5 ms·

I suspect you probably selected CDROM at the time as your software source, which can be confounding for new users. The best solution in this case is to either i

I suspect you probably selected CDROM at the time as your software source, which can be confounding for new users. The best solution in this case is to either install binary packages via selecting FTP as your source or (better) via ports. Also, I generally avoid installing extra software outside the base packages until after the system is installed, as this was a problem that could crop up when installing earlier versions (not really a problem per se as much as if it's something you weren't familiar with, it may do unexpected things). If you install some of the tools in ports-mgmt (portupgrade, for instance, which includes portinstall), you can make the ports collection far easier to manage and use, and it might be more approachable for new users. Not that it's difficult to do a make && make install from the port you want. I haven't touched FreeBSD in years, so I'd imagine the installer is a bit more forgiving now. That said, my experience with the ports collection was what lead me to select Gentoo for my Linux preferences (later, and more presently, Arch). But, I have very fond memories of using ports, and I think everyone has their preferred methods. The trick is to neither give in or give up and play around with it until you're familiar and have picked tools you're comfortable with (this holds true for almost anything)! I'd suggest giving it another shot. Edit: I lied. Apparently I have a FreeBSD 10 vm, so it hasn't been years. I don't remember the new installation procedure at all, sadly.

jrapdx3 12y ago
I have FBSD 10.x running in VM and production, and I'd agree it's probably best to install the OS first before trying to add applications. In my experience following this policy leaves fewer ways for things to get screwed up. Re: the ports collection, as a former Gentoo/Funtoo user I felt as you describe. But I think the current FBSD package system is better. Unless there's a special use case, it's generally quite satisfactory and a whole lot easier to download and install apps using the "pkg" utility, rather than messing with ports at all. IMO the FBSD developers have been doing a terrific job of making the OS better without making it tons harder to administer. There's still a learning curve for sure (e.g., ZFS) but it's not insurmountable.
- Zancarius 12y ago
  > In my experience following this policy leaves fewer ways for things to get screwed up. Definitely. I still do this for exactly that reason. Unnecessarily complicating the installation process is just a recipe for frustration unless you have a well tested build script. > But I think the current FBSD package system is better. This is true. I don't have much experience with the "new" package system, because I (mostly) stopped using FreeBSD ~5.x with some more recent usage in the 8.x and 9.x series. I've dabbled in it since, rarely, but I think the old habit of "install everything via ports" is so ingrained in some of us whose FreeBSD use dates back that it's a bit difficult to overcome. :) I'll familiarize myself with it one of these days, perhaps, but the disenchantment with Gentoo is largely the reason I use Arch now and it'd be great to use something similar under a BSD. Rolling release + binary packages = vastly nicer than waiting for hours for Xorg/KDE/Gnome/whatever to build. As a fellow former Gentoo user, I hope that if you read this, I won't have triggered unfortunate flashbacks or painful memories as a consequence of mentioning this. ;) If new(ish) users come across this thread, follow jrapdx3's suggestion and learn pkg--it's supposed to be really nice and circumvents some of the old ways of doing things. FreeBSD has, IMO, done a great job of mixing something like a rolling release platform with a well-tested and stable kernel/environment. It's almost the best of both worlds, though some things might be a bit tedious to get running. (Is Java still a colossal pain?) > IMO the FBSD developers have been doing a terrific job of making the OS better without making it tons harder to administer. Here's another thing: FreeBSD is consistent. So much so that even if you return to using it after years, things still* work more or less the same, and that old knowledge transfers well (within reason). I can't really say the same for Arch, for instance, because there's usually a hugely disruptive change every 6-12 months. I love Arch (I'm using it right now), but sometimes the drastic changes can be ... surprising.
  - jrapdx3 12y ago
    > ... I've dabbled in it since, rarely, but I think the old habit of "install everything via ports" is so ingrained in some of us whose FreeBSD use dates back that it's a bit difficult to overcome. :) ... Ports is still fundamental, but often enough a problem. Not only do some ports take a long time to compile (like Firefox) but a little too often won't compile--maddening when that happens 2 hours after entering "make". OTOH "pkg" is stable and convenient to use, lately showing no glitches, certainly fewer complications vs. portage, rpm, dpkg, et. al. (Don't know enough about Arch to comment on it.) On the whole pkg is pretty painless. > (Is Java still a colossal pain?) Yes and no. I installed openjdk 8.x the other day using 'pkg search', then 'pkg install'. Quite simple. However, if for some reason the Oracle version is necessary, then you'd have the hassle of getting it from their site. > ... I (mostly) stopped using FreeBSD ~5.x ... Maybe I should feel a little embarrassed that I still have one DB server which has been running FBSD 6.0 since 2005 (I think). And it's been running continuously, only stopping here and there because of power outages. Haven't changed any of the software, the only maintenance has been backing up the DB, rotating logs, and so on. I keep meaning to update that system but I don't seem to get around to doing it. After 80,000 hrs on the job I guess we might call it "stable".

