Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: BSD
Simple FreeBSD installation yields functional desktop system
Share
Print
CommentsFreeBSD 5.1 is a four-CD set complete with the base system, source code, precompiled packages, and the ports system. I picked it up for $20 at the local Micro Center. I chose FreeBSD because it has wider recognition than NetBSD or OpenBSD, the other two Free OSes based on 4.4BSDLite. NetBSD and OpenBSD, in my experience, don't tend to focus as much on the desktop user as they do, say, running headless or as Internet servers. Their foci have traditionally been on hardware portability and security, respectively, and thus tend to serve different audiences than Joe User. Configuring X11 on NetBSD and OpenBSD, while certainly possible, is not intuitive for an end user, and attempting to install OpenOffice.org on OpenBSD broke the MPlayer installation that I had done before it failed with seg faults. With NetBSD, running xf86config to get X11 running just plain didn't work for me; I had to roll my own manually, something that Joe User likely would not be able to do. Further, there's not yet an OO.o port for NetBSD -- working, broken, or otherwise. NetBSD and OpenBSD, as Internet servers or network firewalls, are quite good, and I have deployed, and will continue to deploy, OpenBSD in these roles when I think it's appropriate.
FreeBSD 5.1 reminds me a lot of the Slackware GNU/Linux distro, which I've used for a couple of years. Like Slackware, the installation program uses a text-based menu-driven interface that's pretty easy to step through.
I told FreeBSD to use the whole disk and selected the defaults for partitions.
During the install, FreeBSD afforded me the opportunity to create a non-root user ID for everyday use, and I did so without incident. Like some GNU/Linux distros (e. g. Red Hat), FreeBSD 5.1 puts each user in its own group. For example, if your user ID is jdaniels, you'll be put in a group also called jdaniels.
FreeBSD correctly detected my 3Com 3C905B NIC and all other essential hardware, but in another commonality between Slackware and FreeBSD 5.1, it seems like it's actually better to do the video config the "old-fashioned way" after you're done installing. There are two utilities for configuring the GUI during the installation, one text based, the other GUI-based. The GUI configuration tool (Xconfigurator) did correctly detect my ATI Xpert98 (3D Rage Pro chipset) video card, but instead of writing XF86Config to the right place (/etc/X11 directory), it put it at the top of the root directory. I manually ran xf86config afterwards and within about 2 minutes had a good XF86Config file in the right place, at the resolution I wanted (1024x768x24bit). Typing startx brought X11 right up.
Unfortunately, the old Tab Window Manager (twm) is the default window manager in FreeBSD 5.1. It would've been nice to have the opportunity to choose your desktop environment -- say, during the install -- without having to manually create a .xinitrc file. Slackware lets you do this, and for adventuresome types, it has the xwmconfig utility for changing your desktop post-install. Red Hat, which defaults to GNOME, likewise lets you choose your desktop with its Desktop Switching Tool, and also lets you choose your default during the install.
To use either KDE or GNOME in FreeBSD, go into your home directory, open your favorite editor, and create a file called .xinitrc (note the beginning period) that contains a single line -- either exec startkde or exec gnome-session. Save the file, then type startx.
When I finished that task, less than an hour after I began, I had KDE 3.1 up and running. KDE 3.1 on FreeBSD looks just like it does on Slackware and non-Bluecurve Red Hat. Applications like Konqueror and KOffice came right up.
For a fully functional desktop computer, many people need an application that can understand Microsoft Office file formats. I didn't see OpenOffice.org included in FreeBSD any more than I did in Slackware, so I had to download it. With minimal Googling, I located both a precompiled FreeBSD package and the "port" that lets you actually compile OpenOffice.org on FreeBSD if you want. I chose the latter first to see if it would work. It didn't, because of Java compilation dependencies and Sun's refusal to allow Java to be distributed as truly free software. The Java SDK port wouldn't install, even though I followed the directions in the port.
The precompiled package, on the other hand, was a snap to install. I downloaded it to a temporary directory and issued the following two commands from that directory:
pkg_add -v openoffice-1.1rc5.tbz ln -s /usr/libexec /libexec
We need that second command because the OO.o package expects to find certain files in /libexec which are actually in /usr/libexec. A quick symlink fixes things. The install itself took about 10 minutes. Astute readers will note the "rc5" in the filename. According to OpenOffice.org, RC5 actually is the release version; they're identical.
