8 ms·

Honestly I don't think FreeBSD should focus on desktop story at all. Resources, as limited as they are, should be spent on making FreeBSD an obvious and compell

Honestly I don't think FreeBSD should focus on desktop story at all. Resources, as limited as they are, should be spent on making FreeBSD an obvious and compelling choice for the servers. Although FreeBSD looks cleaner and more consistent than Linux, it's not really clear why should one use it over Linux. I hope the team will define strategic goals and try to develop some competitive advantage, even if it means focusing only on certain niches in the beginning. E.g. encouraging development of the OS modules in a safe language like Rust would probably lead to more stable system less vulnerable to exploits, and make it a more attractive choice for mission-critical deployments.

muxator 7y ago
At least for me, being able to use Linux as daily driver on my desktop was instrumental at making me more proficient. At that point using it in the server became natural. Nothing beats the exercise of being able to use the same environment for everyday computing and for running "serious" services. I guess a good desktop experience has the same utility to the freebsd ecosystem.
- dddddaviddddd 7y ago
  I've had the same experience. Used FreeBSD as a server OS long enough to switch to it as my main desktop OS. In return I've learned a lot more that has made server administration better.
- jayd16 7y ago
  I'm not sure I'd apply this to Windows, personally.
  - pmontra 7y ago
    Companies started to use Windows NT servers in the 90s maybe because they cost less than UNIX servers from HP, IBM, Sun etc but also because they had a lot of technical staff which only knew Windows.
wolco 7y ago
Rewriting to rust and leaving the desktop space completely seems like a recipe for losing the bigger focus so resources can be spent on a fun project with questionable utility value for users.
whalesalad 7y ago
> Honestly I don't think FreeBSD should focus on desktop story at all. I wish they didn't have to. I wish the open source community would rethink the desktop experience from the ground up so that we can have truly portable desktop environments that speak a common API. Everything is so tightly coupled to the platform and a spaghetti mess of packages and tools that I don't think it can be achieved any way else. Apple has vertical integration of their OS, so they don't have to worry about supporting the world. But the state of things in open source land right now is a complete disaster. X vs Wayland, compositors? desktop environments? window managers? For instance, check out the Manjaro doc on switching desktop environments: https://wiki.manjaro.org/index.php/Install_Desktop_Environments https://wiki.manjaro.org/index.php/Install_Desktop_Environme... Why is this such a nightmare? There is an entire section called "The Risks of Using Multiple DEs". There are 'two steps' for switching to XFCE: 1. Install a basic XFCE environment, sudo pacman -S xfce4-gtk3 xfce4-goodies xfce4-terminal network-manager-applet xfce4-notifyd-gtk3 xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin-gtk3 tumbler engrampa 2. Optional: Install and use LightDM, the recommended display manager for XFCE (record comes screeching to a halt -- what is a display manager and why is LightDM recommended?) sudo pacman -S lightdm lightdm-gtk-greeter lightdm-gtk-greeter-settings && sudo systemctl enable lightdm.service --force This is relatively simple when you look at it here, but seeing this x 10 on the linked page where every single experience has a vastly different install and configuration process does not give me warm and fuzzy feelings. Anyway I got no suggestions on how to improve this -- rant over. I just wish that we'd settle on a really rock solid abstraction and then get back to work rethinking and rebuilding UIs in Linux/BSD. Without vertical integration and/or monetary incentives I do not see this ever happening.
- aspaceman 7y ago
  To be frank, setting up different DE, window managers, etc. is one of the few places where linux has little issue. The only problem being themes or having multiple bluetooth managers at the end of it. It's really just as easy as "sudo pacman xfce" and then selecting xfce from the display manager. The real issue is that you have all those choices, but none of them are as fully featured without caveat as a similar DE for Mac or Windows. And there's the separation between window manager, desktop environment and display manager which is very confusing.
lmm 7y ago
> Although FreeBSD looks cleaner and more consistent than Linux, it's not really clear why should one use it over Linux. Stability has a value all of its own. Back when I used Linux, every couple of years my system would get broken and I'd have to spend a couple of days fixing it. And often the commands for doing that would have changed since last time. Now I use FreeBSD and what I've got working stays working.
- zamber 7y ago
  I had a love-hate relationship with Linux until I tried Fedora Silverblue. It's rock-solid for me and I can rollback on breaking updates with only a reboot or try other WMs with a rebase. Plus toolbox is great for keeping transient development stuff contained in a mutable docker-like (podman) VM.
andoriyu 7y ago
