and it seems confusing if they get installed along
with the base system.
I think this is taking base-system-only installation purity to excess.
Imagine the following situation: A user wants to run Linux
applications on FreeBSD. He selects the Linux ABI service
for startup via sysinstall. The corresponding _enable setting
will be added to rc.conf, and - surprise! - a package will
be installed.
The same thing happens when a user installs X. Of course, X
is not part of the base system, but in the same way that
sysinstall (down)loads and installs packages when a specific
service is selected, it should act the same way for X.
I know that X has become a problematic and very complex
thing, not just a few packages (as it was in the past
with XFree86).
X should be installabe in a manner made easy, just like
the Linux ABI.
In the case of X,
you and I, developers and most people here know to hunt for the Xorg
meta-port.
The average user intending to run a desktop system won't
be happy with compiling stuff...
Exactly. Most desktop users want a working system in the minimum of time
(Can't blame them for that).
Even with packages, we cannot beat an image-based distro, esp. since it
will also provide all essential default settings.
But the naive or new installer knows of no such thing, and
could beat around in the huge lists of X software for ages, wondering
what's required and what's not to get a desktop going.
Therefore, I always liked the choice for X in sysinstall: It
basically installed all the components to get X up and running.
No big trouble getting the correct xorg-driver-* packages,
installing and removing them, the xorg-input-* packages with
the same story...
There is an X.org meta-package that installs everything though. It is
just a problem with the beginner not knowing what to select. This can be
tackled in two ways IMO, first is by creating a First time FreeBSD
desktop installer type article, second would be adding a menu choice in
sysinstall Install a standard X desktop {GNOME,KDE}. I must admit I
much prefer the first solution.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Reed Loefgren rloefg...@forethought.netwrote: Exactly. Most desktop users want a working system in the minimum of time (Can't blame them for that). Even with packages, we cannot beat an image-based distro, esp. since it will also provide all essential default settings. If I might butt in: If the user-to-be wants a working system in 5 minutes could there be a link on the FreeBSD homepage itself directing them to PC-BSD (or similar) .ISOs? Perhaps with an addendum that, while they can download and install FreeBSD 'straight up, no chaser' using an image from the FreeBSD page, it *isn't* going to be 5 minutes and perhaps a derivative version might be their best bet. Just a thought, r After trying installation of FreeBSD 8.0 Release ( before RCs ) without success ( Gnome : Some menu elements are not working , for example shutdown , it is becoming necessary to open a terminal and explicitly write shutdown -p now , it is not possible to every thing by terminal or GUI elements ) , ( KDE4 : Konsole not working because after a short show of terminal window , it is disappearing , it is not possible to do every thing without Konsole ) , ( XFCE - It is becoming rock solid due to key board insensitivity , on the same computer many operating systems are working , from FreeBSD to many Linux distributions ) . After those attempts , I have installed DesktopBSD 1.7 . I can say that it is a WONDERFUL FreeBSD distribution based on FreeBSD 7.2 and KDE4 where FreeBSD 7.2 from www.FreeBSD.org can not be compared with its beatiness . Now , I am waiting FreeBSD 8.x from www.FreeBSD.org , where x 0 , with the hope that it will be possible to have an easily usable FreeBSD distribution . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Reed Loefgren rloefg...@forethought.netwrote: Exactly. Most desktop users want a working system in the minimum of time (Can't blame them for that). Even with packages, we cannot beat an image-based distro, esp. since it will also provide all essential default settings. If I might butt in: If the user-to-be wants a working system in 5 minutes could there be a link on the FreeBSD homepage itself directing them to PC-BSD (or similar) .ISOs? Perhaps with an addendum that, while they can download and install FreeBSD 'straight up, no chaser' using an image from the FreeBSD page, it *isn't* going to be 5 minutes and perhaps a derivative version might be their best bet. Just a thought, r After trying installation of FreeBSD 8.0 Release ( before RCs ) without success ( Gnome : Some menu elements are not working , for example shutdown , it is becoming necessary to open a terminal and explicitly write shutdown -p now , it is not possible to every thing by terminal or GUI elements ) , You are probably missing policykit/hal settings. Have a look at: http://www.freebsd.org/gnome/docs/halfaq.html ( KDE4 : Konsole not working because after a short show of terminal window , it is disappearing , it is not possible to do every thing without Konsole ) , Haven't used KDE4 in FreeBSD for a while so I can't really say. I have built some packages but not used them yet. ( XFCE - It is becoming rock solid due to key board insensitivity , on the same computer many operating systems are working , from FreeBSD to many Linux distributions ) . After those attempts , I have installed DesktopBSD 1.7 . I can say that it is a WONDERFUL FreeBSD distribution based on FreeBSD 7.2 and KDE4 where FreeBSD 7.2 from www.FreeBSD.org can not be compared with its beatiness . You do realize of course that DesktopBSD *is* FreeBSD with many of these settings and defaults pre-applied for you? Obviously the DesktopBSD developers do a wonderful job on it, but it is also possible to build this yourself using FreeBSD and ports. It will take more time, it will be more tedious and you will learn a lot of stuff. And you will have a lot more control of what gets installed and how the final system behaves. Obviously these are less important factors, if the purpose is to have a desktop system as quickly as possible. Now , I am waiting FreeBSD 8.x from www.FreeBSD.org , where x 0 , with the hope that it will be possible to have an easily usable FreeBSD distribution . You may also want to give PC-BSD a try. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
