why BSDs got no love

Tony Theodore tonyt at logyst.com
Wed Dec 23 15:00:12 UTC 2009

2009/12/24 Diane Bruce <db at db.net>:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 07:24:10PM -0800, Charlie Kester wrote:
>> On Tue 15 Dec 2009 at 07:33:49 PST Jan Husar wrote:
>> >http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1123&tag=nl.e011
>> Others have pointed out that PC-BSD meets the need expressed in this
>> article.
> I believe this is because of a common misconception of what FreeBSD is.
> In essence FreeBSD would be the equivalent of the Linux kernel, except
> we have a userland integrated. No one would claim that the Linux kernel
> was a 'distro' that needed a GUI installer, yet some think that of FreeBSD.

I think of FreeBSD as kernel/base/ports, the equivalent in the Linux
world would be a mix of Debian/Gentoo. In essence, FreeBSD is an
operating system (the primary distro of the kernel) with derivatives
that enable specific applications (FreeNAS, PC-BSD). I don't think
anyone would claim FreeBSD is a kernel and userland that required
arcane knowledge to install and run. I'd compare PC-BSD to Ubuntu, but
even kernel/base has no real equivalent in the Linux world.

I still wonder about the drive geometry messages though; but after
many years, have learnt that I can safely accept what the bios is
reporting. True, I'm ambivalent about a graphical installer, but I've
bootstrapped installs from kernel and network drivers (for fun), and I
don't think the current installer is clear or obvoius without the
handbook (if only we could get people to read it!).

>> As for FreeBSD itself, the question must be asked: do we WANT to get
>> more love from people who judge an OS by whether or not it has a
>> graphical installer?
> No, but it would be great if there were some offerings in ports for
> those who wished to roll their own 'distro' ;-).

In many ways, the base/ports design is of itself a way to roll your own.


More information about the freebsd-advocacy mailing list