5 ms·

> "Full Desktop Experience" > Now, write all these obscure commands on terminal, and edit all these cryptic text files. :/ I love FreeBSD in many ways, but s

by sedatk 6y ago

> "Full Desktop Experience" > Now, write all these obscure commands on terminal, and edit all these cryptic text files. :/ I love FreeBSD in many ways, but seeing bar for desktop experience that low saddens me.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Methinks you have a different cultural understanding from the auctor of this article. Terminal commands are typically not seen as some inferior way to do this, in want of a better solution to eventually be developed, they are given because they are the fastest, clearest way of doing something, especially in online discourse. Explaining via text, or even images, how to navigate a dialog window to achieve something is quite a bit more involved than telling a man to copy a simple command. There exists a dialog window based interface to `pkg`, as far as I know; it is simply seldom used as it is considered inefficient compared to the terminal commands.
- aflag 6y ago
  I think the problem raised is that it should just work, not require tinkering, regardless of how you do the tinkering.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    I'm not sure how the philosophy of minimal install vs. full install has anything to do with a “desktop experience”. The “tinkering” is nothing more than installing optional software which one may or may not want, in this case suspending and installing XFCE.
    - aflag 6y ago
      Why would someone not want suspending to be enabled if their machine is capable? Why is DBUS, NTP and slim (I don't even know what that one is) not enabled by default when the user signals they want to use xfce? You have to have a lot of knowledge to just have a basic install in your laptop. Compare that to windows, macos and ubuntu that drop you in a desktop friendly environment as soon as you finish the install. I know that's not FreeBSD's goal nor am I saying that it ought be. I'm just stating the fact that it is not an easy to use system for the uninitiated and it will require at least a little bit of browsing the internet and trying things for all but the most experienced FreeBSD users, if they choose to adopt it as their desktop system.
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        > Why would someone not want suspending to be enabled if their machine is capable? Because suspending is very hardware dependent, for it to work everywhere one must install specific drivers for everything. Note that the suspending installation steps are about the specific hardware of the auctor as an example. It's as though one expects not having to install drivers for one's specific graphics card very specific mouse that has unique features. > Why is DBUS, NTP and slim (I don't even know what that one is) not enabled by default when the user signals they want to use xfce? Because installing a package does not automatically start a service, that would be very annoying. The user did not indicate that he wished to use XFCE, only that he wished to install it. — I would personally be supremely annoyed if by merely installing software, which I might simply do to inspect some of it's files, all sorts of services would suddenly be started, especially if this be DBus, which has a reputation with it's “DBus activation” mechanism of starting a bunch of other things because it guesses that the user wants them started based on similar heuristics as you suggested. The next thing I know, DBus has started NetworkManager, which has then suddenly overwritten some configuration files, all because I installed XFCE, without even deciding whether I wanted to run it. It is very good practice for installation to purely be installation and place files on the filesystem, not start any processes. — the user can do that at any point if he so choose. > You have to have a lot of knowledge to just have a basic install in your laptop. Compare that to windows, macos and ubuntu that drop you in a desktop friendly environment as soon as you finish the install. FreeBSD's cards are on the table here with their target audience. The systems you mentioned indeed take another approach, and I'm sure they have their reasons to, but FreeBSD has very good reasons for it's own, and I personally find the idea of a system that starts all sorts of processes because it guessed that he user willed it so to be quite annoying.
