4 ms·

One big difference is OpenBSD is easier. For example, I installed FreeBSD on an old laptop and had to fiddle with building Xorg to get a GUI. Same laptop on Op

One big difference is OpenBSD is easier. For example, I installed FreeBSD on an old laptop and had to fiddle with building Xorg to get a GUI. Same laptop on OpenBSD just worked after running the installer.

cnst 1y ago
Yup, that's because X is part of OpenBSD base system, called xenocara, whereas in FreeBSD, you have to use the Ports tree to install Xorg. Ports tree in general is a great way to install third-party software, but not necessarily for Xorg. You still install KDE or GNOME through ports/packages on both systems, but X being more tightly integrated with the base system has benefits in reducing complexity for the rest of the components.
LAC-Tech 1y ago
is FreeBSD any worse than a minimalist linux distro like Arch in this regard?
- grahamjperrin 1y ago
  https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_compared_to_other_distributions#The_BSDs https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_compared_to_other_dist... exists, but probably does not answer your question. For Arch users of KDE Plasma and applications, are essential packages ever missing? <https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/KDE#Installation https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/KDE#Installation> From https://gist.github.com/grahamperrin/307b8cdef5d4dcd30f5fdc4cdea03c72 https://gist.github.com/grahamperrin/307b8cdef5d4dcd30f5fdc4... for FreeBSD: > It's not unusual for a Tier 1 platform to have no package for a wanted desktop environment. Two platforms are at this tier: … For example, kde for FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT was recently missing for a few days for AMD64; is still missing for aarch64 (64-bit ARMv8). This is not to criticise the maintainers of packages or repos. I do understand the constraints. The absence of an essential meta package is, inescapably, an impedance when aiming to test installers and upgrades, especially with pkgbase.

4 ms·

One big difference is OpenBSD is easier. For example, I installed FreeBSD on an old laptop and had to fiddle with building Xorg to get a GUI. Same laptop on Op

by nosioptar 1y ago

cnst 1y ago
Yup, that's because X is part of OpenBSD base system, called xenocara, whereas in FreeBSD, you have to use the Ports tree to install Xorg. Ports tree in general is a great way to install third-party software, but not necessarily for Xorg. You still install KDE or GNOME through ports/packages on both systems, but X being more tightly integrated with the base system has benefits in reducing complexity for the rest of the components.
LAC-Tech 1y ago
is FreeBSD any worse than a minimalist linux distro like Arch in this regard?
- grahamjperrin 1y ago
  https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_compared_to_other_distributions#The_BSDs https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_compared_to_other_dist... exists, but probably does not answer your question. For Arch users of KDE Plasma and applications, are essential packages ever missing? <https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/KDE#Installation https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/KDE#Installation> From https://gist.github.com/grahamperrin/307b8cdef5d4dcd30f5fdc4cdea03c72 https://gist.github.com/grahamperrin/307b8cdef5d4dcd30f5fdc4... for FreeBSD: > It's not unusual for a Tier 1 platform to have no package for a wanted desktop environment. Two platforms are at this tier: … For example, kde for FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT was recently missing for a few days for AMD64; is still missing for aarch64 (64-bit ARMv8). This is not to criticise the maintainers of packages or repos. I do understand the constraints. The absence of an essential meta package is, inescapably, an impedance when aiming to test installers and upgrades, especially with pkgbase.