To actually use OpenOffice.org, I simply typed openoff and pressed the Tab key. The actual command is "openoffice-1.1," but since I was using the bash shell, I just used the command completion feature, which csh (the FreeBSD default) also supports. Thankfully, this command is automatically placed in the path. Running this command made the necessary menu entries in KDE for me automatically, as expected, and OpenOffice.org launched very nicely from the KDE start menu.
I installed the Mozilla package after the main install of FreeBSD using the command /stand/sysinstall configPackages. I had to manually add Mozilla to the KDE menu, but that was easy and graphical. To edit KDE menus, right-click on the KDE "Start button" and choose to edit the menus. I added "mozilla" in the "command" space and "Mozilla" in the "title" space, and chose a cool icon, just because I could. Thankfully, like OpenOffice.org, the Mozilla executable is already in the path in FreeBSD 5.1. I appreciated the foresight of the FreeBSD team in pre-including in the default path applications which someone may want or need to install later.
End results
Once I was finished, it was hard to tell the difference between my GNU/Linux boxes and the FreeBSD box; I have to issue the uname command to be sure. They look the same! They act the same!
FreeBSD 5.1 seems to run snappily enough on this old box, even when running full-blown KDE 3.1. Top shows about 210MB of memory used (nearly half by OO.o). As with any modern OS/application set, DRAM is your friend -- 256MB seems to be the minimum for general office work.
So how about Joe User?
The FreeBSD installation process requires what many Windows users would likely call "a lot of command-line interaction." Coming from a Windows environment to something like FreeBSD takes a bit of getting used to, if you have to install the operating system yourself. If you're slightly above average in experience, I'd say go for it; you'll like it, and you should have no trouble to speak of. If you're computer-phobic and have no help, installing FreeBSD is not a good idea; go instead with LindowsOS, Red Hat, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, or SuSE. On the other hand, if you can get help installing the OS from your tech-savvy teenager, you'll love FreeBSD 5.1 once it's up and running. It supports surfing the Web, sending and receiving email, and office productivity applications very well.
FreeBSD 5.1 is just fine for the average end user.
Terrell Prudé is an MCSE who began using Red Hat Linux 5.2 and Caldera Linux 1.3 in 1998. Today he runs primarily Slackware and K12LTSP, with Yellow Dog Linux for his Macintosh. He has deployed OpenBSD on Internet servers.
Comments
on Simple FreeBSD installation yields functional desktop systemNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
<A HREF="http://www.rasquinha.com/" TITLE="rasquinha.com">http://www.rasquinha.com/</a rasquinha.com>
they both do the same thing its just a matter of prefrence and use.
i too agree with the freeBSD reminds me of slackware feel....but thats only relates to the admin apps and getting a round.
i used to use both slackware and freeBSD for some time as my primarys...but now I'm GENTOO hardcore! as my desktop as well as servers i build.
i still use freeBSD and Slackware as X terminals cuz i could make them small...and fast.
Another advantage is that, where Linux distros are essentially just collections of software, FreeBSD is a complete operating system, and comes with a manual (online if you don't buy it, but installed locally) which is extremely thorough, which makes configuration and maintenance an absolute breeze.
Of course, the trade off is application support, although OOo, Opera, Mozilla and such all have FreeBSD builds, and generally speaking if it ain't available, use a Linux compatible port.
I have FreeBSD installed on all of my boxes, most of the time sharing the disk with some form of Linux: on the very same hardware, boot time for a FreeBSD kernel is probably 1/3rd to 1/4th of the time needed to bring a Linux kernel up.
Once a graphical desktop is up you can't tell the one from the other, but the system 'feels' at least as much responsive as a 2.6 Linux kernel, or more.
Try it.
The big reason I use FreeBSD on my desktops and servers, however, is the ease in keeping FreeBSD up to date. Using cvsup and the ports system, I can easily keep up with all my installed software and sensibly keep dependencies in line.