        aflag 6y ago
        > Because suspending is very hardware dependent, for it to work everywhere one must install specific drivers for everything. That's a solved problem (except for the most exotic devices) in Windows and Ubuntu. Mac OS, obviously, doesn't even have that problem. > It's as though one expects not having to install drivers for one's specific graphics card very specific mouse that has unique features. That's exactly what one expects from a desktop system. That the system just works out what you have and install whatever is needed to make it work. > The user did not indicate that he wished to use XFCE, only that he wished to install it. — I would personally be supremely annoyed if by merely installing software, which I might simply do to inspect some of it's files, all sorts of services would suddenly be started, especially if this be DBus, which has a reputation with it's “DBus activation” mechanism of starting a bunch of other things because it guesses that the user wants them started based on similar heuristics as you suggested. You would be personally annoyed, but other people would be personally annoyed about not having a graphical interface ready after the install for their desktop system. On top of that, even when they try to install the graphical interface for that system, nothing works unless they understand (albeit not deeply) the inner workings of said system. I'm not saying you're wrong about not wanting that, but most people expect their desktop system to just work, not require googling around why xfce4 won't start. Remember, we are talking here about desktop computers, where the end goal is to run a browser, a video game, an IDE, a video editor, etc. > The next thing I know, DBus has started NetworkManager, which has then suddenly overwritten some configuration files, all because I installed XFCE, without even deciding whether I wanted to run it. NetworkManager does solve some of the problems for desktop users who don't want to understand any more of the system than absolutely necessary. Starting it as soon as possible will just help people. > FreeBSD's cards are on the table here with their target audience. This was a later edit on my post and you may have missed it: > I know that's not FreeBSD's goal nor am I saying that it ought be. I'm just stating the fact that it is not an easy to use system for the uninitiated and it will require at least a little bit of browsing the internet and trying things for all but the most experienced FreeBSD users, if they choose to adopt it as their desktop system. Not saying that FreeBSD don't have their reasons, just saying that most people expect something else from their desktop systems.
- canadianfella 6y ago
  Methinks?
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Probably the last remnant in English of Germanic impersonal verbs, a common feature of many Germanic languages where the subject of many nonvolitional verbs of perception is in the dative case rather than the nominative. It is fossilized now in a fixed expression, but the verb “thinks” here is actually a different verb from the modern verb “think”. This difference is very much alive in, say, Dutch, where one would say “Ik denk dat ...” for “I think that ...”, but “Me dunkt dat ...” with a different vowel for the same meaning as “methinks”, which denotes a less voluntary perception, an observation if one will. It's not that dissimilar to “To me, it appears that ...” I suppose, with the key difference that the grammar does not demand another subject. It is simply “Methinks that ...”, not “Me, it thinks that ....
    - throwawayboise 6y ago
      In modern English, I don't see any difference between "methinks" and "I think" it's just two ways of saying the same thing. If anyone sees a different shade of meaning between the two, what is it? And "To me, it appears that..." is just more words to say "I think..."
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
numpad0 6y ago
Would the same argument work for an article titled “Well Done Steak” that mention how meat should be prepared before it is done
- ganafagol 6y ago
  Totally. It's 2021 after all. It should just work out of the box. Who in their right mind would want to buy meat that's not fully cooked yet? And then discuss it on Chefs News? Ridiculous.
  - sedatk 6y ago
