TrueOS

What's wrong with the backlight, islamux ? Too dim?
5 years ago I used Archlinux on the same T430, don't see any difference in backlight.
What's your desktop environment? I don't use any, just X+dwm (x11-wm/dwm).
If you don't have a clear picture maybe your resolution is wrong, have you checked it? ( $ xrandr)
 
aragats said:
What's wrong with the backlight, islamux ? Too dim?
5 years ago I used Archlinux on the same T430, don't see any difference in backlight.
What's your desktop environment? I don't use any, just X+dwm (x11-wm/dwm).
If you don't have a clear picture maybe your resolution is wrong, have you checked it? ( $ xrandr)
Click to expand...
i can control the backlight by xbrightness but still not well i can't use the exact word but the light when i move the screen down or up becomes darker or lighter it's not stable the above of screen dark down of the screen light.
sorry i can't express well in english.



Code: 
xrandr
Screen 0: minimum 8 x 8, current 1600 x 900, maximum 32767 x 32767
LVDS1 connected 1600x900+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 310mm x 170mm
   1600x900      60.01*+  40.00
   1368x768      60.00
   1280x720      60.00
   1024x768      60.00
   1024x576      60.00
   960x540       60.00
   800x600       60.32    56.25
   864x486       60.00
   800x450       60.00
   640x480       59.94
   720x405       60.00
   640x360       60.00
DP1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
DP2 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
DP3 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
HDMI1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
HDMI2 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
HDMI3 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
VGA1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
VIRTUAL1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
i'm using xfce , openbox
Code: 
pciconf -lv | grep -3 display
vgapci0@pci0:0:2:0:   class=0x030000 card=0x21f317aa chip=0x01668086 rev=0x09 hdr=0x00
    vendor     = 'Intel Corporation'
    device     = '3rd Gen Core processor Graphics Controller'
    class      = display
    subclass   = VGA
xhci0@pci0:0:20:0:   class=0x0c0330 card=0x21f317aa chip=0x1e318086 rev=0x04 hdr=0x00
    vendor     = 'Intel Corporation'


T430 lenovo Enchanced Experience 3
thanx aragats for your interest.
 
The resolution is correct.
You should not use xbrightness (I don't even have it installed), the brightness can be controlled directly by pressing Fn+F8/F9, it works in console without X as well.
Do you have in your /boot/loader.conf the following line?
Code: 
i915kms_load="YES"
 
One can only prays for success of TrueOS. As a "mass market" targeted flavor, if TrueOS can make grow the community using FreeBSD as a base system it's better for everybody, because only a significant growing community of users could make change the attitude of hardware makers like Broadcom, which as this day doesn't open source some firmware code of some chipset, so no free driver can be developed and they really don't care of FreeBSD.

As a FreeBSD user I was not so much interested in TrueOS, because I want a total control of my system.
I have tried PC-BSD (former name of TrueOS, or more exactly PC-BSD was used for Desktop flavor, and TrueOS for the server flavor, they have decided some months ago to merge the names and use now only TrueOS), but this was a disaster.

Possibly, ZFS sucks on my old hardware, this was terribly slow, perhaps 50% slower than FreeBSD
I understand that TrueOS focuses on AMD64, this is a question of human resources to assume several branches, but I don't understand why they force the user to set up a ZFS system. For a desktop system, moreover for a desktop which doesn't use pseudo raid mode at all having just one drive, I am not sure that ZFS brings something essential versus UFS, more flexible because better recognized by number of third party tools. If ZFS was so essential I assume that OpenBSD would have also implemented ZFS... as far as I know this is not the case, so I am not sure that ZFS brings a performance jump. This is far more reliable and interesting in big data strategy for industry class NAS, but this is not the question here... we just speak of a desktop, eventually with a little NAS.

But for another curious reason I get interested again in TrueOS.... not as a stable system, but as an experimental system, so the contrary of the basic philosophy of this flavor targeting mass market and so stability should be one essential point.

