Best way to switch from Linux to BSD

[Christian Walther]

Hi,

On 29 March 2011 11:33, Michal Varga <varga.michal at gmail.com> wrote:
> As with other people that replied before - my opinions reflect my
> opinions that might actually *not* suit your personal needs. But you
> asked.
>
> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 01:32 -0400, Jason Hsu wrote:
>> Some questions:
>> 1.  Is it possible to install KDE, GNOME, or other DE from the FreeBSD
>> CD in a reasonable amount of time?  KDE and GNOME are huge programs,
>> and having to download them would take too long.
>
> I feel that this was alwas the case, so yes as far as I know (haven't
> been installing any stock off-the-disc FreeBSD recently). But I can
> hardly imagine any FreeBSD "power user" (what a silly term that is
> anyway) that doesn't want to build his own, *proper* and properli
> fine-tuned FreeBSD. If prebuilt packages are what you're looking for,
> you are most probably not looking for FreeBSD, but something like a
> PC-BSD or a similar toy.

What's the benefit of building everything from source? Yes, you can
configure some of the ports, but in these days you'll end up with
stuff you don't want to have anyway. I'm a zsh user and have hardly
any need for bash, except that there are ports that have it as run
and/or build dependency. And I reckon it's rather difficult to setup a
system without having python and ruby installed.
Compiling from source can be done on fast, modern systems, e.g. amd64.
My primary "workstation" is a rusty Thinkpad T30. Building all ports
from scratch takes two days, and we're not talking about any IDE.
Additionally, using compiler optimization doesn't seem to be that
recommended anymore, since it can break code, thus leading to nasty
results. Which is why several developers state in their trouble
shooting guide to rebuild their application with default settings
before opening a bug report. This further decreases the benefit of
compiling everything from scratch.

FreeBSDs resource utilization is rather low, which makes it a perfect
OS for smaller or older systems (NetBSD is best here, I guess). And
you probably don't want to build ports on such a system. Which is why
I am really thankful that there are pre built packages available, and
that people are keeping it up to date.

Besides: I think it's one of FreeBSDs strength that you can decide not
only on how to use it, but on how to install it. You have the choice
to install FreeBSD and compile from ports, install FreeBSD and use
packages, or use PC-BSD with a juicy graphical installer.
It opens our beloved OS to a wider audience and makes it more suitable
for different tasks.

>> 2.  What's lighter than PCBSD and GhostBSD?  I tried the live DVDs on
>> my laptop (1.4 GHz processor, 1.25 GB of RAM) and found both BSD
>> distros to be very sluggish.  Ubuntu and Mint were faster and fit on a
>> CD, and these two distros have been criticized as bloatware.  Also,
>> the keyboard didn't work in GhostBSD.
>
> Deploy your own fine tuned FreeBSD (not that there is any other way to
> properly use FreeBSD in a single/home configuration anyway). After that,
> build and install the ports you need, properly configure them (both
> compile-time and run-time). There is nothing more lighter, adn faster,
> you could ever get from anywhere.

This is true, but can be done with packages as well.

> Comparison with the monstrous bloatware the kind of Ubuntu and Mint is
> really silly, probably comparison with ArchLinux cold still hold
> somehow, but even that's a borderline case. The comparison you're
> looking for again is "Gentoo".
>
> Also somewhat more opinionated piece: Get a real desktop computer.
> Seriously. You don't want to build your own ports/packages on a 1.4GHz
> laptop, or at least, not for too long (pun intended).

And again: Packages.
It depends on the OP what he considers being the best for his
purposes. I agree with you on a streamlined FreeBSD install w/o any
unnecessary packages being added. Which means I would rather use Xfce
instead of KDE or Gnome. Maybe even a nice window manager.

[...]
> FreeBSD is an amazing desktop OS (which I say as an exclusive FreeBSD
> desktop user for a decade, so I probably even have a little bit of
> experience in that field, in contrast with 'some' other specific people
> that replied to you before me), but only If you're looking to put what
> FreeBSD offers into good use (that is, for a start - a solid, clean,
> polished and very modular and maintaineable OS).

This is a two sided sword..
Yes, FreeBSD can be an amazing desktop OS
- it provides rock stable base system
- changes are done with continuity in mind
- it contains a good choice of WiFi driver
- it supports suspend, hibernate and power management
- nearly every interesting piece of OSS is available for it

On the downside there seem to be some work needing to be done IRT
kernel based 3D acceleration. I don't know the current status, but the
last I heard was that NVidias drivers can't be ported to FreeBSD
because the kernel lacks some functionality required (something
related to addressing the graphics board directly from software,
AFAIK).
So if you want the latest features and eye candy (say, KDE4s Plasma)
and make heavy use of xcompmgr, there might be better choices.
The problem here is that "desktop OS" is not a well defined term. My
configuration consists of FreeBSD + Xorg + StumpWM (Lisp based tiling
WM) , the apps I am using are Firefox (or uzbl), Gimp, Xsane and lots
of urxvts with vim, mocp, mutt.

> But the feel I get from your questions is that you're really looking for
> a magical Windows Vista clone, but with a magical BSD sticker that will
> magically raise your horse power just by the sheer magical power of its
> own awesomeness. It really doesn't work that way.

Hm, not sure.
Most people get to know either Linux or Windows first, so they assume
that an OS w/o graphical installer has to be prehistoric stuff. That
it can be differently -- and that this mustn't be a big thing is step
two and three. ;)

Regards
Christian