    If it's sold as a "ready to eat steak" (hence the title), I wouldn't expect cooking instructions, yes.
    - ganafagol 6y ago
      It's not. It's an article on Chefs News titled "Full Steak Experience".
- sedatk 6y ago
  If it's titled "Fast food steak experience", yes.
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  I would not buy a car that comes in Ikea flat packages and you have to assemble it yourself. On the other side, in aviation this is a thing and I really plan to build a plane from a kit when I will have the time and money to do it.
ganafagol 6y ago
This is Hacker news and the top comment complains about that the cited article uses some not-too-strange command line tweaks? That's sad.
- sedatk 6y ago
  I criticize the article based on its claim, not my expectations.
  - bscphil 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure you misread the claim. When it says "full desktop experience" it doesn't mean that FreeBSD ships with a full desktop experience that is already enabled and active by default, but rather that it's possible to get a full desktop experience in FreeBSD (which is very much not the default - it boots to a terminal) and explains how to do that. "Full burger experience" might be the title on a recipe for making a burger, or it might be part of an advertisement for a restaurant where the burger is already made for you. In the case of this article, it's the former. People already in the know about FreeBSD are generally not expecting a full desktop environment out of the box, so they won't be confused about the title.
tomxor 6y ago
I've used NetBSD, FreeBSD, CentOS and Debian as a desktop OS, and they all felt similar in terms of setting up the desktop stuff i.e xorg and then more DE and OS specific stuff... if you are expecting Ubuntu style one click install straight into a ready made desktop then you should be looking at DesktopBSD and similar variants... honestly though it's 1000 times simpler to install a desktop from a minimal OS than it was 20 years ago when you had to generate your own xorg config.
- gautamcgoel 6y ago
  Did you like NetBSD?
  - tomxor 6y ago
    Kinda difficult to say because it was over 15 years ago and I only tried it once. I was only using it as a desktop for easier development because I was experimenting with it as a replacement for some proprietary embedded software and was trying to port something to it - tbh I was reaching for something way beyond my ability, I was pretty green at the time so consider that most of my progress was highly dependent on the manuals (which I suppose is a testament to the quality of the NetBSD manuals.) In hindsight I would have used a different OS as a desktop and then done dev over SSH. The reason being, my (probably outdated) memory of it was having to wait a lot for compiling the relatively large desktop ports because it lacked a binary package system, and spending a too much time messing with configs probably due to lack of use as a desktop - partly to blame was my cheapskate employer of the time who would never invest anything in anyone, forcing me to scrounge for spare old very slow machines. Other than that it felt like a much more minimal OS compared to FreeBSD, setting up X felt similar to other OSS systems of the time. It seems to have a stable community around it and keeps getting updates since then, i'd be interested to see how it compares today. I think OpenBSD has a much stronger following as a desktop OS though and is similarly minimal but not as portable (i mean not "runs on a toaster" portable), it's desktop/laptop hardware support is better even with their exclusion of bluetooth, and I suppose those are the ultimate deciders for what works well as a desktop OS today.
rovolo 6y ago
FreeBSD by default installs command-line only. FreeBSD is intended to be a base system suitable for both servers and desktops, so X11 is an optional install. The guide for newbies [1] and the FAQ [2] both point to GhostBSD or MidnightBSD as more suitable for full-desktop. [1] https://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies/ https://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies/ [2] https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/faq/ https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/faq/
- sedatk 6y ago
  Yes, no objections there. I think the article's title is overpromising.
dbtc 6y ago
IS THIS NOT HACKER NEWS?
- sedatk 6y ago
  Don't hackers dream of smooth UI experience?