Nah, FreeBSD lost server story in the cloud. There is a very little story in on-prem. There is way more risk choosing FreeBSD as your server OS than as your desktop OS. This is coming from someone who use FreeBSD on daily laptop and weekend desktop. I would just not pick FreeBSD at work for anything other than my personal-work VM. Rust is not an answer. There is zero kernel development support from both rust and freebsd side. I know that because I'm working on KPI for both as well as multiple userspace library wrappers.
- paulmd 7y ago
  FreeBSD has seemed to find a niche in storage appliances. A few big names run servers on the same instances (eg Netflix).
wbkang 7y ago
I don't necessarily agree with this. Running on servers was not a priority for Linux but it took off in servers. I think part of this is because a lot of people tried Linux at home, liked it a lot, and then brought it to work. Kind of like how iPhones got adopted in big companies. I am worried that if FreeBSD completely ditches the desktop side completely, it will become one of the OSes that the next generation of developers would not even encounter unless it happens to be used at their jobs.
- no_wizard 7y ago
  I think it’s because Linux had no Licensing costs, and I’m pretty sure history bares this out. I don’t think Linux on the desktop contributed at all to its server popularity https://www.wired.com/2016/08/linux-took-web-now-taking-world/ https://www.wired.com/2016/08/linux-took-web-now-taking-worl...
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Naturally it took off on servers, GNU/Linux is primarily used as free beer UNIX, and it had corporate backing, including UNIX vendors that saw it as a means to cut down costs. The BSDs were in legal problems back then, plus with their license, many of its users never contribute anything back. Except for SGI and NeXT, there was hardly any desktop culture on UNIX land.
- mekster 7y ago
  BSD are staying relevant for its license (and for that zfs) and if it wants more adoption, it would be because of maturity on server usage and adding more manpower on desktop isn't. I would use BSD if the server usage is more friendlier but right now, o don't see any benefit than using them for zfs.
tlb 7y ago
As a longtime BSD user (since BSDI) I switched to Linux on my desktop several years ago, mainly for GPU support. It then didn’t seem worth it to use FreeBSD on the server and have to remember 2 sets of admin tools. So Linux it is. I think it could succeed with a usable desktop with accelerated graphics.
- bch 7y ago
  I’m (sort of) in your boat, but made a different decision - I’m a NetBSD user by (explicit) choice, so I choose my hardware to suit - which includes passing on latest hardware because of GPU support :/
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > ... mainly for GPU support. Is the nVidia driver still available for FreeBSD? Many years ago I used to run the Linux binary of RtCW on FreeBSD using the emulation layer. Worked like a charm and the FPS was even slightly higher.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    Yep. I am using the nvidia driver on FreeBSD 12. In terms of non-nvidia, a few years ago the port of the Intel driver was badly out of date and a recent laptop would be stuck on vesa. But that issue has been fixed as far as I can tell.
mikece 7y ago
> Honestly I don't think FreeBSD should focus on desktop story at all. Lest we despair, macOS was based on FreeBSD. Also, lest we become overly enthusiastic, macOS is about the only successful desktop based on FreeBSD (apologies to y’all Dragonfly folks). I wish there was more diversity in this regard but I think it’s an unfortunate instance of collateral damage of the GPL vs permissive licensing wars.
- pepemon 7y ago
  > macOS was based on FreeBSD Can you share some source of your statement?
  - toast0 7y ago
    Most of the command line tools in MacOS were ported from FreeBSD. I believe they took TCP from BSD too, but I'm not sure if that's from Mach.
  - jki275 7y ago
    macOS was based on NextStep. That said, there is a lot of shared code, and Apple is known to have provided code back to the FreeBSD project.
  - washadjeffmad 7y ago
    Sure, look up A/UX and Jordan Hubbard, Apple's former Director of Unix Technology. It won't be that many years before I imagine we'll start seeing people asking to cite how the next forms of ChromeOS or Android were related to Linux.
    - zeckalpha 7y ago
      There's no A/UX in Mac OS X.
      - washadjeffmad 7y ago
        Nor in NeXT, but it shows a history of Unix/FreeBSD development at Apple prior to the hire of Hubbard during the Mac OS X era. That is to say, his status as co-founder of FreeBSD and Apple hiring him wasn't merely a coincidence. And to clarify my example, Fuchsia is set to be a Linux-less functional rebuild of Android, but it'd be a bit myopic to point out that "there's no Linux in Fuchsia". It's like saying there's no Steve Jobs in any Apple products created after his death. Less perhaps, but not none.
ori_b 7y ago
> Honestly I don't think FreeBSD should focus on desktop story at all. Resources, as limited as they are, should be spent on making FreeBSD an obvious and compelling choice for the servers This is how things bitrot and driver support fades.
mekster 7y ago
I agree. Linux is struggling on the desktop and BSD shouldn't spend manpower unnecessarily for desktop when its primary strength is on the servers. But it probably makes the developers feel better by dogfooding their own OS instead of using another one but we have enough virtualization that one can run server OS on top of their most productive desktop OS.

