Installing Open Office / Perl updating
in [FreeBSD]
|
Prev: Failed opal3 build
Next: MPT Timeouts on FreeBSD 8.0 VM
From: Bob Eager on 8 May 2010 11:51 On Sat, 08 May 2010 12:07:48 +0100, mechanic wrote: > On 7 May 2010 20:11:32 GMT, Bob Eager wrote: > >> the make phase will take hours....and ensure you have lots of swap >> space, at least 5GB, and lots of spare disk space (20GB to be safe), on >> /usr > > LOL! And they wonder why BSD isn't popular as a stand-alone desktop for > single users! Are you telling me that it WON'T take hours, and lots of swap space, to build OpenOffice on (say) Ubuntu? Because if you are, you're a liar. -- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
From: Michel Talon on 8 May 2010 13:44 Indi <indi(a)satcidananda.16x108.merseine.nu> wrote: > That was more true a few years back; the last four years I've had > no problem running it on a lot of very different configurations. Come on, no later than yesterday i plugged an external USB disk to my FreeBSD machine. No luck, it was not recognized. I then went to a nearby Linux machine, the disk was immediately recognised OK and i could work on it. That the umass driver hangs on an USB drive i call abysmal hardware support. I don't know a single modern (ACPI controlled) laptop which is able to suspend resume under FreeBSD. It is not without reason that many (if not perhaps all) FreeBSD developers don't eat their own food and run Apple laptops. > > Ubuntu is about as buggy as it gets, BTW... > Fine for casal users, like windows. > Ubuntu works perfecty on all machines to which i have access, and in particular laptops, with suspend-resume working OK, battery level correctly recognised, etc. I don't use Windows, but i am quite sure that Windows also works OK. The only system which doesn't work OK is FreeBSD. As for the ports system it was very fine when there was less than 10 000 ports, now it is also becoming a joke. The original poster story being just one illustration. Managing software on the machine and upgrading it is light years ahead in Ubuntu. Burying of heads in the sand seems to be the motto of the few remaining users who have not deserted to greener pasture (even NetBSD). -- Michel TALON
From: Michel Talon on 8 May 2010 13:49 Bob Eager <rde42(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > > Are you telling me that it WON'T take hours, and lots of swap space, to > build OpenOffice on (say) Ubuntu? Because if you are, you're a liar. > You don't run Ubuntu to have the stupidity of building OpenOffice from source. I maintain that building ports from source is a huge loss of time without any tangible benefit, and with very real drawbacks, the main one being that no one can ensure the coherence of the packages on a given machine. The idea of building from source may have appeared cute several years ago, but clearly Gentoo and other source based systems have failed. At least the OpenBSD people have recognised that. > > -- Michel TALON
From: Frédéric Perrin on 8 May 2010 13:29 Bob Eager <rde42(a)spamcop.net> writes: > On Sat, 08 May 2010 12:07:48 +0100, mechanic wrote: >> On 7 May 2010 20:11:32 GMT, Bob Eager wrote: >>> the make phase will take hours....and ensure you have lots of swap >>> space, at least 5GB, and lots of spare disk space (20GB to be >>> safe), on /usr >> >> LOL! And they wonder why BSD isn't popular as a stand-alone desktop >> for single users! > > Are you telling me that it WON'T take hours, and lots of swap space, > to build OpenOffice on (say) Ubuntu? Because if you are, you're a > liar. Ubuntu has binary packages for OO.o. People don't need to build OO.o on Ubuntu. When the user wants to install that, it only takes as long as downloading tens of MB of bloat (and extracting the packages, but that fast in comparison). On FreeBSD, you have to compile 1.9GB of C++ ! There are only amd64 packages, no i386 or other archs last time I looked. I wanted to install OO.o the other day. It failed because, well, I don't have 11GB of free space in my laptop's /usr. In the end, I had to compile OO.o in a jail in a remote headless server, dragging in the process Java and a load of X libraries... I agree with GP, FreeBSD as a desktop is not ideal (and I'm trying hard, I promise !). -- Fred
From: Indi on 8 May 2010 14:21
On 2010-05-08, Michel Talon <talon(a)lpthe.jussieu.fr> wrote: > Indi <indi(a)satcidananda.16x108.merseine.nu> wrote: >> That was more true a few years back; the last four years I've had >> no problem running it on a lot of very different configurations. > > Come on, no later than yesterday i plugged an external USB disk to my > FreeBSD machine. No luck, it was not recognized. I then went to a nearby > Linux machine, the disk was immediately recognised OK and i could work > on it. That the umass driver hangs on an USB drive i call abysmal > hardware support. I have not had that experience in over 2 years now -- kingston USB stick currently plugged in and working just fine, also using a Buffalo external USB 250GB HDD without problems daily. You either don't do updates, or your impressions are years old. > I don't know a single modern (ACPI controlled) laptop > which is able to suspend resume under FreeBSD. It is not without reason > that many (if not perhaps all) FreeBSD developers don't eat their own > food and run Apple laptops. > Yes, power management is an issue. Power consumption is pretty low though, and by powering up only as necessary I've had no trouble with my Dell Inspiron running FreeBSD. I do agree using the CLI for connecting to various networks while traveling can be a bit clunky, but it certainly works fine for me. Certainly more reliable than that gawd-awful gnome-network-applet thingie in Ubuntu. >> >> Ubuntu is about as buggy as it gets, BTW... >> Fine for casal users, like windows. >> > > Ubuntu works perfecty on all machines to which i have access, and in > particular laptops, with suspend-resume working OK, battery level > correctly recognised, etc. My experience with Ubuntu was "festival of bugs and quirks". I tested it thoroughly several times the last few years, too. OpenSuse is *much* better if you need to use a Linux which is GUI-oriented, that's what I put my non-geek users on. > I don't use Windows, but i am quite sure that > Windows also works OK. > Oh sure, unless you need to copy a lot of data across a network in a hurry, or unless you require a secure system. :) > The only system which doesn't work OK is FreeBSD. > As for the ports system it was very fine when there was less than 10 000 > ports, now it is also becoming a joke. The original poster story being > just one illustration. Managing software on the machine and upgrading it > is light years ahead in Ubuntu. Burying of heads in the sand seems to be > the motto of the few remaining users who have not deserted to greener > pasture (even NetBSD). > Sounds like you just aren't very good at using FreeBSD, frankly. I have very little trouble doing everything with it. But I admit, it does require a higher level of knowledge than a lot of other OSes. For me the learning curve was worth it because now I reap the reward of running a fast, secure, ultra-stable system which does everything I ask of it. -- Caveat utilitor, indi |