Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

>For desktop I have to say it not easy the set it up. Now I'm using a computer run FreeBSD+GNOME2.0, but compare to Fedora, it need more effort.

It's worth the effort, because afterwards you know what you're doing.

F!XMBR

Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. --Pericles

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Cyberman wrote:

If FreeBSD want to compare with Linux as a desktop, I think it should make the configuration centralized and consistent.

Why do you feel FreeBSD configuration is not centralized and consistent? All the configuration files are either in /etc or /usr/local/etc.

"An educator never says what he himself thinks, but only that which he thinks it is good for those whom he is educating to hear."
-Nietzsche

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

I think he means that it doesn't have a control panel or something?

FreeBSD comes with the vi control panel...

Trust me, I know what I'm doing.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Carpetsmoker wrote:

FreeBSD comes with the vi control panel...

lol so true!

"UBER" means I don't drink the coffee... I chew the beans instead
             -- Copyright BSDnexus

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Cyberman wrote:

There have one thing I want in FreeBSD:
Transaction-like configuration for the very important things that make FreeBSD run as a Server. Say, I've sent the Server to a remote date center. If I want to change the configuration of the firewall, there has a chance that I'll make a mistake and I can't connect to manage the server anymore, thus make the server 'off-manage' or even 'off-service', and the only I can do is go to the date center and login from the console. If there have a SETUP->COMMIT-or-TIMEOUT_ROLLBACK, this will not happen. Maybe at can do that, but human always make mistake, maybe some one will forget or make a incorrect at.

While it's a bit of work, I've found that putting a second system in with the first, and connecting the two via serial connections (making one a serial console for the other) mitigates this risk.  If you lock yourself out of the network on one, then SSH into the other and connect via the serial console to fix things.  Not sure how this would work in a colo setup, but we've taken to putting laptops next to our remote servers (or using dedicated management cards that provide serial-console-over-IP) does wonders (Tyan motherboards come with some very nice management cards).

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

If I want to change the configuration of the firewall, there has a chance that I'll make a mistake and I can't connect to manage the server anymore, thus make the server 'off-manage' or even 'off-service', and the only I can do is go to the date center and login from the console.

One simple solution would be using:

#!/bin/sh

pfctl -f /etc/pf.test
sleep 60
pfctl -f /etc/pf.conf

Even if you make an error and lock yourself out, it will never be for more than a minute.

Trust me, I know what I'm doing.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Going back to the desktop vs. Fedora, as someone who's now working almost entirely with RH based systems, let me point out that you give up a lot to get that (theoretically) easy to configure desktop.

I say theoretically because Fedora basically throws things in, doesn't document them and they don't work properly for 20-30 percent of the users.  (Personally, I think the fact that I've joined the fedora-testing mailling list and nagged about documenting various changes has actually had an effect, though it's quite small). 

Then, a few months later, Ubuntu will adapt it too and do a somewhat better job.  This is OK--Ubuntu's stated number one bug is that MS is more popular whereas Fedora is a testbed for RH.  (One more digression--I don't understand why RH, a server oriented distro, is so darn GUI oriented.)

Anyway, a default Fedora installation will be ready to go as a desktop (hopefully.)  However, it's far bigger than a default BSD installation, usually slower and any experienced user has to spend a moderate amount of time turning off services, removing various programs, etc.  So, there's always a price. 

That's not a putdown of Fedora.  One other important conclusion I reached, after finally breaking down and buying a laptop is that it's not only pointless, but actually self-defeating for BSD folks to put down Linux--yeah, Vermaden, that means your sig.  smile

The reason for that is that if I were MS, an evil smile would reach my lips whenever I saw things like that--divide and conquer.  The more unity between the non-MS users, the better the chance of reaching enough numbers to influence web site developers for things like banks, the better the chance of having enough influence on hardware manufacturers to have OSS compatible hardware out of the box. 

Conversely, with CentOS (based almost entirely on RH Enterprise,) I can type yum -y upgrade, walk away and not worry.  I couldn't do portupgrade -Rra and do that.  So, there are always pluses and minuses.

Ok, before someone says, "Why would you do portupgrade -a" whether I would or not doesn't matter.  The point here again is advantages and disadvantages.  That's one of the things I gain by accepting the RH bloat. 

In the same way, more or less, that you can use DesktopBSD and quickly have your desktop up and running, but lose some choice during installation.  (I mention DesktopBSD specifically because we're fortunate enough to have Oliver here.)  There's always a tradeoff between convenience and functionality. 