Since few months they switched to the current branch of FreeBSD. In fact I was always interested in having one of my system set up in FreeBSD Current just to be informed of the future directions of FreeBSD. But I was reticent as FreeBSD current doesn't offer a simple way of updating the base system, for example in case of security issues. To me FreeBSD current has always been an eventual candidate for desktop use to take profit of last developments in drivers area so with a better support of hardware. For server, I would keep using the release branch in any case.
But inherent unstability of current branch was a major issue. I tried some months ago to install from scratch a FreeBSD current... a lot of strange problems related to the kernel, impossible to activate my network connection... I gave up.

I have been surprised when the decision to switch was made by TrueOS, this is a challenge, but if the staff succeeds in bringing to the end user a "stable current" branch, so it is interesting for me as it solves my main problems : stability, being informed of critical updates, and being able to update easily without launching a "make world".

So I will probably give a second chance to TrueOS, hoping also that last ZFS revisions won't suck again on my system.
But for my servers I want to keep the total control, building the ports as I want with my own options, deactivating/adding some components to my admninistrative desktop, choosing my favorite firewall ... so TrueOS server is useless from my point of view, for Desktop let's see...
 
While my comments may have been somewhat less than amicable, I concur. I got my start using PC-BSD and if it serves to introduce people to FreeBSD I'm all for it.
 
aimeec1995 said:
It is broken garbage.
It only worked on 1 of 3 of my computers and even then not very well and there is no 32 bit variant.
Click to expand...

OJ said:
That doesn't sound like a problem with the OS. :)
Click to expand...

Indeed - most problems I've encountered with TrueOS "not working" (=failing to boot) are due to broken UEFI-Implementations. We have sereval types and generations of client PCs here at the company and by far the most annoyingly broken EFI implementations can be found on ASRock systems/boards, closely followed by acer. Some of them won't even find any OS when booting in full-EFI mode; some can *only* boot from USB in EFI mode and some are just horribly unstable in EFI mode... Reverting back to legacy mode works for almost all of these systems, except for a few ones with even more broken secure boot.
So far I've only encountered 2 vendors where EFI "just works": Supermicro and Intel. Intel NUCs are the least complicated clients I had to set up yet - they just work for EFI-booting out-of-the-box without any modification to the default settings.
 
Wozzeck.Live said:
One can only prays for success of TrueOS. As a "mass market" targeted flavor, if TrueOS can make grow the community using FreeBSD as a base system it's better for everybody, because only a significant growing community of users could make change the attitude of hardware makers like Broadcom, which as this day doesn't open source some firmware code of some chipset, so no free driver can be developed and they really don't care of FreeBSD.

As a FreeBSD user I was not so much interested in TrueOS, because I want a total control of my system.
I have tried PC-BSD (former name of TrueOS, or more exactly PC-BSD was used for Desktop flavor, and TrueOS for the server flavor, they have decided some months ago to merge the names and use now only TrueOS), but this was a disaster.

Possibly, ZFS sucks on my old hardware, this was terribly slow, perhaps 50% slower than FreeBSD
I understand that TrueOS focuses on AMD64, this is a question of human resources to assume several branches, but I don't understand why they force the user to set up a ZFS system. For a desktop system, moreover for a desktop which doesn't use pseudo raid mode at all having just one drive, I am not sure that ZFS brings something essential versus UFS, more flexible because better recognized by number of third party tools. If ZFS was so essential I assume that OpenBSD would have also implemented ZFS... as far as I know this is not the case, so I am not sure that ZFS brings a performance jump. This is far more reliable and interesting in big data strategy for industry class NAS, but this is not the question here... we just speak of a desktop, eventually with a little NAS.

But for another curious reason I get interested again in TrueOS.... not as a stable system, but as an experimental system, so the contrary of the basic philosophy of this flavor targeting mass market and so stability should be one essential point.

Since few months they switched to the current branch of FreeBSD. In fact I was always interested in having one of my system set up in FreeBSD Current just to be informed of the future directions of FreeBSD. But I was reticent as FreeBSD current doesn't offer a simple way of updating the base system, for example in case of security issues. To me FreeBSD current has always been an eventual candidate for desktop use to take profit of last developments in drivers area so with a better support of hardware. For server, I would keep using the release branch in any case.
But inherent unstability of current branch was a major issue. I tried some months ago to install from scratch a FreeBSD current... a lot of strange problems related to the kernel, impossible to activate my network connection... I gave up.