by sedatk 6y ago

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

Methinks you have a different cultural understanding from the auctor of this article. Terminal commands are typically not seen as some inferior way to do this, in want of a better solution to eventually be developed, they are given because they are the fastest, clearest way of doing something, especially in online discourse. Explaining via text, or even images, how to navigate a dialog window to achieve something is quite a bit more involved than telling a man to copy a simple command. There exists a dialog window based interface to `pkg`, as far as I know; it is simply seldom used as it is considered inefficient compared to the terminal commands.

aflag 6y ago
I think the problem raised is that it should just work, not require tinkering, regardless of how you do the tinkering.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  I'm not sure how the philosophy of minimal install vs. full install has anything to do with a “desktop experience”. The “tinkering” is nothing more than installing optional software which one may or may not want, in this case suspending and installing XFCE.
  - aflag 6y ago
    Why would someone not want suspending to be enabled if their machine is capable? Why is DBUS, NTP and slim (I don't even know what that one is) not enabled by default when the user signals they want to use xfce? You have to have a lot of knowledge to just have a basic install in your laptop. Compare that to windows, macos and ubuntu that drop you in a desktop friendly environment as soon as you finish the install. I know that's not FreeBSD's goal nor am I saying that it ought be. I'm just stating the fact that it is not an easy to use system for the uninitiated and it will require at least a little bit of browsing the internet and trying things for all but the most experienced FreeBSD users, if they choose to adopt it as their desktop system.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      > Why would someone not want suspending to be enabled if their machine is capable? Because suspending is very hardware dependent, for it to work everywhere one must install specific drivers for everything. Note that the suspending installation steps are about the specific hardware of the auctor as an example. It's as though one expects not having to install drivers for one's specific graphics card very specific mouse that has unique features. > Why is DBUS, NTP and slim (I don't even know what that one is) not enabled by default when the user signals they want to use xfce? Because installing a package does not automatically start a service, that would be very annoying. The user did not indicate that he wished to use XFCE, only that he wished to install it. — I would personally be supremely annoyed if by merely installing software, which I might simply do to inspect some of it's files, all sorts of services would suddenly be started, especially if this be DBus, which has a reputation with it's “DBus activation” mechanism of starting a bunch of other things because it guesses that the user wants them started based on similar heuristics as you suggested. The next thing I know, DBus has started NetworkManager, which has then suddenly overwritten some configuration files, all because I installed XFCE, without even deciding whether I wanted to run it. It is very good practice for installation to purely be installation and place files on the filesystem, not start any processes. — the user can do that at any point if he so choose. > You have to have a lot of knowledge to just have a basic install in your laptop. Compare that to windows, macos and ubuntu that drop you in a desktop friendly environment as soon as you finish the install. FreeBSD's cards are on the table here with their target audience. The systems you mentioned indeed take another approach, and I'm sure they have their reasons to, but FreeBSD has very good reasons for it's own, and I personally find the idea of a system that starts all sorts of processes because it guessed that he user willed it so to be quite annoying.
      - aflag 6y ago
        > Because suspending is very hardware dependent, for it to work everywhere one must install specific drivers for everything. That's a solved problem (except for the most exotic devices) in Windows and Ubuntu. Mac OS, obviously, doesn't even have that problem. > It's as though one expects not having to install drivers for one's specific graphics card very specific mouse that has unique features. That's exactly what one expects from a desktop system. That the system just works out what you have and install whatever is needed to make it work. > The user did not indicate that he wished to use XFCE, only that he wished to install it. — I would personally be supremely annoyed if by merely installing software, which I might simply do to inspect some of it's files, all sorts of services would suddenly be started, especially if this be DBus, which has a reputation with it's “DBus activation” mechanism of starting a bunch of other things because it guesses that the user wants them started based on similar heuristics as you suggested. You would be personally annoyed, but other people would be personally annoyed about not having a graphical interface ready after the install for their desktop system. On top of that, even when they try to install the graphical interface for that system, nothing works unless they understand (albeit not deeply) the inner workings of said system. I'm not saying you're wrong about not wanting that, but most people expect their desktop system to just work, not require googling around why xfce4 won't start. Remember, we are talking here about desktop computers, where the end goal is to run a browser, a video game, an IDE, a video editor, etc. > The next thing I know, DBus has started NetworkManager, which has then suddenly overwritten some configuration files, all because I installed XFCE, without even deciding whether I wanted to run it. NetworkManager does solve some of the problems for desktop users who don't want to understand any more of the system than absolutely necessary. Starting it as soon as possible will just help people. > FreeBSD's cards are on the table here with their target audience. This was a later edit on my post and you may have missed it: > I know that's not FreeBSD's goal nor am I saying that it ought be. I'm just stating the fact that it is not an easy to use system for the uninitiated and it will require at least a little bit of browsing the internet and trying things for all but the most experienced FreeBSD users, if they choose to adopt it as their desktop system. Not saying that FreeBSD don't have their reasons, just saying that most people expect something else from their desktop systems.
canadianfella 6y ago
Methinks?
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Probably the last remnant in English of Germanic impersonal verbs, a common feature of many Germanic languages where the subject of many nonvolitional verbs of perception is in the dative case rather than the nominative. It is fossilized now in a fixed expression, but the verb “thinks” here is actually a different verb from the modern verb “think”. This difference is very much alive in, say, Dutch, where one would say “Ik denk dat ...” for “I think that ...”, but “Me dunkt dat ...” with a different vowel for the same meaning as “methinks”, which denotes a less voluntary perception, an observation if one will. It's not that dissimilar to “To me, it appears that ...” I suppose, with the key difference that the grammar does not demand another subject. It is simply “Methinks that ...”, not “Me, it thinks that ....
  - throwawayboise 6y ago
    In modern English, I don't see any difference between "methinks" and "I think" it's just two ways of saying the same thing. If anyone sees a different shade of meaning between the two, what is it? And "To me, it appears that..." is just more words to say "I think..."
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