Manolis Kiagias wrote: Ian Smith wrote: In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 287, Issue 16, Message: 8 On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:39:08 +0200 Manolis Kiagias son...@otenet.gr wrote: However, I do not see any distributions listed that are prefixed with X-. The choices are All, Reset, Developer, Kern-Developer, User, Minimal and Custom. Even the Custom option has nothing related to Xorg. That's correct, these have been removed. Hi Manolis, Look, I'm sorry, but I think this is a huge regression, especially if we're still hoping that people with no prior experience of installing freeBSD, people coming from Linux and such, for essentially or including desktop use, are going to have a rewarding installation experience. Is it supposed to be like this (i.e. no distributions containing X are presented on installation), or do I need to download other media from which to install? Note that I'm not asking how to install X and I realise that I can do it post-installation, but I'm just wondering whether I've made a mistake with my download or if the documentation is out of date. You've done nothing wrong, the documentation is in need of an update. Please file a doc-bug PR. Removing X from the distributions is a right step IMO, these are just 3rd party packages and it seems confusing if they get installed along with the base system. I think this is taking base-system-only installation purity to excess. On the other hand, I feel it is confusing when you find yourself essentially selecting packages in the menus for the base-system components. The DVD *still* has the packages, and you are still asked if you wish to install any. Xorg is just one click away - select the meta-package and the entire thing goes in. Fine for people installing servers of course, and maybe it will shift more people wanting a GUI environment towards PC-BSD and such if we want to discourage these from using FreeBSD as it is (or maybe, was) but even with my 11 years experience of installing FrreeBSD versions from 2.2 till now, I kept on wondering, how would a newbie fare at this point? Having shown the FreeBSD installation to people only acquainted with Windows or Ubuntu, I always get the same reaction: Completely disheartening, confusing, complex. You need to know too many things and when everything is done right, you are just rewarded with a console login. This is a fact: FreeBSD is not for the faint of heart, and definitely not for someone who wants a desktop in five minutes. You have to get past the initial shock and devote a lot of time to learn your way around the system. This requires considerable effort and there are lots of people who have neither the time nor the inclination to dig deep into an OS - they just want a working desktop. IMHO an extra click for the Xorg is not that much important in the grand scheme of things. I think it would be best if beginners are informed beforehand that they really need to study: you will not get a working desktop FreeBSD 'by chance' or because someone else configured the defaults for you and you just restored an image to your hard drive (as I understand, this is what most desktop-oriented Linux distros do these days) Now if we delve deeper into this we are going to hit philosophical questions like Do we want ignorant users? Is our setup procedure so discouraging that even would-be-knowledgeable users abandon the system early? Should we provide an Ubuntu-like BSD install? I can live with sysinstall myself, although I don't really like it. There are numerous problems with it (and we had a long thread in the past about it, so I am not going to repeat myself) with the added fact that as the system progresses to new features (journaling, ZFS, gpart ...) sysinstall stands still and does not provide any way to use them during initial setup. I've introduced more than a few beginners to FreeBSD. I always warn them beforehand what to expect - I only continue with those who are prepared to study the handbook and a few (hundred...) pages of my introductory notes. All of them are now happy, satisfied users. But none expected to have a working desktop in five minutes. There are other distributions for that (PC-BSD, Ubuntu) If you wish to install X during initial installation you can still do it when you get to the packages stage. I believe you will need the DVD for that. I used the memstick.img (discussed in another thread) and then FTP for installing packages. I've done this before using bootonly CDs, and it has advantages and disadvantages; for me it's been mostly positive. The main advantage is access to all packages. If you know what you want, and which categories they live in, it's great; an hour or so picking and away you go (modulo failures with this FTP site or that). There still exist people with slow net connections and older, slower kit for whom building everything from source would be very
Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
Manolis Kiagias wrote:
Polytropon wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:47:08 +1100 (EST), Ian Smith smi...@nimnet.asn.au
wrote:
But the naive or new installer knows of no such thing, and
could beat around in the huge lists of X software for ages, wondering
what's required and what's not to get a desktop going.
Therefore, I always liked the choice for X in sysinstall: It
basically installed all the components to get X up and running.
No big trouble getting the correct xorg-driver-* packages,
installing and removing them, the xorg-input-* packages with
the same story...
There is an X.org meta-package that installs everything though. It is
just a problem with the beginner not knowing what to select. This can be
tackled in two ways IMO, first is by creating a First time FreeBSD
desktop installer type article, second would be adding a menu choice in
sysinstall Install a standard X desktop {GNOME,KDE}. I must admit I
much prefer the first solution.
Agree with most of the above except I think an X option and a separate
desktop option in sysinstall is better - not everyone who wants X also
wants gnome or kde. Oh wait that's how it used to be :)
The problem with an article is how to view it during an install and how
to know it is even there.