muxator 7y ago

At least for me, being able to use Linux as daily driver on my desktop was instrumental at making me more proficient. At that point using it in the server became natural. Nothing beats the exercise of being able to use the same environment for everyday computing and for running "serious" services. I guess a good desktop experience has the same utility to the freebsd ecosystem.

dddddaviddddd 7y ago
I've had the same experience. Used FreeBSD as a server OS long enough to switch to it as my main desktop OS. In return I've learned a lot more that has made server administration better.
jayd16 7y ago
I'm not sure I'd apply this to Windows, personally.
- pmontra 7y ago
  Companies started to use Windows NT servers in the 90s maybe because they cost less than UNIX servers from HP, IBM, Sun etc but also because they had a lot of technical staff which only knew Windows.

wolco 7y ago

Rewriting to rust and leaving the desktop space completely seems like a recipe for losing the bigger focus so resources can be spent on a fun project with questionable utility value for users.

whalesalad 7y ago

> Honestly I don't think FreeBSD should focus on desktop story at all. I wish they didn't have to. I wish the open source community would rethink the desktop experience from the ground up so that we can have truly portable desktop environments that speak a common API. Everything is so tightly coupled to the platform and a spaghetti mess of packages and tools that I don't think it can be achieved any way else. Apple has vertical integration of their OS, so they don't have to worry about supporting the world. But the state of things in open source land right now is a complete disaster. X vs Wayland, compositors? desktop environments? window managers? For instance, check out the Manjaro doc on switching desktop environments: https://wiki.manjaro.org/index.php/Install_Desktop_Environments https://wiki.manjaro.org/index.php/Install_Desktop_Environme... Why is this such a nightmare? There is an entire section called "The Risks of Using Multiple DEs". There are 'two steps' for switching to XFCE: 1. Install a basic XFCE environment, sudo pacman -S xfce4-gtk3 xfce4-goodies xfce4-terminal network-manager-applet xfce4-notifyd-gtk3 xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin-gtk3 tumbler engrampa 2. Optional: Install and use LightDM, the recommended display manager for XFCE (record comes screeching to a halt -- what is a display manager and why is LightDM recommended?) sudo pacman -S lightdm lightdm-gtk-greeter lightdm-gtk-greeter-settings && sudo systemctl enable lightdm.service --force This is relatively simple when you look at it here, but seeing this x 10 on the linked page where every single experience has a vastly different install and configuration process does not give me warm and fuzzy feelings. Anyway I got no suggestions on how to improve this -- rant over. I just wish that we'd settle on a really rock solid abstraction and then get back to work rethinking and rebuilding UIs in Linux/BSD. Without vertical integration and/or monetary incentives I do not see this ever happening.

aspaceman 7y ago
To be frank, setting up different DE, window managers, etc. is one of the few places where linux has little issue. The only problem being themes or having multiple bluetooth managers at the end of it. It's really just as easy as "sudo pacman xfce" and then selecting xfce from the display manager. The real issue is that you have all those choices, but none of them are as fully featured without caveat as a similar DE for Mac or Windows. And there's the separation between window manager, desktop environment and display manager which is very confusing.

lmm 7y ago

> Although FreeBSD looks cleaner and more consistent than Linux, it's not really clear why should one use it over Linux. Stability has a value all of its own. Back when I used Linux, every couple of years my system would get broken and I'd have to spend a couple of days fixing it. And often the commands for doing that would have changed since last time. Now I use FreeBSD and what I've got working stays working.

zamber 7y ago
I had a love-hate relationship with Linux until I tried Fedora Silverblue. It's rock-solid for me and I can rollback on breaking updates with only a reboot or try other WMs with a rebase. Plus toolbox is great for keeping transient development stuff contained in a mutable docker-like (podman) VM.

andoriyu 7y ago

Nah, FreeBSD lost server story in the cloud. There is a very little story in on-prem. There is way more risk choosing FreeBSD as your server OS than as your desktop OS. This is coming from someone who use FreeBSD on daily laptop and weekend desktop. I would just not pick FreeBSD at work for anything other than my personal-work VM. Rust is not an answer. There is zero kernel development support from both rust and freebsd side. I know that because I'm working on KPI for both as well as multiple userspace library wrappers.