Ports system great; excellent international community of developers and supporters. Network stack simply the best. Very easy remote upgrading.
And honesty; when FBSD team says a release is not for production, listen because they mean it.
Cons: sometimes a little difficult (but not impossible) to find answers to tricky problems. Also vinum, the RAID manaqer, is excellent but difficult to grasp at first.
That said, since I could roll my own XF86Config, I did get X11 and FVWM up, and it was much like Free/OpenBSD or GNU/Linux w/ the same WM. But now you've got me curious. This is a good thing.
--Terrell
1) with BSD you can use neither apt-get nor urpmi
2) all installed software must me compiled
3) dependecies are managed by you, and only you, meaning no app handles it
4) there are far less aps out there than for GNU/Linux
5) BSD is a "one does it all" system rather than a distro proper (again - sorry if this is incorrect) - hence it is far less customizable than Linux.
Are the above correct?
Also, really, is there a clear ADVANTANGE is using BSD over GNU/Linux? How good is the kernel? How good is the hardware recognition?
lastly - what license is BSD on, GPL?
Please enlighten me about all this!
1) No, but you can use pkg_add -r (untouched, this'll fetch precompiled packages from ftp.freebsd.org). Also, using portinstall packageName to compile it isn't exactly hard either.
2) No, you can use packages.
3) No. both the ports tree, portinstall (nice port-handling tools, but not in the base system) and pkg_add will handle dependencies for you.
4) No. The ports tree just passed 10 000 applications, and more or less anything written for linux will compile on FreeBSD. Also, the linux compatability layer will let you run almost any linux app.
5) It's as customizable as any distro, why shouldn't it be?
1) with BSD you can use neither apt-get nor urpmi
Sort of. FreeBSD uses a either a "ports" system or a package management system, depending on whether you want to install from preconfigured source or from bianry packages. It has full dependency resolution, and it's very possible to keep your ports tree in sync with the latest available source.
2) all installed software must me compiled
Not true at all -- there's literally thousands of precompiled binaries available.
3) dependecies are managed by you, and only you, meaning no app handles it
Not true again. Both the ports and pkg systems have dependency checking and resolution.
4) there are far less aps out there than for GNU/Linux
Hmmm... Most Linux software will run on FreeBSD, either natively or via Linux emulation. However, due to the popularity of Linux, there tends to be a bit better driver and commercial software support. I wouldn't say that there are _FAR_ less apps, though.
5) BSD is a "one does it all" system rather than a distro proper (again - sorry if this is incorrect) - hence it is far less customizable than Linux.
You almost got it. There is only one "distro" of FreeBSD (but there's also NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Darwin). They are certainly no less customizable than Linux as they all have the source code available. In a lot of ways, dealing with FreeBSD's kernel is much easier than in Linux.
Also, really, is there a clear ADVANTANGE is using BSD over GNU/Linux? How good is the kernel? How good is the hardware recognition?
I would say that there's a pretty even draw between the two -- I like them both a lot. The biggest difference is probably philosophical. BSDs are managed centrally by governing bodies and development core teams, whereas Linux is quite a bit more dispersed in its development. Both ideologies have their pros and cons. BSD's kernel is rock solid; many would dare to say it's more robust than Linux. In a few cases, my BSD installs recognized hardware that my Linux installs did not. In most cases, though, there is virtually no difference.
lastly - what license is BSD on, GPL?
BSD is licensed under the BSD license. It's quite a bit more liberal that the GPL, as it pretty much allows anyone to do anything with the source as long as copyright attributions are maintained. In other words, you could download FreeBSD, take any part of it (or everything), funnel it into your amazing new OS project, and never be compelled to release the source code -- as long as you maintain the copyright attributions. Mind you, this is a rather grossly over-simplified interpretation of the license, it's clearly different from the GPL.
I hope that clears it up for you,
Chris
Personally, I find it more stable, clean, and at times simpler to use, and I don't really like the runlevels system.
The kernel, as of 5.2, is good, AFAIK somewhere between linux 2.4 and 2.6 . When the new scheduler gets the last wrinkles ironed out, it's supposedly better that the 2.6 one. (This is an area for holy wars, as you might have noticed)
The hardware support is not quite as good as linux, but close. Also, what works seems to work better, and in a few areas (mainly network devices) it's actually better.
