4 ms·

I don't use TrueOS, I think I played with it once or twice over the years, but what you're describing sounds... I can't find a polite word. Catering to the lowe

by X86BSD 10y ago

I don't use TrueOS, I think I played with it once or twice over the years, but what you're describing sounds... I can't find a polite word. Catering to the lowest common denominator? This sounds windows like. Users deleting accounts between upgrading and rebooting? Who does that? Why? It's not Unix job to stop you shooting yourself in the foot.

drewg123 10y ago
Well, if you have auto-updates configured, it would be an easy mistake to make. I have, for example, installed packages and had them go missing due to this. But I'd like an "i'm aware of the risks, let me update quickly" option. The main reason I run TrueOS rather than just FreeBSD is for the boot environments. I've been screwed too much by dependency issues on port/pkg upgrades and left without something critical too many times, and the bootadm thing is the perfect solution, as you always have a working fallback.
- craftkiller 10y ago
  Doesn't FreeBSD also have beadm? Is there something wrong with FreeBSD's beadm? Not trying to be accusatory, its an honest question because I haven't looked much into beadm but I was planning on setting it up on my FreeBSD boxes this year and knowledge of any shortcomings you've already hit would save me the trouble.
  - zvol 10y ago
    FreeBSD's beadm implementation is really nice now too, especially with its recent integration into the bootloader.
    - drewg123 10y ago
      Wow, cool! I missed this.. One of the things I dislike about TrueOS is how it uses grub for beadm management. I think I may just switch back to vanilla FreeBSD.
      - JdeBP 10y ago
        The last that I read, TrueOS was back to defaulting to the FreeBSD boot loader.
- X86BSD 10y ago
  That I get. That's always usually been the FreeBSD way(tm). Set a knob, sysctl, something that allows you to have that behavior if you need it. It's kind of odd that is not the case here. Also FreeBSD supports boot environments now, as well as selecting them from the loader menu if you haven't used it in a while. But reading the TrueOS website makes me think I should give it another go soon, it has some nice features. Even the Pico version seems interesting.
craftkiller 10y ago
True, but thats the role TrueOS is attempting to fill. They're like the early days of Ubuntu where the whole goal is to create the most user friendly experience for the operating system, making it a great gateway-distro to the rest of the eco system. The more tinkering-focused users can go upstream to FreeBSD. I actually prefer to start with a blank slate and tinker but the TrueOS people keep coming out with these awesome features that are making it hard not to switch.
- X86BSD 10y ago
  I agree. Truth be told the older I get the tinkering has lost its luster. I just want to get Sh%5 done. I don't have time to keep reading mailing lists and commit logs the first half of my day anymore to keep up on all the hacks, tricks, knobs, comments on HW etc. I just need to get things done. I think Ill kick the tires on TrueOS this weekend. As you said it seems to have some awesome features that would make my network/deployment life easier than stock FreeBSD.
zvol 10y ago
This is kind of how I felt when I tried TrueOS. I had heard about all the interesting things they had been doing, like integrating boot environments into their update process - but when I actually went and tried it, it was as though it was an unfinished product. It had multiple things that felt incomplete or didn't work, like the app cafe not working, saying it was installing something but then doing nothing. Maybe this was because they were making the transition from openrc since it was right after their TrueOS name switch from PCBSD, and I think that was when they made the init change. It kind of felt like they are building a product for no one in my opinion. It is almost as if they are using it as a breeding grounds for new technology in FreeBSD instead of building a stable operating system. If they're trying to use FreeBSD to make something for the average user, do they really care about all these features? I kind of feel like they have been trying to integrate too many new things all at once and it is left things very fragile. I think they should focus on stability instead of trying to integrate so many new things at once. Hopefully this is all just due to them switching to a rolling release model and things will stabilize. I ended up switching to vanilla FreeBSD, maybe I'll give TrueOS another shot once things have settled down.
- type0 10y ago
  > Maybe this was because they were making the transition from openrc since it was right after their TrueOS name switch from PCBSD, and I think that was when they made the init change. It's not just openrc transition, PC-BSD was based on FreeBSD stable, TrueOS is based on current. I also hope things will stabilize for them as I want to see a viable alternative to Linux. Also Lumina is their in house desktop environment which is kinda cool.
- boomboomsubban 10y ago
  I was actively following PC-BSD throughout the change as I've wanted to use BSD over Linux, but a few issues held me back. I believe a lot of the decision to move to a rolling release was users like myself that were grabbing the monthly betas, needing some new hardware support that's years away in FreeBSD. Some of the problems come from a lack of easily obtained details of the switch. They had PC-BSD 11 release candidates, but had hinted at TrueOS, and as someone who was willing to bug test I had no idea what to test. I thought they'd still do an 11 release and provide minimal updates, as there were so many things they knew were broken. That never appeared and I was left downloading the image once a month to see if AMD cards worked. And so many things seemed wrong on those tests, it was impossible to tell what needed testing without reading every bug report. I think things will improve when the team isn't also working on a FreeBSD and FreeNAS release, but it was a bumpy start.