numpad0 6y ago

Would the same argument work for an article titled “Well Done Steak” that mention how meat should be prepared before it is done

ganafagol 6y ago
Totally. It's 2021 after all. It should just work out of the box. Who in their right mind would want to buy meat that's not fully cooked yet? And then discuss it on Chefs News? Ridiculous.
- sedatk 6y ago
  If it's sold as a "ready to eat steak" (hence the title), I wouldn't expect cooking instructions, yes.
  - ganafagol 6y ago
    It's not. It's an article on Chefs News titled "Full Steak Experience".
sedatk 6y ago
If it's titled "Fast food steak experience", yes.
AdrianB1 6y ago
I would not buy a car that comes in Ikea flat packages and you have to assemble it yourself. On the other side, in aviation this is a thing and I really plan to build a plane from a kit when I will have the time and money to do it.

ganafagol 6y ago

This is Hacker news and the top comment complains about that the cited article uses some not-too-strange command line tweaks? That's sad.

sedatk 6y ago
I criticize the article based on its claim, not my expectations.
- bscphil 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure you misread the claim. When it says "full desktop experience" it doesn't mean that FreeBSD ships with a full desktop experience that is already enabled and active by default, but rather that it's possible to get a full desktop experience in FreeBSD (which is very much not the default - it boots to a terminal) and explains how to do that. "Full burger experience" might be the title on a recipe for making a burger, or it might be part of an advertisement for a restaurant where the burger is already made for you. In the case of this article, it's the former. People already in the know about FreeBSD are generally not expecting a full desktop environment out of the box, so they won't be confused about the title.

tomxor 6y ago

I've used NetBSD, FreeBSD, CentOS and Debian as a desktop OS, and they all felt similar in terms of setting up the desktop stuff i.e xorg and then more DE and OS specific stuff... if you are expecting Ubuntu style one click install straight into a ready made desktop then you should be looking at DesktopBSD and similar variants... honestly though it's 1000 times simpler to install a desktop from a minimal OS than it was 20 years ago when you had to generate your own xorg config.

gautamcgoel 6y ago
Did you like NetBSD?
- tomxor 6y ago
  Kinda difficult to say because it was over 15 years ago and I only tried it once. I was only using it as a desktop for easier development because I was experimenting with it as a replacement for some proprietary embedded software and was trying to port something to it - tbh I was reaching for something way beyond my ability, I was pretty green at the time so consider that most of my progress was highly dependent on the manuals (which I suppose is a testament to the quality of the NetBSD manuals.) In hindsight I would have used a different OS as a desktop and then done dev over SSH. The reason being, my (probably outdated) memory of it was having to wait a lot for compiling the relatively large desktop ports because it lacked a binary package system, and spending a too much time messing with configs probably due to lack of use as a desktop - partly to blame was my cheapskate employer of the time who would never invest anything in anyone, forcing me to scrounge for spare old very slow machines. Other than that it felt like a much more minimal OS compared to FreeBSD, setting up X felt similar to other OSS systems of the time. It seems to have a stable community around it and keeps getting updates since then, i'd be interested to see how it compares today. I think OpenBSD has a much stronger following as a desktop OS though and is similarly minimal but not as portable (i mean not "runs on a toaster" portable), it's desktop/laptop hardware support is better even with their exclusion of bluetooth, and I suppose those are the ultimate deciders for what works well as a desktop OS today.

rovolo 6y ago

FreeBSD by default installs command-line only. FreeBSD is intended to be a base system suitable for both servers and desktops, so X11 is an optional install. The guide for newbies [1] and the FAQ [2] both point to GhostBSD or MidnightBSD as more suitable for full-desktop. [1] https://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies/ https://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies/ [2] https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/faq/ https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/faq/

sedatk 6y ago
Yes, no objections there. I think the article's title is overpromising.

dbtc 6y ago

IS THIS NOT HACKER NEWS?

sedatk 6y ago
Don't hackers dream of smooth UI experience?