And not suprisingly, it's under the BSD license.
In short: You're free to use this code for whatever you want, as long as you include a notice saying that you do.
1) with BSD you can use neither apt-get nor urpmi
Correct, mostly. You do get the FreeBSD package management tools however, with FreeBSD. With GNU/Darwin there is some of the Debian package management stuff.
2) all installed software must me compiled
Well yes, but not necessarily by the user<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-). There are plenty of packages available from the *BSD people, and even if you do need to build the software locally it may be in the ports collection so you don't have to think about it.
3) dependecies are managed by you, and only you, meaning no app handles it
Not true. Look for information on the ports collection, and the man pages for pkg_add and the like.
4) there are far less aps out there than for GNU/Linux
Commercial apps, yes. Free apps no - while it's true that there are an offensively large number of people out there who don't write portable code, many free apps such as you might find at sourceforge, freshmeat, versiontracker, or wherever will build for many UNIX variants and clones. There are implementation differences between the two, but as I say it's possible to write portable code.
5) BSD is a "one does it all" system rather than a distro proper (again - sorry if this is incorrect) - hence it is far less customizable than Linux.
I don't see what you mean here; there are many different variants of BSD and many BSD-like or BSD-compatible systems: 4.3BSD, BSD386, NEXTSTEP, Darwin, FreeBSD, SunOS 4, NetBSD, OpenBSD... and any one of those is just as configurable as any one Linux distro. There's no lack of configurability.
Are the above correct?
By and large, no.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
Also, really, is there a clear ADVANTANGE is using BSD over GNU/Linux? How good is the kernel? How good is the hardware recognition?
My personal feeling is that BSD has always been a much more sensible OS than the SysVs, and it's from the latter that Linux derives much of its methodology. For instance, the SysV-init of Linux is overkill, crufty and complex to configure, whereas the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/rc of BSD is nice and simple (Darwin's SystemStarter is nicer and simpler still). Also, I had a PC on which I tried Debian and FreeBSD, and the latter weighed in at much less memory usage and hence less swapfile bashing doing similar tasks (python, emacs, vi, perl and more from the command line), but that's hardly the most scientific of tests.
"The kernel" is a bit of an interesting idea too; the Free/Open/NetBSD kernels all derive from the same place but have almost certainly got different code in them by now, and the NEXTSTEP/Darwin kernel is based on a microkernel with the 4.3BSD/FreeBSD code running atop.
lastly - what license is BSD on, GPL?
The cunningly named <A HREF="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php" TITLE="opensource.org">BSD license</a opensource.org><nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-). Although, parts of Darwin are GPL, and parts are APSL. Parts of OS X are non-disclosed, as is/was SunOS 4.
Other folks have taken care of 1-5 and the license question quite nicely, so I won't bore folks with another, less eloquent restatement of those answers. However, I would like to address the "advantage" question, since, as a mostly GNU/Linux user, I wondered about that, too, which is part of why I did the review.
For me, the answer was, "no overly-compelling advantage over a system with apt." It seems more a matter of what you personally like. That analogy of "one's a Chevy, one's a Ford" is a pretty good one, and I find that I like (and therefore drive) both. However, if you're using, say, Red Hat 9 or many other RPM-based systems and didn't install apt-rpm, then I'd say that the advantage is in how well the package/ports system in FreeBSD resolves dependencies. It Just Works...and really well. Of course, so does apt, as most K12LTSP, Debian, and Yellow Dog admins/users know. Since my hardware's pretty vanilla-standard, HW detection worked just fine in my case. I'm not--by any standard--expert enough to comment on the kernel, but the box hasn't died on me, so, so far, so good.
One other potential, though very slim (IMHO) advantage: Should that EVIL organization called The SCO Group somehow (i. e. the asteroid Ceres spontaneously shifts to a direct collision course with Earth) prevail, we who prefer Free desktop OSs have nary a bit for concern. I'm with Eben Moglen, Linus, and the others with respect to what their chances are, but every good IT engineer always, nonetheless, keeps a good BACKUP handy.
