Anyone work with PC BSD?

[N1LAF]

In light of the Windows 7/Microsoft direction, it is time to start looking for alternatives. I have Ubuntu, but it seems painful. Is PC BSD different? I am downloading the ISO file, and will install within a virtual window. It claims to run Windows applications via WINE. I have seen some Linux desktops, and are impressive. With Microsoft going into stupidware, it is time to look for another OS....

[NQ6U]

Not sure about PC BSD but other free Unix distros I've used can be pretty geeky. You may have to spend some time tracking down the drivers you need for stuff like your graphics and networking hardware. Expect to have to compile a lot of stuff from source code. Personally, I used to find it fun to play with but would turn to my Mac with OS X (which is based on a POSIX-compliant Unix undercarriage) when I really needed to get work done. YMMV, of course.

[WØTKX]

I like Winders 7. :stirpot:

[kf0rt]

I like Winders 7. :stirpot:

Me too. :stirpot::stirpot:

[N1LAF]

Forget it, it errored istalling under VMware - no close to be ready for prime time...

[N1LAF]

Windows 7 may be pretty and amusing, but functionally poor

[kf0rt]

Guess you'll have to write your own OS, Paul.

[NQ6U]

Windows 7 may be pretty and amusing, but functionally poor

As I said elsewhere on this forum, Windows 7 may be an improvement over Vista but that's like saying waterboarding is an improvement over drowning. It's true as far as it goes but it's a small comfort to the person undergoing the torture.

[KC2UGV]

What about Ubuntu is "painful"? From my experience, its about as un-painful as OS's go (With a few exceptions, such as Xastir and soundmodem being "less than good to go").

[W2NAP]

you can install wine in ubuntu also..

[N1LAF]

What about Ubuntu is "painful"? From my experience, its about as un-painful as OS's go (With a few exceptions, such as Xastir and soundmodem being "less than good to go").

Not as simple and easy as in Mac or Windows software installation. It's the initial learning curve I am dealing with. In Windows, install is as easy as a double-click and it is installed. In Ubuntu, there were a series of terminal command line stuff, a couple tries before it installed, and have no idea where it installed. When I have more free time this winter, and maybe with some help with knowledgeable Islanders, like Luke and yourself, I will get the hang of Ubuntu.

[N1LAF]

you can install wine in ubuntu also..

I'll find it and download it, but will need a little help with installation...

[KC2UGV]

Not as simple and easy as in Mac or Windows software installation. It's the initial learning curve I am dealing with. In Windows, install is as easy as a double-click and it is installed. In Ubuntu, there were a series of terminal command line stuff, a couple tries before it installed, and have no idea where it installed. When I have more free time this winter, and maybe with some help with knowledgeable Islanders, like Luke and yourself, I will get the hang of Ubuntu.

Uh, did you try Synaptic for installing software? No command line work there. And, if the vendor/supplier supplies a *.deb file, you just double click on it. You only need the cli if you are compiling packages (Few and far between with Ubuntu).

As for "where" it's installed: If it's a system management package, it's binaries are in /usr/sbin, it's shared files are in /usr/share, and regular programs are in /usr/bin, /usr/share for it's shared files.

A package you build? It's goes in /usr/local

[KC2UGV]

I'll find it and download it, but will need a little help with installation...

* <ALT><F2>
* type "gksudo synaptic"
* Enter your password in the window that shows up
* Now, in the search box, type "wine"
* Now, click on the package name, and select "Select for install"
* Now click "Apply"

It's now installed :)

[N1LAF]

Went to Ubuntu Software center, found wine2.0-dev, click on Install-Free, and it failed

[W4GPL]

By all means, be less detailed in how/why it failed.. ;)

Thank god you didn't download Fedora. Ubuntu literally spoon feeds their users..

[N1LAF]

* <ALT><F2>
* type "gksudo synaptic"
* Enter your password in the window that shows up
* Now, in the search box, type "wine"
* Now, click on the package name, and select "Select for install"
* Now click "Apply"

It's now installed :)

Did this....
Except failure of some downloads, incomplete download, etc... what the heck is this? Is it going to work?

[N1LAF]

By all means, be less detailed in how/why it failed.. ;)

Thank god you didn't download Fedora. Ubuntu literally spoon feeds their users..
Is there a way to copy/paste from dialog boxes?

[N1LAF]

By all means, be less detailed in how/why it failed.. ;)

Thank god you didn't download Fedora. Ubuntu literally spoon feeds their users..3325

OK, found another dialog box underneath.... it supports copy/paste...

