5 ms·

I use PC-BSD on my desktop. The reason that I chose it over FreeBSD is due to their upgrade process and their use of ZFS boot environments (beadm). And the f

I use PC-BSD on my desktop. The reason that I chose it over FreeBSD is due to their upgrade process and their use of ZFS boot environments (beadm). And the fact that X "just worked" with their installer. In terms of packages and uppdates: The way a pkg update on FreeBSD goes is that you do pkg-update && pkg-upgrade, and it updates your packages in place. In PC-BSD, it makes a new clone of your current root environment, and does the upgrade there. It makes this the new boot environment, and at reboot, you boot into the updated system. This is much cleaner, and allows you to easily roll back in the rare event of something blowing up. I hope TrueOS keeps this. Ugh, The name reminds me of Tru64 from DEC in the 90s..

NetStrikeForce 10y ago
> It makes this the new boot environment, and at reboot, you boot into the updated system. So you have to reboot to apply the changes? Sounds familiar :)
- loeg 10y ago
  You can always overwrite in place (that was how it worked before beadm), but it's riskier.
- jxy 10y ago
  Unbelievable, right? One could instead do a zfs snapshot and retain everything. You don't even need zfs for snapshots. UFS could do it for ages.
4ad 10y ago
> beadm This is how it works in FreeBSD too. At least that's how I do it. beadm is not mandatory, nor is used "by default", but it is there, it's the only way I update. So I see no advantage here.
ch_123 10y ago
> Ugh, The name reminds me of Tru64 from DEC in the 90s.. So I wasn't the only one!