FreeBSD has a neater logo.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Linux is a consumer OS. FreeBSD is more for technical people and makes no attempt to be friendly to consumers. Whether that makes it easier or harder to use depends on your skill level and what it is you need to do.
This is a cultural thing and not a technical thing.
Besides even Microsoft takes BSD code into Windows. Offcorse somebody would be able to turn a BSD to GPL also.
I will give BSD a try.
Cheers!
Thats why Apple chose BSD over Linux, it could be made commercial and not have to release any source code, thereby allowing Apple to maintain it's intellectual property.
The license is more "free" in allowing the user receiving the software to do whatever he/she wants with it, including rolling it into a proprietary product if one so chooses. The BSD dev teams are fine with this, so I wouldn't think its a "disadvantage" as far as the developers are concerned. FreeBSD itself is never going to "turn into" non-free software. If someone wants to repackage FreeBSD without source and sell it under a restrictive license, the FreeBSD Project will still allow their releases of it to be downloaded, with source, at will.
Everything, I mean everything is incorrect
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 25, 2004 04:13 AM2) You've got choice. You can install a package or use the ports. There's no need to compile anything.
3) Dependedecies are managed by either the pkg_* tools or the ports system.
4) Wrong. The *BSDs are by far equal or even more customizable than any Linux distro.
FreeBSD is a complete OS (Linux is just a kernel), is faster than any Linux distro, there's more software available for FreeBSD than any Linux distro,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... In fact many individuals, non-profit orgs and companies use FreeBSD such as Apache, Yahoo!, Sony,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
If something is supported under FreeBSD, it's well-supported. FreeBSD is generally speaking OK. Sometimes new hardware is supported under FreeBSD and not under Linux (not very often).
The GPL is not based on the BSD license. There are two different licenses. BSD gives more freedom than the GPL, but this my personal opinion.
Remember: FreeBSD is the Internet's best kept secret!
Try it by yourself! www.freebsd.org
The average end user wants their latest hardware to have the best possible support at all times. I'm not talking about it just working, I'm talking about it working to it's fullest potential. Next, an end user wants to have a system that has at least a halfway decent method of troubleshooting and support. With FreeBSD, you're on your own unless you want to speak with a few gurus who I doubt would tell you anything other than "Don't use FreeBSD, it's not for you if you're having these problems and don't know what to do."
NVidia drivers are iffy, I don't know of any official ATI drivers, and there are no native FreeBSD ports of any games released within the past year and a half, AFAIK. Not only that, but FreeBSD development as a desktop is far outpaced these days by Linux efforts, FreeBSD is for servers, always has been and always will. I don't see any discussion about improving the desktop situation on FreeBSD.
Anyways, I guess it all boils down to this article being a very misguiding piece because: FreeBSD is highly technical if you want to DO anything with your fresh install, if you can even get through it. I'm all for saying FreeBSD is a great desktop for SOME people, but to say that the average end-user could use FreeBSD just fine is ludicrous. I don't even tell my friends that they could have a blast in Fedora/Mandrake unless they got ahold of me regularly to help them out with any issues they enounter (Not that I consider myself a pro or anything, it's just a matter of experience), and most of my friends ARE average end-users who play games and chat and listen to music and surf the web in Windows XP.
I wouldn't be saying this if I didn't truly feel that it could lead to some users saying "God, this FreeBSD sucks, what the hell was that guy smoking?!" I love FreeBSD, I think it's a great OS, but no, keep it far away from an average end-user's desktop.
Actually the NVidia drivers work very well and have for some time now.
Uhm, actually the install is very easy. FreeBSD was my first experience with unix and I did not have any problem figuring out.
What is really needed is a desktop oriented distro that comes with a few X apps for configuring a few things and a nice X frontend to a package management system.