paulmd 7y ago
FreeBSD has seemed to find a niche in storage appliances. A few big names run servers on the same instances (eg Netflix).

wbkang 7y ago

I don't necessarily agree with this. Running on servers was not a priority for Linux but it took off in servers. I think part of this is because a lot of people tried Linux at home, liked it a lot, and then brought it to work. Kind of like how iPhones got adopted in big companies. I am worried that if FreeBSD completely ditches the desktop side completely, it will become one of the OSes that the next generation of developers would not even encounter unless it happens to be used at their jobs.

no_wizard 7y ago
I think it’s because Linux had no Licensing costs, and I’m pretty sure history bares this out. I don’t think Linux on the desktop contributed at all to its server popularity https://www.wired.com/2016/08/linux-took-web-now-taking-world/ https://www.wired.com/2016/08/linux-took-web-now-taking-worl...
pjmlp 7y ago
Naturally it took off on servers, GNU/Linux is primarily used as free beer UNIX, and it had corporate backing, including UNIX vendors that saw it as a means to cut down costs. The BSDs were in legal problems back then, plus with their license, many of its users never contribute anything back. Except for SGI and NeXT, there was hardly any desktop culture on UNIX land.
mekster 7y ago
BSD are staying relevant for its license (and for that zfs) and if it wants more adoption, it would be because of maturity on server usage and adding more manpower on desktop isn't. I would use BSD if the server usage is more friendlier but right now, o don't see any benefit than using them for zfs.

tlb 7y ago

As a longtime BSD user (since BSDI) I switched to Linux on my desktop several years ago, mainly for GPU support. It then didn’t seem worth it to use FreeBSD on the server and have to remember 2 sets of admin tools. So Linux it is. I think it could succeed with a usable desktop with accelerated graphics.

bch 7y ago
I’m (sort of) in your boat, but made a different decision - I’m a NetBSD user by (explicit) choice, so I choose my hardware to suit - which includes passing on latest hardware because of GPU support :/
throw0101a 7y ago
> ... mainly for GPU support. Is the nVidia driver still available for FreeBSD? Many years ago I used to run the Linux binary of RtCW on FreeBSD using the emulation layer. Worked like a charm and the FPS was even slightly higher.
- asveikau 7y ago
  Yep. I am using the nvidia driver on FreeBSD 12. In terms of non-nvidia, a few years ago the port of the Intel driver was badly out of date and a recent laptop would be stuck on vesa. But that issue has been fixed as far as I can tell.

mikece 7y ago

> Honestly I don't think FreeBSD should focus on desktop story at all. Lest we despair, macOS was based on FreeBSD. Also, lest we become overly enthusiastic, macOS is about the only successful desktop based on FreeBSD (apologies to y’all Dragonfly folks). I wish there was more diversity in this regard but I think it’s an unfortunate instance of collateral damage of the GPL vs permissive licensing wars.

pepemon 7y ago
> macOS was based on FreeBSD Can you share some source of your statement?
- toast0 7y ago
  Most of the command line tools in MacOS were ported from FreeBSD. I believe they took TCP from BSD too, but I'm not sure if that's from Mach.
- jki275 7y ago
  macOS was based on NextStep. That said, there is a lot of shared code, and Apple is known to have provided code back to the FreeBSD project.
- washadjeffmad 7y ago
  Sure, look up A/UX and Jordan Hubbard, Apple's former Director of Unix Technology. It won't be that many years before I imagine we'll start seeing people asking to cite how the next forms of ChromeOS or Android were related to Linux.
  - zeckalpha 7y ago
    There's no A/UX in Mac OS X.
    - washadjeffmad 7y ago
      Nor in NeXT, but it shows a history of Unix/FreeBSD development at Apple prior to the hire of Hubbard during the Mac OS X era. That is to say, his status as co-founder of FreeBSD and Apple hiring him wasn't merely a coincidence. And to clarify my example, Fuchsia is set to be a Linux-less functional rebuild of Android, but it'd be a bit myopic to point out that "there's no Linux in Fuchsia". It's like saying there's no Steve Jobs in any Apple products created after his death. Less perhaps, but not none.

ori_b 7y ago

> Honestly I don't think FreeBSD should focus on desktop story at all. Resources, as limited as they are, should be spent on making FreeBSD an obvious and compelling choice for the servers This is how things bitrot and driver support fades.

mekster 7y ago

I agree. Linux is struggling on the desktop and BSD shouldn't spend manpower unnecessarily for desktop when its primary strength is on the servers. But it probably makes the developers feel better by dogfooding their own OS instead of using another one but we have enough virtualization that one can run server OS on top of their most productive desktop OS.