GhostBSD jumps ship; Drops FreeBSD to use TrueOS (PC-BSD)

My *very* limited experience with Nomad BSD seemed to take a lot of time to set its image for a second laptop after having first been used on a different laptop.One, a Lenovo Yoga 2, the other, a T495 with AMD and different screen size.

I wonder if we should break this into a new thread. GhostBSD not using a defunct O/S isn't really the best title for what we're discussing now.
 
Jörg Preiß said:
But that does not help if different laptops need different X video drivers, does it?
Click to expand...
Before FreeBSD-13.0 was released, I found that setting up X video drivers was non-trivial and very demanding, but, not so much nowadays. No more xorg.conf files or other configuration text files are strictly necessary for me to set up either the kde5 or mate mega-port packages. It's my habit to create a ~/.xinitrc file for initial testing, but if I just wanted to use lightdm or some other display manager right off the bat, then I don't think I would need any ~/.xinitrc either.

Assuming I wanted to prepare an ISO image (which I don't) for kde5 or mate, I'd just stack it with multiple video drivers. This is the approach I think Linux Mint was taking as of LM version 19, and may likely be the approach they still use. To test this theory, I loaded up my Lenovo laptop system (which I'm using right now) with unnecessary drivers. I actually use xf86-video-ati on this system, but, as of right now, I also have xf86-video-amdgpu and xf86-video-intel on this system, with no ill effects. I have no nvidia system with which to test my theory, so it might not work there, but I suspect that it very likely might.

In /etc/rc.conf I have lightdm_enable="YES" and kld_list="acpi_video" but no other X11 related configuration. The system then auto-configures everything else that I need when X starts.

For instance, if I run this configuration on my Lenovo laptop, it will automajickally load radeonkms.ko, but if I run the same configuration on my HP laptop, it will load i915.ko with no questions asked, and no end-user configuration hints supplied in kld_list or elsewhere.

This type of simplified configuration requires the drm-kmod package. I don't believe it would have worked on FreeBSD version 11 or 12, so I'll ask 13.0-RELEASE to take the bow. (Roll on snare drum. Everybody claps. Curtains.)
 
teo said:
The sddm, in my opinion, is too much unnecessary software bloating the system and consuming more machine resources.
Click to expand...
it's actually pretty lightweight, and a VERY necessary piece of software. How else are people supposed to log into a DE?
 
I think you're joking, but for those novices who see it and don't get it, you can log into a desktop environment the same way you do a window manager. Have something like exec gnome-session, or whatever the command is to start your desktop environment, in your $HOME/.xinitrc.
 
scottro said:
I think you're joking, but for those novices who see it and don't get it, you can log into a desktop environment the same way you do a window manager. Have something like exec gnome-session, or whatever the command is to start your desktop environment, in your $HOME/.xinitrc.
Click to expand...
There's x11/slim, x11/xdm, x11/gdm... It's important to a lot of people to have a GUI login manager. The only reason I do /usr/local/bin/startplasma-wayland.sh is because login managers don't work very well under Wayland yet. Once x11/sddm is working under Wayland, I'm gonna install it in a BIG hurry.
 
astyle said:
it's actually pretty lightweight, and a VERY necessary piece of software. How else are people supposed to log into a DE?
Click to expand...
As is traditionally done the manual configuration via ~/.xinitrc terminal, or via graphic manager e.g. slim.
 
The kind of people who use Windows or Mac, or even Ubuntu, want out of the box desktop systems that can do everything they need. They don't want to tinker with their systems. The thing is, these systems are actually really good when they work, but when they don't the lack of understanding is a real hindrance. That's what makes BSD and Linux a great OS for experienced users, they let those users make informed choices about what works for them.
However for everyone else, most people, these users need automatic updates, software centers and integrated software like Firefox, Libreoffice etc, and yes accessibility software. Some ports are better maintained than others but out of the box support for them is practically non existent compared to other desktops.

If FreeBSD (or even Linux) wants to penetrate the desktop market it needs more than a desktop environment. It needs to be the default operating system on any purchased computer. See why Android and Chromebook have been so successful. Desktop users see an operating system as part of a device not something they can hotswap.
 
grahamperrin said:
Thanks,



Is that, SLiM instead of LightDM through habit? (Am I oversimplifying?)

I ask only because upstream, SLiM activity ceased more than seven years ago.
Click to expand...
I use lightdm out of habit, with both KDE and Mate. It's both stable and reliable in my experience. Recently re-tested sddm, and, although a previous version had tested out as a big resource hog earlier this year, in the Spring, this more recent version seemed to be acceptably "slimmer." Even so, lightdm still consumes slightly less CPU on average during times when the desktop is idle, although not enough to really matter all that much.