Chris
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:57:44 -0500, Mike L jackoro...@gmail.com wrote: all I gotta say is I just spent 3 days compiling gnome2 for fbsd.. It shouldn't take that long or be that hard/complicated. I recognized increased compiling times since FreeBSD 7. I was told that this is due to much more optimization in the compiler. Okay, this is understandable, but why do the compiledprograms run much slower (on the same hardware)? Answer: Bloat and many dependency dependencies. At least that's what I think. The developers of the FreeBSD OS do an excellent job delivering a system that runs faster and better on the same hardware, but all these advantages seem to be taken away by modern applications. That's why compiling stuff myself is nearly a no-go for my desktop. Only mplayer and mencoder (due to options that HAVE to be set at compile time, mostly involving codecs to include, as well as optimization). If you say that you needed 3 days for Gnome 2 - and I assume you own recent hardware - what should I say then with my more than 5 years old P4 / 2GHz? Compiling bigger applications won't be possible (in reasonable time) anymore in the future unless you buy a new computer every year... What a discouraging idea, I hope I'm not right with this. Back to the gnome install let it run again until the next application configuration screen. There's an option for avoiding this ugly interactivity. You can go through all imaginabel confire screens and set them first, then let the process run without requiring your presence. You can't just do a make config in the meta port for the entire process.. That would be too easy.. I think it is make config-recursive... Last time I did a Xorg installed I just ended up doing a pkg_add because I grew tired of the problems I kept having with ports griping about this and that being outdated or whatever. Yes, pkg_add is very welcome to most users I know, incuding myself. The downside is that there are situations when there's no package for a port (e. g. due to legal reasons or the many different options). Can you imagine that in the past you could easily pkg_add -r de-openoffice to install the german version of OpenOffice? My intention with fbsd wasn't for a desktop though; but why install linux to get a feel for X(org) when we can do it on fbsd? Yet why should it feel like I'm a circus poodle trying to make it work? Allthough it's not uncomplicated, it's not THAT complicated. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
Hi, I downloaded the DVD ISO for FreeBSD 8.0 (i386) and verified the MD5 checksum before burning. With regards to choosing distributions for installation, the handbook says If a graphical user interface is desired then a distribution set that is preceded by an X should be chosen and the help for the Choose Distributions section of sysinstall says An X- prefixed before a distribution set means that the Xorg base distribution, libraries, manual pages, servers and a set of default fonts will be selected in addition to the set itself... However, I do not see any distributions listed that are prefixed with X-. The choices are All, Reset, Developer, Kern-Developer, User, Minimal and Custom. Even the Custom option has nothing related to Xorg. Is it supposed to be like this (i.e. no distributions containing X are presented on installation), or do I need to download other media from which to install? Note that I'm not asking how to install X and I realise that I can do it post-installation, but I'm just wondering whether I've made a mistake with my download or if the documentation is out of date. Regards, Nicky Chorley ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
Nicky Chorley wrote: Hi, I downloaded the DVD ISO for FreeBSD 8.0 (i386) and verified the MD5 checksum before burning. With regards to choosing distributions for installation, the handbook says If a graphical user interface is desired then a distribution set that is preceded by an X should be chosen and the help for the Choose Distributions section of sysinstall says An X- prefixed before a distribution set means that the Xorg base distribution, libraries, manual pages, servers and a set of default fonts will be selected in addition to the set itself... However, I do not see any distributions listed that are prefixed with X-. The choices are All, Reset, Developer, Kern-Developer, User, Minimal and Custom. Even the Custom option has nothing related to Xorg. That's correct, these have been removed. Is it supposed to be like this (i.e. no distributions containing X are presented on installation), or do I need to download other media from which to install? Note that I'm not asking how to install X and I realise that I can do it post-installation, but I'm just wondering whether I've made a mistake with my download or if the documentation is out of date. You've done nothing wrong, the documentation is in need of an update. Please file a doc-bug PR. Removing X from the distributions is a right step IMO, these are just 3rd party packages and it seems confusing if they get installed along with the base system. If you wish to install X during initial installation you can still do it when you get to the packages stage. I believe you will need the DVD for that. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 8.0 installation doesn't contain X distributions
2009/12/5 Manolis Kiagias son...@otenet.gr: However, I do not see any distributions listed that are prefixed with X-. The choices are All, Reset, Developer, Kern-Developer, User, Minimal and Custom. Even the Custom option has nothing related to Xorg. That's correct, these have been removed. Thanks for the information. Is it supposed to be like this (i.e. no distributions containing X are presented on installation), or do I need to download other media from which to install? Note that I'm not asking how to install X and I realise that I can do it post-installation, but I'm just wondering whether I've made a mistake with my download or if the documentation is out of date. You've done nothing wrong, the documentation is in need of an update. Please file a doc-bug PR. Removing X from the distributions is a right step IMO, these are just 3rd party packages and it seems confusing if they get installed along with the base system. If you wish to install X during initial installation you can still do it when you get to the packages stage. I believe you will need the DVD for that. Again, thanks. I'll file a bug report, as you requested. I did install X when the installation got to the packages stage. Kind regards, Nicky Chorley ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