jrapdx3 12y ago

I have FBSD 10.x running in VM and production, and I'd agree it's probably best to install the OS first before trying to add applications. In my experience following this policy leaves fewer ways for things to get screwed up. Re: the ports collection, as a former Gentoo/Funtoo user I felt as you describe. But I think the current FBSD package system is better. Unless there's a special use case, it's generally quite satisfactory and a whole lot easier to download and install apps using the "pkg" utility, rather than messing with ports at all. IMO the FBSD developers have been doing a terrific job of making the OS better without making it tons harder to administer. There's still a learning curve for sure (e.g., ZFS) but it's not insurmountable.

Zancarius 12y ago
> In my experience following this policy leaves fewer ways for things to get screwed up. Definitely. I still do this for exactly that reason. Unnecessarily complicating the installation process is just a recipe for frustration unless you have a well tested build script. > But I think the current FBSD package system is better. This is true. I don't have much experience with the "new" package system, because I (mostly) stopped using FreeBSD ~5.x with some more recent usage in the 8.x and 9.x series. I've dabbled in it since, rarely, but I think the old habit of "install everything via ports" is so ingrained in some of us whose FreeBSD use dates back that it's a bit difficult to overcome. :) I'll familiarize myself with it one of these days, perhaps, but the disenchantment with Gentoo is largely the reason I use Arch now and it'd be great to use something similar under a BSD. Rolling release + binary packages = vastly nicer than waiting for hours for Xorg/KDE/Gnome/whatever to build. As a fellow former Gentoo user, I hope that if you read this, I won't have triggered unfortunate flashbacks or painful memories as a consequence of mentioning this. ;) If new(ish) users come across this thread, follow jrapdx3's suggestion and learn pkg--it's supposed to be really nice and circumvents some of the old ways of doing things. FreeBSD has, IMO, done a great job of mixing something like a rolling release platform with a well-tested and stable kernel/environment. It's almost the best of both worlds, though some things might be a bit tedious to get running. (Is Java still a colossal pain?) > IMO the FBSD developers have been doing a terrific job of making the OS better without making it tons harder to administer. Here's another thing: FreeBSD is consistent. So much so that even if you return to using it after years, things still* work more or less the same, and that old knowledge transfers well (within reason). I can't really say the same for Arch, for instance, because there's usually a hugely disruptive change every 6-12 months. I love Arch (I'm using it right now), but sometimes the drastic changes can be ... surprising.
- jrapdx3 12y ago
  > ... I've dabbled in it since, rarely, but I think the old habit of "install everything via ports" is so ingrained in some of us whose FreeBSD use dates back that it's a bit difficult to overcome. :) ... Ports is still fundamental, but often enough a problem. Not only do some ports take a long time to compile (like Firefox) but a little too often won't compile--maddening when that happens 2 hours after entering "make". OTOH "pkg" is stable and convenient to use, lately showing no glitches, certainly fewer complications vs. portage, rpm, dpkg, et. al. (Don't know enough about Arch to comment on it.) On the whole pkg is pretty painless. > (Is Java still a colossal pain?) Yes and no. I installed openjdk 8.x the other day using 'pkg search', then 'pkg install'. Quite simple. However, if for some reason the Oracle version is necessary, then you'd have the hassle of getting it from their site. > ... I (mostly) stopped using FreeBSD ~5.x ... Maybe I should feel a little embarrassed that I still have one DB server which has been running FBSD 6.0 since 2005 (I think). And it's been running continuously, only stopping here and there because of power outages. Haven't changed any of the software, the only maintenance has been backing up the DB, rotating logs, and so on. I keep meaning to update that system but I don't seem to get around to doing it. After 80,000 hrs on the job I guess we might call it "stable".