by X86BSD 10y ago

drewg123 10y ago

Well, if you have auto-updates configured, it would be an easy mistake to make. I have, for example, installed packages and had them go missing due to this. But I'd like an "i'm aware of the risks, let me update quickly" option. The main reason I run TrueOS rather than just FreeBSD is for the boot environments. I've been screwed too much by dependency issues on port/pkg upgrades and left without something critical too many times, and the bootadm thing is the perfect solution, as you always have a working fallback.

craftkiller 10y ago
Doesn't FreeBSD also have beadm? Is there something wrong with FreeBSD's beadm? Not trying to be accusatory, its an honest question because I haven't looked much into beadm but I was planning on setting it up on my FreeBSD boxes this year and knowledge of any shortcomings you've already hit would save me the trouble.
- zvol 10y ago
  FreeBSD's beadm implementation is really nice now too, especially with its recent integration into the bootloader.
  - drewg123 10y ago
    Wow, cool! I missed this.. One of the things I dislike about TrueOS is how it uses grub for beadm management. I think I may just switch back to vanilla FreeBSD.
    - JdeBP 10y ago
      The last that I read, TrueOS was back to defaulting to the FreeBSD boot loader.
X86BSD 10y ago
That I get. That's always usually been the FreeBSD way(tm). Set a knob, sysctl, something that allows you to have that behavior if you need it. It's kind of odd that is not the case here. Also FreeBSD supports boot environments now, as well as selecting them from the loader menu if you haven't used it in a while. But reading the TrueOS website makes me think I should give it another go soon, it has some nice features. Even the Pico version seems interesting.

craftkiller 10y ago

True, but thats the role TrueOS is attempting to fill. They're like the early days of Ubuntu where the whole goal is to create the most user friendly experience for the operating system, making it a great gateway-distro to the rest of the eco system. The more tinkering-focused users can go upstream to FreeBSD. I actually prefer to start with a blank slate and tinker but the TrueOS people keep coming out with these awesome features that are making it hard not to switch.

X86BSD 10y ago
I agree. Truth be told the older I get the tinkering has lost its luster. I just want to get Sh%5 done. I don't have time to keep reading mailing lists and commit logs the first half of my day anymore to keep up on all the hacks, tricks, knobs, comments on HW etc. I just need to get things done. I think Ill kick the tires on TrueOS this weekend. As you said it seems to have some awesome features that would make my network/deployment life easier than stock FreeBSD.

zvol 10y ago

This is kind of how I felt when I tried TrueOS. I had heard about all the interesting things they had been doing, like integrating boot environments into their update process - but when I actually went and tried it, it was as though it was an unfinished product. It had multiple things that felt incomplete or didn't work, like the app cafe not working, saying it was installing something but then doing nothing. Maybe this was because they were making the transition from openrc since it was right after their TrueOS name switch from PCBSD, and I think that was when they made the init change. It kind of felt like they are building a product for no one in my opinion. It is almost as if they are using it as a breeding grounds for new technology in FreeBSD instead of building a stable operating system. If they're trying to use FreeBSD to make something for the average user, do they really care about all these features? I kind of feel like they have been trying to integrate too many new things all at once and it is left things very fragile. I think they should focus on stability instead of trying to integrate so many new things at once. Hopefully this is all just due to them switching to a rolling release model and things will stabilize. I ended up switching to vanilla FreeBSD, maybe I'll give TrueOS another shot once things have settled down.

type0 10y ago
> Maybe this was because they were making the transition from openrc since it was right after their TrueOS name switch from PCBSD, and I think that was when they made the init change. It's not just openrc transition, PC-BSD was based on FreeBSD stable, TrueOS is based on current. I also hope things will stabilize for them as I want to see a viable alternative to Linux. Also Lumina is their in house desktop environment which is kinda cool.
boomboomsubban 10y ago
I was actively following PC-BSD throughout the change as I've wanted to use BSD over Linux, but a few issues held me back. I believe a lot of the decision to move to a rolling release was users like myself that were grabbing the monthly betas, needing some new hardware support that's years away in FreeBSD. Some of the problems come from a lack of easily obtained details of the switch. They had PC-BSD 11 release candidates, but had hinted at TrueOS, and as someone who was willing to bug test I had no idea what to test. I thought they'd still do an 11 release and provide minimal updates, as there were so many things they knew were broken. That never appeared and I was left downloading the image once a month to see if AMD cards worked. And so many things seemed wrong on those tests, it was impossible to tell what needed testing without reading every bug report. I think things will improve when the team isn't also working on a FreeBSD and FreeNAS release, but it was a bumpy start.