W: Failed to fetch http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/s/samba/smbclient_3.4.7~dfsg-1ubuntu3.1_i386.deb
404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.31 80]


W: Failed to fetch http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/s/samba/libpam-smbpass_3.4.7~dfsg-1ubuntu3.1_i386.deb
404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.31 80]


W: Failed to fetch http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/s/samba/samba_3.4.7~dfsg-1ubuntu3.1_i386.deb
404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.31 80]


W: Failed to fetch http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/s/samba/samba-common_3.4.7~dfsg-1ubuntu3.1_all.deb
404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.31 80]


W: Failed to fetch http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/s/samba/libwbclient0_3.4.7~dfsg-1ubuntu3.1_i386.deb
404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.31 80]


W: Failed to fetch http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/s/samba/winbind_3.4.7~dfsg-1ubuntu3.1_i386.deb
404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.31 80]

[N1LAF]

I copied a simple Windows app, selected "Open with wine program loader..." a dialog box flashes on the screen and disappears, program doesn't run....

Are you sure Wine does things? So far... fail, but I want to see success....

[n2ize]

Fedora if you like upgrading every couple of weeks. :)

[W4RLR]

I don't care for fiddling with the operating system, so after years of using DOS and the early incantations of Windows, I switched to Mac and have never been happier with a computer product. If I want to fiddle with the OS, I can always pop into Terminal and get a command line interface.

As for the adage that "there is no _________ (insert activity in blank) software for the Mac", I have only one application that requires Windows, which I run on my Mac using Parallels. The accountant insists on QuickBooks for Windows, which I do admit is more robust than its Mac version. But EVERYTHING else is Mac, including Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, and various Mac ham radio software packages such as MacLogger DX and CocoaModem.

[W4GPL]

I stopped arguing the OS wars years ago. I really don't care what you use, I don't care if more people use what I use.. it works for me and I'm happy. There are a lot of comments on various Linux chat rooms and forums the likes of "do you expect people to use your OS if the users are treated this way?" -- Does it look like I give a damn? Linux and the surrounding packages will stand on their own, whether or not your expectations/ideals are met.

Plenty of room for everyone, use whatever you want, just shut up about it.. :zzz:

[W2NAP]

just incase someone may need this

some ubuntu cli commands.

sudo apt-get update
#updates package list

sudo apt-get upgrade
#upgrades packages that has upgrades avalible

sudo apt-get install *packagename*
#install package example sudo apt-get install gphpedit will install the package gphpedit and needed libs

[KA5PIU]

Hello.

I am on Ubuntu right now.
WINE is good for some things, not so good for others.
As far as OS wars and Windows goes, I got hold of a bunch of CPDP modems a few years back and got them to work for some federal agent friends of mine for law enforcement under Windows 98SE.
Anyhow, somehow the local cops find out and I was asked if I could,,,,,Never Again!
The MODEMs were configured to run in a 16 bit environment as a direct memory address device, windows 3.1.1 for work groups and DOS 6.2.2
Windows 98 is a 32 bit operating system but can be made to run in 16 mode, it is in how it is installed.
And the motherboard needs to support IRQ and DMA on boot.
No problem, over a dozen installs without a hitch.
The Bexar county comm guy wants one, so I give him one, along with a cheap desktop that was running Windows 98SE with it, fully configured.
Anyhow, he wants to buy a laptop, but wants the latest, complete with software load.
I explain that he needs to have a machine that can run in 16 bit mode, and will need the actual install disks and not just a restore disk.
He runs out and buys a preloaded Dell laptop and can not make this work.
He explains that I said that I could write a driver for this, and I did for the other machines.
But there was no explaining any of this to him.
He bought a computer with the express understanding that this would work.

[kf0rt]

Plenty of room for everyone, use whatever you want, just shut up about it.. :zzz:

:lol::agree:

Man, but it's soooo easy to slip into those old OS wars of yesteryear.
Paul's a doody-head for hatin' on the Winders, tho. :neener::rofl:

[KA5PIU]

Hello.

If you get a Mac you can run Windows.
If you get a PC you can run Mac.
One or the other can run Linux.
As a matter of fact, Linux can even run on a microwave oven, toaster is next. ;)
http://www.handlewithlinux.com/linux-washing-cooking
So what is better? whatever makes you happy!

[NQ6U]

Hello.

If you get a PC you can run Mac.

Yes, but not easily.

OS X will only run on a certain subset of available PC hardware and it takes installing some software that is only available on a few Web sites of questionable repute. It also violates Apple's EULA to do it, if that bothers you. If you're looking to run OS X without doing a lot of work first, you're better off buying a Mac.

[n6hcm]

I have Ubuntu, but it seems painful. Is PC BSD different?

if you think ubuntu is painful then the bsd-based operating systems (except for macos x) are not for you. the folks who put together most bsd-style os do not have usability as a priority. they're meant for tinkerers and experts.

[N1LAF]

I stopped arguing the OS wars years ago. I really don't care what you use, I don't care if more people use what I use.. it works for me and I'm happy. There are a lot of comments on various Linux chat rooms and forums the likes of "do you expect people to use your OS if the users are treated this way?" -- Does it look like I give a damn? Linux and the surrounding packages will stand on their own, whether or not your expectations/ideals are met.

