Installing Open Office / Perl updating
in [FreeBSD]
|
Prev: Failed opal3 build
Next: MPT Timeouts on FreeBSD 8.0 VM
From: Michel Talon on 8 May 2010 17:35 Indi <indi(a)satcidananda.16x108.merseine.nu> wrote: > 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 have been told that by several people, personnally i prefer Debian style linuxes, that is Ubuntu for desktop and Debian for servers. I have seen none of the problems you mention with Ubuntu. In my lab there are a lot of Fedora machines, they are not bad nowadays. And for sure the USB driver works here :( > > 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. > You will come back at me when you will have years of experience with FreeBSD like me, including writing my own package management system for FreeBSD. At present the only people that i have seen vocally enthusiastic about the ports system are either newbies or sysadmins who run servers with very few installed packages. On the other hand i see more and more of the most prolific FreeBSD source committers complaining that it is a mess, of course written in the mailing lists where anybody can read it. And by the way, "fast, secure, ultra stable" you probably never read the mailing lists. The reality is that there is not a single release branch stabilized before going to a newer branch, and i have not seen a single benchmark where FreeBSD is faster than Linux. For the security i will concede that, being such a small target for hackers, there are not a lot of exploits. This being said FreeBSD has some very fine subsystems, otherwise i would have dropped it long ago. For example GEOM, ZFS, Netgraph, etc. Also having the source of the base system always at hand is very convenient. -- Michel TALON
From: Frédéric Perrin on 8 May 2010 17:23 Bob Eager <rde42(a)spamcop.net> writes: > On Sat, 08 May 2010 19:29:39 +0200, Frédéric Perrin wrote: >> 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've installed it from packages in the past. As it happens, last > time I built it very soon after a new port appeared, so I wasn't > expecting a pre- built package. Pray tell me, where are the packages for OOo ? I couldn't find them there : ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-8.0-release/editors/ And in packages-8-stable, you can only find a 2.4 version (that's from 2008!). > You (and Mr Talon) have omitted to mention that, yes, you have to > download the source. And it takes a long time to build. That was entirely my point. Actually, "it takes a long time" is an understatement: it takes so many resources (hard disk space) that I couldn't de it on my laptop. > But it is as > simple as typing 'make'. And that's why I'm very happy with FreeBSD for my server. But for a personal machine, compiling stuff is a PITA. -- Fred
From: John Levine on 8 May 2010 18:10 >> I've installed it from packages in the past. As it happens, last >> time I built it very soon after a new port appeared, so I wasn't >> expecting a pre- built package. > >Pray tell me, where are the packages for OOo ? I couldn't find them >there : For some reason they're here: ftp://ooopackages.good-day.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/FreeBSD/ I agree that they're not as up to date as you might hope if your laptop isn't an amd64. R's, John
From: Indi on 8 May 2010 18:48 On 2010-05-08, Michel Talon <talon(a)lpthe.jussieu.fr> wrote: > > You will come back at me when you will have years of experience with > FreeBSD like me, including writing my own package management system for > FreeBSD. At present the only people that i have seen vocally > enthusiastic about the ports system are either newbies or sysadmins who > run servers with very few installed packages. > Using it as my primary (usually sole) OS since 2004. Maybe I should point out that I'm not a lover of full-bloat DEs, I like using wmii with a lot of small utilities which I script together to make my desktop useful. Possibly for people who demand G or K with automagic everything, FBSD is not so hot? I wouldn't know. The bloatiest thing I (am forced to) use would be OO.o, which BTW is really quite fast on this machine -- it sure was slow on Ubuntu when I tested it though. > On the other hand i see more and more of the most prolific FreeBSD > source committers complaining that it is a mess, of course written in > the mailing lists where anybody can read it. And by the way, "fast, > secure, ultra stable" you probably never read the mailing lists. > That would be an incorrect assumption. Obviously committers come and go, some of them bite off more than they can chew and get overwhelmed. And a lot of modern software is a lot to handle, no doubt. We did just go through a period of instability which was predicted to last for 10 days but acually dragged on for over a month, but all that time it was possible to get earlier snapshots and carry on as usual. I just don't see much merit to the claim "ports is a mess", unless maybe it's all about gnome and/or kde, which I do tend to avoid. > The reality is that there is not a single release branch stabilized > before going to a newer branch, > That has not been true at all for me, with the exception of the 5.x release series. > and i have not seen a single benchmark where FreeBSD is faster than > Linux. I don't know about benchmarks, but my subjective experience has been that FreeBSD is *way* faster than Ubuntu, definitely faster than openSuse as well. I can't claim to have experience with every Linux distro, but the only one I found that was as fast was Gentoo. > For the security i will concede that, being such a small target for > hackers, there are not a lot of exploits. > A *lot* of the web is powered by FreeBSD. -- Caveat utilitor, indi
From: Indi on 8 May 2010 19:47
On 2010-05-08, Fr??d??ric Perrin <fred(a)resel.fr> wrote: > > That was entirely my point. Actually, "it takes a long time" is an > understatement: it takes so many resources (hard disk space) that I > couldn't de it on my laptop. > For those times when you can't find the version you want in pkg form, you can always build it on another machine then use pkg_create and install on the lower spec machine. Or ask around nicely, someone somewhere probably has a package you can get. But one pattern I see often is people complain in such a disagreeable manner that they come off as a bit trollish. Then understandably, no-one feels terribly motivated to help them. -- Caveat utilitor, indi |