Back to pf--that's something I advocated way back when I wrote my first little pf article--if you're making changes remotely, have a cronjob to disable it shortly in case you lock yourself out.  That did save me from a lot of aggravation once, when I forgot to let myself ssh in from work.  Oops.  smile

<@andre> i would be so much more efficient if i wasn't so stupid

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Oliver wrote:

>For desktop I have to say it not easy the set it up. Now I'm using a computer run FreeBSD+GNOME2.0, but compare to Fedora, it need more effort.

It's worth the effort, because afterwards you know what you're doing.

Yeah, after I finally set up the desktop I do know many things than I've set up Fedora. But there have something we can do better. Say some common patterns the end user used mostly, but should keep flexible.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Carpetsmoker wrote:

I think he means that it doesn't have a control panel or something?

FreeBSD comes with the vi control panel...

Yeah, something like that. I think this is more usable for end users. For just configuration file is also fine for me, but the docs for Desltop is not like the others, handbook only mentioned a little just for setting up a basic desktop, and the GNOME FAQ is also not enough.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Carpetsmoker wrote:

If I want to change the configuration of the firewall, there has a chance that I'll make a mistake and I can't connect to manage the server anymore, thus make the server 'off-manage' or even 'off-service', and the only I can do is go to the date center and login from the console.

One simple solution would be using:

#!/bin/sh

pfctl -f /etc/pf.test
sleep 60
pfctl -f /etc/pf.conf

Even if you make an error and lock yourself out, it will never be for more than a minute.

I'm a newer fo FreeBSD and I only know IPFW. But is similar, this is a simple way, I'll try it:) I think at will also do the work, but I'm not familiar with it and the test failed.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Hi scottro, thanks for you detailed reply. I know every system have it pros and cons. For Fedora I like its simple installation as a working desktop, and its customization is not a easy thing. Beside, it have some thing like NetworkManager and the ifcfg-xxx are no consistent. But for newers the FreeBSD desktop is not easy to set up.

I'm almost set up FreeBSD as a desktop, the only problem is the ACPI, for amd64 version it can't work, for i386 version 'acpiconf -s 3' seems work, but press the power button make it reboot, not restored. The other thing is its LinuxCompat seems not works for many Linux software, but that's OK since I can make Fedora coexist with it now.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

The Linux compat isn't for all Linux software.  It will run some things, but it's not like a Virtual Machine, for example, where you're actually running Linux.

<@andre> i would be so much more efficient if i wasn't so stupid

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Cyberman wrote:

I'm almost set up FreeBSD as a desktop, the only problem is the ACPI, for amd64 version it can't work, for i386 version 'acpiconf -s 3' seems work, but press the power button make it reboot, not restored.

Note that currently restore from suspend or standby can only work with UP kernel.

Last edited by richardpl (2008-05-13 16:28:32)

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

A livecd from try and/or install the system bsd.

A more user friendly installer, especially installer of openbsd.

A good support of ZFS which could become the default file system on BSD.

The plain support of file system ext3 and the future ext4.

A complete emulation of a linux 2.6 kernel.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

For FreeBSD I would like to see:
-- proper working newest Intel grphics cards/drivers
-- Xen, KVM or VirtualBox as a fast virtualization feature
-- multithreaded ports by default (make -j ${MAKEOPTS})

For NetBSD:
-- Xorg as default, XFree as an option from pkgsrc.org
-- full support for Solaris and OpenSolaris from pkgsrc.org
-- Kernel mixing of virtual channels in OSS for sound (like in FreeBSD)

"religions, worst damnation of mankind"
[color=Blue]Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

-- multithreaded ports by default (make -j ${MAKEOPTS})

Actually, this was discussed on the -ports list some time ago, and it seems that many ports break with -j.
I believe the plan is to enable -j support, but that the port maintainer has to enable it explicitly....

Trust me, I know what I'm doing.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Carpetsmoker wrote:

this was discussed on the -ports list some time ago, and it seems that many ports break with -j

It's sad because Gentoo's Portage uses make -j ${MAKEOPTS} all the time.
Even the default is ${NumberOfCPUs + 1} but it would be better to have some ports building in parallel then nothing.

"religions, worst damnation of mankind"
[color=Blue]Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Here's the thread:
http://www.nabble.com/parallel-builds-r … 13218.html
and
http://www.nabble.com/ports-113132-(mak … 03792.html

> Why not taking the opposite approach? Allow it by default, figure out
> which ports break and why, fix where possible?

