[nycbug-talk] another. . .?

[pete wright]

On 4/26/05, Jay Savage <daggerquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/26/05, Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 26, 2005, at 1:10 AM, George R. wrote:
> >
> >
> > Seriously..  The FreeBSD installation process is cake.  It's basically
> > self-documenting.  I think it's great, I wouldn't change a thing other
> > than making it easy to do via PXE.
> >
> > -bob
> >
> 
> I think that's a pretty Rosy view.  For most people, "install" covers
> what we think of as post install, as well.  That's mostly, I suppose,
> because most people think of the system as including large parts of
> the userland as well.  We call a *BSD (or any unixish OS) "installed"
> once we have a prompt and a network.  And then the tinkering and
> configuration begins. 

(sorry to edit into your paragraph)
I think that is a good thing.  The power of Unix is both it's
complexity and simplicity.  Not only am I able to get a barebones
system up quickly if I choose (and then perform my custom instalation
tasks, which is fine for one-off installs) but I can also completely
script the install very easily as well...from a serial cable.

>But most people looking for a desktop machine,
> don't consider the installation complete until they have a fully
> functioning X environment with KDE/Gnome and common apps to perform
> common tasks up and running.  Getting to that point can sometimes be a
> long and laborious process.  And then once you're there, let's face
> it, installing X software can be a pain.  The "installation" itself
> isn't usually too bad, but because there's no default windom manager,
> there's no default process for makefiles to use to add entires to
> menus, etc.  so even after I've successfully "installed" a program,
> I've still got several more minutes--maybe longer--of configuring the
> program to work with my wm, or configuring my wm to work with the
> program, or possibly both.
>

yea, I'm not too sure I agree with X being hard to configure and install.

# xf86cfg
this'll setup me up in no time usually, unless I'm using nvidia binary
drivers in which case I do serveral edits straight outta the README
file for the driver.  then it's a:
# pkg_add -r kde
or if I have time
# cd /usr/ports/misc/instant-workstation && make install clean

furthermore it is all clearly documented at each specifics projects
website etc...
 
> On Windows, whatever its many faults, adding icons to the start menu
> and the desktop are options in the installer.  OS X, same thing, and
> better still, programs tend to install into one directory, not one of
> +- six.
> 

not sure how adding icons to the start menu should even be close to
the installer....

> Honestly, I would have a difficult time recommending any current *BSD
> as a production desktop environment in a corporate or even academic
> environment that wasn't greared toward some kind of computing or
> technology to begin with.  the BSDs aren't, at the moment, systems for
> people who need to word process, use spreadsheets, and check e-mail,
> and not much else, out of the box.  Heck, at the moment, there isn't
> even a reliable cross-platform integrated office suite--although the
> open office ports keep getting better and are rapidly catching up with
> the Linux and Windows OO.o versions.  At least on FreeBSD.  OpenBSD
> doesn't even have a workable OO.o port yet.

well, I'd tend to agree but for different reasons.  If you are rolling
out Unix workstations you are most likely catering to a specific
application that requires a specific version of Unix to run.  In my
current situation we run a specific version of either IRIX or RedHat
Linux for specirfic applications.  In other fields you will find
people needing Solaris, Hp-UX or even windows for specific
applications.  In those cases you have very specific guide lines to
follow when deploying workstations (specific libraries/hardware etc). 
I see no reason why FreeBSD, for example, could not fill the same role
as say Linux for running a 3D application.  Except of course that the
vendor has coded the app. for RedHat on intel etc...

to treat unix workstations in the client-server model that microsoft
has made popular I think is using the wrong tool for the wrong job. 
If you want to run a client-server operational model windows is
probably right for you.  100's of individual desktop PC's running
100's of individual instances of a spread sheet and email app.  If you
are building an environment of workstations, or thin clients or
something closer to the Unix paradigm of doing things than I see no
reason why one would not use FreeBSD.  That is unless business
critical applications are not available.

> 
> On the other hand, I would unhesitatingly recommend Ubuntu, the latest
> Kabuntu, or the new Libranet to anyone looking to replace either to
> salvage old hardware or for ethical reasons, because they're not just
> an OSes with x servers thrown on top, they're built form the ground up
> to support a graphical environment.  And yes, part of that is an
> integrated user experience from the install froward.  I would also put
> SuSE on the list with the Novell desktop, but I'm frankly a little
> disturbed by where that project seems to be headed.
> 
> Although I find the title of the project unfortunate, I think pcBSD
> could be a huge step in the right direction for BSD.
> 


Those all look like interesting areas of the linux world sure.  SuSE
being the most robust and realistic solution IMO.  The whole "build
with X from the ground up" part is not completly true though.  They
are built on debian (well atleast I know ubuntu is), then tuned
specifically for a specific window manger.

What I think you are trying to do though is treat Unix systems and
Unix methodoligies in a very Windowscentric fashion (the client server
model of doing things).  While we can try all we want to shoehorn *BSD
or what ever into this model I do not think we should be focusing our
limited resources in this direction.

Like I mentioned in a previous post, would a GUI installer admin
thingy be good.  Sure, why not.  But it better not make any
fundemental changes in the power and flexibility of the base system.


-p


-- 
~~o0OO0o~~
Pete Wright
www.nycbug.org
NYC's *BSD User Group