I have been surprised when the decision to switch was made by TrueOS, this is a challenge, but if the staff succeeds in bringing to the end user a "stable current" branch, so it is interesting for me as it solves my main problems : stability, being informed of critical updates, and being able to update easily without launching a "make world".

So I will probably give a second chance to TrueOS, hoping also that last ZFS revisions won't suck again on my system.
But for my servers I want to keep the total control, building the ports as I want with my own options, deactivating/adding some components to my admninistrative desktop, choosing my favorite firewall ... so TrueOS server is useless from my point of view, for Desktop let's see...
Click to expand...

I'm with you.
i was surprised when knew that TrueOS on FreeBSD 12.... maybe i want the latest but ... the stabilty is more important
 
aragats said:
The resolution is correct.
You should not use xbrightness (I don't even have it installed), the brightness can be controlled directly by pressing Fn+F8/F9, it works in console without X as well.
Do you have in your /boot/loader.conf the following line?
Code: 
i915kms_load="YES"
Click to expand...
Oh, thanks, my friend aragats you solved the problem that made me crazy :)
It works like a charm :rolleyes:
 
aimeec1995 said:
FreeBSD as a desktop will never take off with trash like TrueOS at the helm.
Click to expand...

Kris Moore founded PC-BSD, is at the helm of of TrueOS and a pretty smart guy. Ken Moore is on staff, too, and I've spoken with him a number of times in the PC-BSD forums IIRC. Dru Lavigne is on the team and she has all my respect.

I'm sure they'll get things straightened out despite the shortcomings. Ragging on TrueOS isn't going to accomplish anything.

Some people simply are not sufficiently technically inclined to jump from Windows directly to FreeBSD and PC-BSD/TrueOS can possibly give them the skills and confidence to do so. I speak from personal experience in that regard.

TrueOS isn't for everybody and why I'm here, but PC-BSD is how I got here.
 
this is true i am a windows user and last month started making a desktop freebsd,not an easy task,i've tested trueos last week on another pc and its so easy and friendly for everybody to do it and having a desktop pc for everyday use.
 
I posted my review of TrueOS from earlier in this thread on their Discourse forum and it generated quite a lot of discussion and thankfully spurred the devs into replying to some of my tickets.

I very much believe there is a place for TrueOS or something like it but unless it gets a huge and continued cash / manpower injection, I find it unlikely it will ever compete in marketshare with macOS or Windows. Look at where Linux is after 25 years which has at least 1 billion dollar plus company dedicated solely to developing and promoting it. However, I don't think the team have any delusions of toppling Windows and macOS any time soon.

I have opened a few github tickets against TrueOS since my last posting here, Don't use the PCDM Change Vide Driver option - it will break your xorg.conf. I believe this is the main reasonn for the high rate of installation failures, because the installer triggers this code.

I think ZFS is a killer feature for any OS because it allows trouble free upgrades. System upgrades create a whole new boot env so you just revert to your old BE if anything goes wrong. Windows has offered a crappy version of this with its system restore since at least 2001 with XP but now ZFS has perfected system and file rollbacks with boot envs and snapshots. It has irked the hell out of me for decades that nearly all Linux distros still have no good solution for this . Software disaster recovery hasn't even been an afterthought in Linux land until very recently.

I would encourage everyone to give TrueOS another go in a year or two. If they can address the issues I've highlighted over the past couple of months by that time I think we will have an impressive FreeBSD based desktop OS.
 
Dan MacDonald said:
Look at where Linux is after 25 years which has at least 1 billion dollar plus company dedicated solely to developing and promoting it. However, I don't think the team have any delusions of toppling Windows and macOS any time soon.
Click to expand...

Most companies putting real money and manpower into linux development are geared towards the enterprise and support market - it just makes no sense for them (from a business/financial standpoint) to improve or promote Linux for the average home desktop user.
I think the current development led by RedHat with systemd to streamline and "optimize" Linux for the desktop doesn't need any commentary - it's like watching the Benny Hill show.
 
Funny how "markets" and "market share" always comes up. To me that's like having a discussion about Trump here. It's socially topical, but in bad taste for a forum like this. ymmv
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top