The "average users" that I tend to encounter are teachers and school administrators who wouldn't know what to do with a computer if it hit them upside the head (sorry, teachers, but it's true). I've also found it to be true even in the private sector; most folks, sadly, don't have a clue with respect to computers. Such people shouldn't be installing *any* operating system, drivers, programs, etc., and yes, they usually do mess up their computers, often requiring an OS reinstall, when they try to install their newly-purchsaed MS Publisher XP on top of MS Office 2000. These people need help in any case, regardless of OS. That's why our Windows-running school district, and most decently-sized companies, have tech support departments; they need 'em. Ghost is a wonderful thing after the end user has trashed their computer by installing some "new great program."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
I'm sorry that you feel that the article was misguided. I still stand by my assertion that, once the OS is installed, the average end-user would be just fine with typical end-user things. As an IT professional, what I see most end-users doing with computers are office-productivity-type stuff (MS Office / OpenOffice.org), Web browsing, and email. I just don't see average end users playing Duke Nukem, etc. (their kids might, but they themselves don't). If their kids want to play games, that's what a PlayStation is for.
--Terrell
It's the year twenty oh four & you are still stuck on hand editing config files to install an OS ?
Jeez get with the times !
Agreed. I first found this when using SuSE Linux. YaST2 was great when I was new to Linux, but it soon becomes obvious that there are quicker, more portable and often easier ways to get things done. For instance, to change my machine's hostname requires either:
- sudo hostname
- enter password
or:
- xhost +localhost [I don't use NIS]
- sudo yast2
- enter password
- click 'Network Services'
- click 'DNS and hostname'
- enter new hostname
- click 'Finish'
And the YaST2 method only works on SuSE machines<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
It is very stable, and compared to last versions of Suse or Mandrake
is noticably faster.
Swaret is a 3rd party tool, but it works almost as well as apt.
I would definitely recommend Slackware to just about anyone,
perhaps not to someone that is used to windows, although
I must say that it IS really easy to install and setup.
It is the best of both worlds
-- it takes time and effort to learn what files you need to edit to make the system behave the way you want it to (no GUI available)
-- it takes time and effort to learn to write an efficient firewall script (no GUI available)
-- to get the latest java you need to find and fetch the needed files yourself
-- building OpenOffice from source takes too damn long
Some aspects I like in FreeBSD:
-- FreeBSD has more natively packaged applications available than any GNU/Linux distro, except Debian
-- the Ports system handles dependencies
-- the applications in ports tree are almost always very up-to-date
-- the Ports system can be configured to optimize applications for your processor
-- in addition to ports, you can optimize also kernel and the base system for your processor
-- the Ports system has a nice and powerful ncurses-GUI, Portsman, for browsing, installing and deinstalling applications
You're wrong! FreeBSD (10,000+), Debian (8,000+)
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 25, 2004 04:01 AMThere are binary packages of OpenOffice for FreeBSD (there's no need to compile OOo. OOo takes a lot of time no matter if you compile it on FreeBSD or on a Linux distro).
To install Java all you have to do is download (manually) two files (due to SUN's licenses) and then compile.
Most of the base distro is free of GNU; in fact since it was derived from the original 3BSD, it is thus more mature and stable than any GNU derivative which appeared years later (GNU/Linux is just a UNIX imitation-- BSD/* is the Real Thing).
The "Free" in FreeBSD stands for Freedom (from licensing restrictions, etc.); it's just coindicence that it can be obtained without cost.
The ability to run GNU apps on *BSD doesn't make it GNU/FreeBSD any more than running Cygwin makes Microsoft's operating system "GNU/Windows".
GNU/Linux actually is GNU, using the kernel called Linux. Remember that Linux is only the kernel; it is not glibc, bash, GNOME, or any of the other libraries.
You may find this, from http://penguinppc.org/projects/faq.shtml, interesting.
"A GNU/Linux distribution is a collection of software that runs on the Linux kernel. The word "Linux" literally refers to the Linux kernel, which is the part of the operating system that interacts with the hardware and manages running programs. A distribution includes the Linux kernel, but also includes hundreds of programs (for example Netscape, X Windows, and the gcc compiler). A kernel without any programs to run on it is useless."
I'm pleased to see that there now is one, though. Can you provide a link? I have no problem trying it out.
--Terrell
You can select a default window manager
Posted by: craigandrews on January 08, 2004 02:39 AMAlso works for the other WMs available. I've done it with KDE and WindowMaker.
#