For the following reason: This change has the potential to make port building
fail in non-deterministic ways; a build might work one one machine all the
time, but fail on another 10% of the time, because the 3rd party code that is
being built is not -j-safe. It means that testing each individual port for
support is required, which, as you point out, is a large amount of work in
total (but it's not that much for each port). I think therefore that this
should be handled by the port maintainers.

btw, I see now the patch is by Maxlor...

Last edited by Carpetsmoker (2008-05-29 15:36:49)

Trust me, I know what I'm doing.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Sorry for late response Carpetsmoker and thanks for input about make -j current status, seems that makeing maintainers responsible for build process is best idea here.

"religions, worst damnation of mankind"
[color=Blue]Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

aleunix wrote:

A livecd from try and/or install the system bsd.

FreeSBIE already provices this for FreeBSD.

A more user friendly installer, especially installer of openbsd.

finstall is a project to make a better installer for FreeBSD, with GUI and text frontends.  It's not quite ready for official inclusion in the Project CDs, but it's getting there.

A good support of ZFS which could become the default file system on BSD.

Pawel's working on a major update of ZFS for FreeBSD 8.0 that will fix a lot of things, make it work a lot smoother/faster, and allow for booting off ZFS (ie, no need for a UFS partition at all).  He's working on the compliance and regression suite (finished 1200 tests so far, and that's barely half of them).  Once the suite is complete, then it will be made available for others to test (all the work is currently being done in Perforce).  Then it will be brought into CVS for everyone to use.

A complete emulation of a linux 2.6 kernel.

The FreeBSD kernel has never emulated Linux in the way you are thinking.  It provides a compatibility layer that translates Linux syscalls into FreeBSD syscalls, allowing Linux software to run on FreeBSD systems.  The default compat version for FreeBSD 8.0 has been switched to 2.6 to provide for wider testing.  There are still two bugs to work out before it can be MFC'd to 7-STABLE.  Once that happens, then the default linux_base port will be switched to linux_base-fc8 (Fedora Core 8).

So, pretty much everything you want is already in the pipeline.  smile  At least for FreeBSD.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

aleunix wrote:

A more user friendly installer, especially installer of openbsd.

User friendly to whom?  The intended customers of OpenBSD is the OpenBSD developers themselves.  It is expected that those installing the operating system know what they are doing, or are willing to learn.

The source to OpenBSD's install app is roughly three linked shell scripts.  While some will look at this as an abomination, to the OpenBSD community this is a breath of fresh air for its simplicity.  Installations ranging from simple to complex can be completed within five minutes on reasonably current hardware:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=N0cPFRdT7mQ

If usability is a desirable trait, then the current install app does a pretty good job, but again, one has to understand its use upfront.  Yes, this runs counter to what others may want -- complexity absolving users of understanding the process -- but this isn't a priority of the project.

A complete emulation of a linux 2.6 kernel.

Emulation is dicy subject.  Any level of emulation takes time, & fixation on complete emulation means that the *BSD's would become Linux.

As for OpenBSD, Linux emulation only has nominal interest of the developers.  As opposed to making OpenBSD look & act more like Linux, I would prefer time be spent on porting applications which run on Linux to OpenBSD.  While some may see this as the same thing, it isn't.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Many people seem to think that GUIcandy == usability.

Morons.

In my experience GUI installers are often LESS usable than text/curses installers ...

Trust me, I know what I'm doing.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

I'd have to agree with you there.  For whatever reason, it seems that most articles, places like Distrowatch, etc, consider a curses installer difficult.  While OpenBSD is a bit trickier than the others, it also has that excellent documentation. Do it two or three times and it's almost as easy as the others.

The GUI installer doesn't really interest me.  There are now a couple of BSDs with it anyway, PCBSD and DesktopBSD, so it's almost a non-issue.  It's the binary upgrades that I think would be most ideal, and with Colin Percival's work, it's almost a reality in FreeBSD RELEASE which is what a production server would probably be using.

<@andre> i would be so much more efficient if i wasn't so stupid

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

GUI installer? Yuck!

I can install NetBSD in under 10 minutes with the text installer - and once it's installed I'll never see the installer again. So why would I want it bulked out with GDK or something for the 1-2minutes that it's onscreen before the pkgs start un-taring?

Honestly... some people...

"UBER" means I don't drink the coffee... I chew the beans instead
             -- Copyright BSDnexus

125

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

I would LOVE to see suspend/sleep ACPI support happen for SMP systems.