Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

DesktopBSD 1.0 Final Released 182

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the devilishly-good-desktops dept.
Don Church writes "DesktopBSD is reporting that the 1.0 Final of DesktopBSD was released today for both 32-bit and 64-bit x86 architectures. This cutting edge FreeBSD derivative now includes KDE 3.5.1 and a host of tools designed to make the BSD experience more palatable to novices. The DVD release even includes Amarok, Firefox and other popular software ready to go. They are offering downloads via several mirrors or the official torrent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DesktopBSD 1.0 Final Released

Comments Filter:
  • Review & screenshots (Score:3, Informative)

    by MyNymWasTaken (879908) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @05:21PM (#15020865)
    DesktopBSD review [gnuman.com]

    DesktopBSD is a distribution that is geared towards being a friendly and easyDesktopBSD intro BSD operating system based on FreeBSD. BSD is some might say is a closer relative to Unix than Linux is. BSD is more geared towards servers and workstations but, not DesktopBSD. DesktopBSD is supposed to be aimed towards user friendliness that people might not even find in a user friendly Linux distribution such as Xandros or Linspire, but is quite powerful enough that you can adapt DesktopBSD to your liking.

    Installation of DesktopBSD is quite easy with its graphical interface. It gives you the option of what you want to choose when installing, whether you have another operating system installed say, Windows or Linux and you don't want to overwrite it or ruin the way it boots from your computer.

    [...]


    RC3 screenshots [osdir.com]
  • torrent (Score:5, Informative)

    by Graham_Hodgson (688052) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @05:23PM (#15020885) Journal
  • It's dead, Jim... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @05:33PM (#15020970)
    Mirrordot cache: http://mirrordot.org/stories/e7cd62fa4b24ca2788721 1c05d686136/index.html [mirrordot.org]

    And Coral Cache:
    http://www.desktopbsd.net.nyud.net:8080/index.php? id=43&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=15&tx_ttnews%5BbackPi d%5D=55&cHash=cddb1e432f [nyud.net]

    When will slashcode be modified to automatically use the cached pages? Harumph! </SARCASM>

    Muwahahaha
  • by shrapnull (780217) * on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @06:11PM (#15021281)
    Before we get into the usual banter about BSD, Netcraft, or whatever they've confirmed recently, I have to say that I use BSD more now then ever.

    It would never have dawned on me to bother with trying BSD as a desktop until I had some extra cash in the account and setup a system for network monitoring and packet scanning. With the bulk of the load being network-based, I figured this might as well be my desktop system too to garner more bang for the buck. This, mind you, after having used GNU/Linux and Windows for years and relegating BSD to beige server boxen only.

    That was a about a year ago. Today every PC I own runs FreeBSD as the primary desktop.

    It's not without it's issues when you install from the standard FreeBSD disks. I had to compile OOOrg from ports using flags (with cups, kde), and I had to install the linuxflashplayer-wrapper and tinker with it for a while to get it running...so yes, there are dozens of "little" things that keep this from desktop adoption.

    If a distribution such as DesktopBSD can create prepackaged desktop installations with a preconfigured flash-player, OOOrg, etc...I don't see why many people wouldn't at least try it out. The package management from a desktop user perspective has been great (I prefer it over apt, yum or portage), I have no failed installations due to -cpio bad magic, checksig errors (when I know the keys are installed), etc...

    Be prepared though, with this install you get a basic desktop. There is still much work to be done, but this is a nice start from a group of guys I can totally relate to.
  • by ps3udonym (874835) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:13PM (#15021773)
    Sorry, that is just wrong. Free is a not bad system, but I have seen more than a few broken ports problems. One of the big issues is binary drivers and programs in the ports tree that require signing licence agreements. Installing OpenOffice I had to stop and download three different licences before it finally puked and just wouldn't install. Realplayer doesn't run nativly and has to use Linux Binary compatiblity mode, Flash is a program that just doesn't work. The alternatives cause Firefox to crash randomly. These are problems in ADDITION to the installer. It has been a while since I installed Free but we stopped using it a while ago due to one of the worst installers I have EVER seen. It wouldn't resolve DNS correctly and if you made a mistake, you are starting ALL over again. After 6 people (all OBSD people, so we are not talking n00bs) tried and failed to make the installer work correctly we took all our FreeBSD disks and threw them out the 18th floor of my friend's appartment building. Lastly, when I tried to boot up the computer behind my firewall without passing defining a local domain suffex it would hang on the sendmail script for 10 to 15 min before continueing on with the boot. While these issues may have been fixed, what I saw was a dev team more instrested in programing SMP into the kernel then fixing the existing problems with their installer or their OS. Until that attitude changes, I will not be using FreeBSD again anytime soon. Just my 2 cents, sorry about the spelling =P Peace
  • by killjoe (766577) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:37PM (#15021948)
    "WTF? I can't remember the last time I saw FreeBSD ports break. Not even a SINGLE package."

    Ah come on now. I have run freebsd servers for years and I can tell you from direct experience that there have been numerous times I could not get one port or another to build. The one I remember being pissed off the most was net-snmp for a while. I waited for months and emailed the author but it still didn't get fixed so I had to compile from source (something I do not like to do as a matter of course).

    With all those ports there are bound to be defects at some time or another. I also remember I had problems with sablotron for a while too.
  • by evilviper (135110) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:54PM (#15022083) Journal
    Installing OpenOffice I had to stop and download three different licences

    That much is true, only because it has Java as a dependency. I can't see how that would cause it to fail to compile. Anyhow, you can always disable Java (hence the license agreements) with "-DWITHOUT_JAVA".

    Realplayer doesn't run nativly and has to use Linux Binary compatiblity mode,

    Yes it does, but it still works just fine (just takes a while to install all the Linux base libs). If you don't want to do that, you can always install MPlayer/Xine, which will run natively, and use the Win32 DLLs.

    Flash is a program that just doesn't work.

    It had it working just fine back when I needed it. Then I got annoyed with all the ads and animations and uninstalled it all-together.

    The alternatives cause Firefox to crash randomly.

    Yes, that much is true. The open source flash libraries are terribly unstable, but that has NOTHING to do with FreeBSD, as they exhibit the same behavior on Linux.

    It has been a while since I installed Free but we stopped using it a while ago due to one of the worst installers I have EVER seen. It wouldn't resolve DNS correctly and if you made a mistake, you are starting ALL over again.

    What the hell? The FreeBSD installer is basically a step-up from the Slackware installer, and a hell of a lot better than the limited and bare-bones OpenBSD installer. You can always abort whatever step you're on, go back to the main screen, and start that step again. I have no idea where you're getting the idea from that you are somehow stuck with your mistakes.

    Lastly, when I tried to boot up the computer behind my firewall without passing defining a local domain suffex it would hang on the sendmail script for 10 to 15 min before continueing on with the boot.

    First legitimate complaint I've heard so far... Yes, that minor issue is very easily worked-around.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @08:41PM (#15022416)
    the differences are huge, from kernel archatecture, to implementation of command line tools... they're completly unrelated beasts. it's like comparing to high performance cars from competeing itialian designers to the edsel that is Microsoft windows. okay, bad analogy, it's more like comparing two different top quality diner to the pre-processed mcdonald's food. although the food quality is better at either diner, because mecdonald's is 'known by everyone' and 'avialable anywhere in the world' it's what everyone eats.

Some programming languages manage to absorb change, but withstand progress. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

Working...