I like sddm and KDE, but still tend to prefer lightdm and Mate, and for similar reasons: they both seem just a little bit more lightweight, stable, reliable, and maybe even a little easier to configure. Start ups at boot time are also a bit faster, but mainly it's about stability and reliability.
 
mrbeastie0x19 said:
If FreeBSD (or even Linux) wants to penetrate the desktop market
Click to expand...

The desktop market, by which I assume you mean general users, has never been the target for FreeBSD. That it ports such software in is a side issue for others to work on. Some of us like that because we consider FreeBSD to be a professional operating system for professional users and serious amateurs and hobbyists.
 
Argentum said:
drhowarddrfine said:
The desktop market, by which I assume you mean general users, has never been the target for FreeBSD. That it ports such software in is a side issue for others to work on. Some of us like that because we consider FreeBSD to be a professional operating system for professional users and serious amateurs and hobbyists.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Agree! For me the important point of FreeBSD has been the 'S' - freebSd which stands for 'source'. In FreeBSD the source is in perfect order and this is the greatest value of it. In FreeBSD community many build their systems from source. In commercial world users have no access to the source and in Linux world only very few are able to build their systems.
Building from source has an important philosophical implication - if there is a problem, that problem is inside your box! There is nobody to blame, but there are many who can help you. With commercial systems you can blame the company and usually only that company can help you.
 
mrbeastie0x19 said:
The kind of people who use Windows or Mac, or even Ubuntu, want out of the box desktop systems that can do everything they need. They don't want to tinker with their systems. The thing is, these systems are actually really good when they work, but when they don't the lack of understanding is a real hindrance. That's what makes BSD and Linux a great OS for experienced users, they let those users make informed choices about what works for them.
Click to expand...
Be careful how you put it. I'm a Wayland user on FreeBSD, waiting for SDDM to catch up. And I use ports with EVERYTHING enabled. And I'm studying Poudriere to make KDE upgrades less painful - I just got Apache HTTPS going without mod_rewrite, and turned off the insecure HTTP. One of my goals is to get AMD GPU computing going under FreeBSD, even though NVidia/Intel/Windows is an easier combination to get quickly going with. And yes, with all that, I still want to use SDDM (when it's ready, of course).

Argentum : the 'S' in BSD is Software, not Source...
 
drhowarddrfine said:
The desktop market, by which I assume you mean general users, has never been the target for FreeBSD. That it ports such software in is a side issue for others to work on. Some of us like that because we consider FreeBSD to be a professional operating system for professional users and serious amateurs and hobbyists.
Click to expand...
Not for FreeBSD but for derivatives like Ghost and Nomad yes, point was it won't happen because the average person doesn't even realise you can install another operating system, let alone install one which does not quite meet the needs that Mac or Windows does (and that's not a dig at BSD just a fact that for the average user desktop support is better because they've had billions thrown at making it so in deals with hardware manufacturers for driver support, courting game developers etc)

I can get by with FreeBSD completely fine, I can also get by with shell perfectly fine, but I wouldn't suggest that someone without any interest in software could do that.

And just to be clear I do think FreeBSD is a much better system for desktops, it just lacks the out of the box polish, driver support, software support and other stuff that comes along with the small community.
 
Every mind is a different world, to each its own: desktop environments and display managers,
if you don't use it, you are not as advanced as Windows.

I believe in K.I.S.S. , window managers and startx , keep it simple, let it work.

The other day I installed KDE5 Plasma for kicks, wanted to know the big fuss about it: 573 packages! (gotta be nuts ! (in my book) and ssdm.
It took me 62 minutes to download it, at the end there were some packages with problems or so (i did not dwell on it) , rebooted and it worked smooth and pretty as ever.

Not for me, icewm and .xinitrc (exec icewm), but like I said: to each his own.
 
mrbeastie0x19 said:
Not for FreeBSD but for derivatives like Ghost and Nomad yes, point was it won't happen because the average person doesn't even realise you can install another operating system, let alone install one which does not quite meet the needs that Mac or Windows does (and that's not a dig at BSD just a fact that for the average user desktop support is better because they've had billions thrown at making it so in deals with hardware manufacturers for driver support, courting game developers etc)
Click to expand...
Today it looks like an average person does not even know that there is such thing as Operating System. Probably this is Moving average. A huge population below that average does not even know that there is CPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top