My comments are not a referendum on Linux, in fact, Linux has great potential. But for the present, Linux is not the best system for the general public and those who do not need any more hassles in life. But for those who really get down and dirty with code and OS's, it's the best out there. The Apple OS is built on a UNIX system, so it is possible to develop an easy user interface that can take care of the Tech Tasks, and the one-click auto install and not worry about packages and so forth.

I looked at PC-BSD because they were boasting of the easy user interface on top of FreeBSD. Simple as that. I see Microsoft going after a 5% market, and maybe even trying to make life easier for them by cutting out features and options, and going after primarily the dumb-user market. I thought XP had the right balance, I think XP became a good mature OS after service pack 1A, and most of us wanted to see the XP philosophy to continue - provide tweaking for the power users, and the easy interface for those who use the computer for simple tasks.

[N1LAF]

if you think ubuntu is painful then the bsd-based operating systems (except for macos x) are not for you. the folks who put together most bsd-style os do not have usability as a priority. they're meant for tinkerers and experts.

I know what you are saying, and have used FreeBSD on PC/104 processors, which are text based. Great for what it does.

But...
I came across PC-BSD, claiming to have features that I am looking for. Check it out here: http://www.pcbsd.org/content/view/12/26/


PC-BSD is a complete desktop operating system, which has been designed with the "casual" computer user in mind. It offers the stability and security that only a BSD-based operating system can bring, while at the same time providing a comfortable user experience, allowing you to get the most out of your computing time.
....
Installing the system is simply a matter of a few clicks and a few minutes for the installation process to finish. Hardware such as video, sound, network and other devices will be auto-detected and available at the first system startup. Home users will immediately feel comfortable with PC-BSD's desktop interface, with KDE 4.x running under the hood. Software installation has also been designed to be as painless as possible, simply double-click and software will be installed.

Features

* Fully functional desktop operating system, running FreeBSD 8.x® under the hood.
* Self-Installing software packages, makes loading programs a snap!


I would be interested in your observations.
I could not get it to install under VMware Player.

[n6hcm]

I would be interested in your observations.
I could not get it to install under VMware Player.

hrm. curious. kinda like the bsd-equivalent of a linux distribution ... since it is freebsd-based it should have some usable applications, and seeing that it is running a well-known desktop environment is a goodness. i've never used vmware *player* for anything--vmware server and vmware fusion have been the way that i've gone. it doesn't look like they have a test-run medium like other os have lately.

[N1LAF]

hrm. curious. kinda like the bsd-equivalent of a linux distribution ... since it is freebsd-based it should have some usable applications, and seeing that it is running a well-known desktop environment is a goodness. i've never used vmware *player* for anything--vmware server and vmware fusion have been the way that i've gone. it doesn't look like they have a test-run medium like other os have lately.

Well, they do have a Boot only CD and Boot only USB, but I prefer VMware Player. They have a downloadable functioning image (Version 7.0.2) for VMware, but something is wrong with their link. If you do further investigation on it, let me know what you think. In the mean time, I will continue to try to install a version on VMware.

*Update: Found a VMware image with Version 7.0.1 - downloading...

[N1LAF]

Have success with running PC-BSD 7.0.1 in a VMware window.

3341

Actually works... I may even understand Linux a little better.

VMware image file, version 7.0.1: ftp://ftp.pcbsd.org/pub/archived/7.0.1/i386/

[KA5PIU]

Yes, but not easily.

OS X will only run on a certain subset of available PC hardware and it takes installing some software that is only available on a few Web sites of questionable repute. It also violates Apple's EULA to do it, if that bothers you. If you're looking to run OS X without doing a lot of work first, you're better off buying a Mac.

Hello.

http://www.hackintosh.com/
http://www.mydellmini.com/forum/mac-os-x/

But there are people who will put just about every OS on just about everything.

http://www.linux-hacker.net/

I finally bought a new TV, a current generation job that runs Linux embedded!
http://www.vizio.com/discover/via/

First thing I did was to pull the covers and peek inside.
After that I decided it needed more memory!

[KC2UGV]

Have success with running PC-BSD 7.0.1 in a VMware window.

3341

Actually works... I may even understand Linux a little better.

VMware image file, version 7.0.1: ftp://ftp.pcbsd.org/pub/archived/7.0.1/i386/

Just bear in mind, while there are many similarities between BSD and Linux, BSD is not Linux, it's a UNIX (Well, sorta, it never got a certification mark, or anything). There will be subtle differences in how things work.

[NQ6U]

Just bear in mind, while there are many similarities between BSD and Linux, BSD is not Linux, it's a UNIX (Well, sorta, it never got a certification mark, or anything). There will be subtle differences in how things work.

BSD (with a Mach kernel) is what Mac OS X is based on, though, so if you get comfortable with the CLI in PC-BSD, you'll feel right at home with the OS X Terminal app.