Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Anyone moved to PC-BSD (TrueOS) from macOS?

news.ycombinator.com

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: Ask HN: Anyone moved to PC-BSD (TrueOS) from macOS?

#31
post #4

I went from windows machine to PC-BSD 10.3 about 2 years ago and then to TrueOS. At first I really liked it, specifically ZFS integration. I consider ZFS a hidden gem of data storage. After the second update troubles began. Every time there was a new system update, some software was quietly removed from the system. If I reinstalled it by hand again, usually something broke. I guess it wasn't compatible with the newer…

I installed KDE on TrueOS, and it is working fine. I've never even tried Lumina, past my initial login to install kde.

As to software disappearing. I think what might have been happening is that you'd go install something, but the upgrader had already run and created a new boot environment for the update based on a snapshot from before you'd installed the new pkg. So just as soon as you rebooted into the new BE, you'd "loose" the package. This is one of the reasons that they changed how the updates work, and only create the new BE when you're rebooting. I personally hate this, as I'd rather re-install something than wait 1/2 for the update to re-install pkgs in a singleuser-ish environment.

I second the notion that you might want to consider switching to Ubuntu, rather than going back to Windows. I've run ZFS on Linux for years on my old desktop (now my wife's) and never had a problem. The only "issue" I had was the transition from 14.04 to 16.04 was a bit rocky, as 16.04 includes ZFS natively, rather than using the zfs-on-linux ppa.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone moved to PC-BSD (TrueOS) from macOS?

#32
post #15
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a +1 for trying out Linux here. Sounds like you'd really like it. ZFS is native by now, https://launchpad.net/~zfs-native/+archive/ubuntu/stable , though I'm not 100% sure about the current state of the FS in the linux world. Last I read was Ubuntu integrating it by default.

I would not use ZFS on Linux when it's much more stable and supported better on illumos or FreeBSD.

I've run ZFS on FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris/Illuminos. The only ZFS issues I've had have been on FreeBSD, when using a zvol for a VM, when GEOM started helpfully automatically resizing the volume causing disk corruption. Eg:

GEOM_PART: zvol/tank/vm1 was automatically resized. Use `gpart commit zvol/tank/vm1` to save changes or `gpart undo zvol/tank/vm1` to revert them.

Every time I'd run the VM, I'd start seeing ZFS corruption. I finally just moved the VM to a normal file. Sigh.

Luckily ZFS was able to recover from the corruption.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone moved to PC-BSD (TrueOS) from macOS?

#33
post #15
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a +1 for trying out Linux here. Sounds like you'd really like it. ZFS is native by now, https://launchpad.net/~zfs-native/+archive/ubuntu/stable , though I'm not 100% sure about the current state of the FS in the linux world. Last I read was Ubuntu integrating it by default.

I would not use ZFS on Linux when it's much more stable and supported better on illumos or FreeBSD.

Not sure why this was downvoted when it's objectively true. The Linux ZFS support is functional, but lacking.

It's missing NFSv4 ACL support. It's missing per-dataset user and group permissions, forcing all operations to require root privs; on the other systems, the ZFS tools work for all users, with appropriate checks. No delegation of privileges e.g. to allow users to perform admin actions like snapshotting, send/recv. No transparent NFS export. It behaved badly when a disc glitched, requiring a reboot to resolve; the tools started getting stuck in D state when trying to investigate the fault. And just a few weeks ago it refused to mount all my datasets until I changed the mountpoint (for no discernable reason). FreeBSD and IllumOS provide a more mature, well integrated implementation.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone moved to PC-BSD (TrueOS) from macOS?

#34
My experience is that you're not going to get as cohesive a desktop computing experience in any BSD as you do in macOS. However, if you're annoyed with all the little gotchas of the Mac environment but you want to stay on BSD, TrueOS is a great place to start.

Going further down the rabbit hole, if you are willing to forego an easy OOTB experience and want to really get your hands dirty, give OpenBSD a go. I've found its installation process to be the fastest and easiest of any BSD, and it gives you a bare bones foundation to build into whatever you want. For desktop use it does require some tweaking, but it's minor stuff and you end up with a rock-solid OS that gets out of your way and lets you get on with your work.

Some of my go-to resources for setting up a proper OpenBSD desktop:

https://sivers.org/openbsd

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13223351 (ymmv, I use Xfce instead of Lumina)

https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/openbsd-as-a-linu...

Re: Ask HN: Anyone moved to PC-BSD (TrueOS) from macOS?

#35
post #27

About four years ago I moved all of my personal computers away from proprietary operating systems, with most of my laptops running Linux, and one running PC-BSD. PC-BSD is very good, but there are some weird quirks compared to Linux. For example, I have still never really figured out how to get my screen-brightness to adjust properly, and none of my laptops' integrated WiFi seem to work out of the box with any BSD. T…

> However, there are some nice perks to having a system that runs on ZFS. Due to its frequently-snapshotting nature, it's much easier to do risky stuff without having to worry about nuking the whole system, since you can always revert to the previous snapshot (kind of like Git).

Agreed, this is an amazing feature, as are jails to keep things compartmentalized. I hate having to clutter my FreeBSD home server root install with a billion dependencies for the various services it hosts, so I use jails as lightweight VMs to partition it into different service groups. It also makes it easy to back up and move jails whenever I upgrade because things are contained on ZFS subvols.

For people who don't know, snapshots are also well supported on Linux, and not just in ZFS. I use it with BTRFS on my main workstation and it's saved me a few times. There is a great tool called Snapper (by the SUSE people, but it works on other distros - I use it on Arch) that automates managing snapshots and can even e.g. hook into your package manager to automatically snapshot before an upgrade. It's like Windows System Restore Points done right.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Snapper

Re: Ask HN: Anyone moved to PC-BSD (TrueOS) from macOS?

#36
post #11
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask why you wouldn't see Linux as your next home? (Trying just to have a conversation and nothing negative on anything in your remarks) 1. I also LOVE KDE (But mostly use a tile window manager i3) 2. I tried liking BTRFS (Similar to ZFS for my non-server systems and just went back to my old file system) I feel my 2 copies and one off site is a better system for desktop. I use OpenSUSE and never had a problem I…

I chose PC-BSD because i had a bad data loss and wanted something more reliable. ZFS on FreeBSD is very mature and stable and PC-BSD provided nice desktop integration. For stuff I couldn't do on PC-BSD I used Windows virtual machine. I don't have anything against Linux. But last I read, ZFS on Linux is not native and integrated into the system as well as on PC-BSD. I was thinking more along the line of building a sma…

I can't speak to filing systems as my approach is to backup often and promiscuously as I trust none of them. I suspect that you might find Slackware a congenial Linux to try. AlienBob produces a live iso for evaluation.

http://bear.alienbase.nl/mirrors/slackware-live/latest/

slackware64-live-current.iso is the one you want to try. KDE 4.14.10

Re: Ask HN: Anyone moved to PC-BSD (TrueOS) from macOS?

#37
post #30

Not what you asked, but a couple of years ago I moved from Linux to FreeBSD on the desktop. With computers you can either learn how computers work, or use tools that try to hide how computers work so you don't have to. For example, you can configure a network interface by hand - it's a few lines of configuration - but, you need to know how networking works at a basic level (e.g. vocabulary like SSID, subnet masks, et…

Have a look at Slackware. You might like it.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone moved to PC-BSD (TrueOS) from macOS?

#38
post #35
post #27

About four years ago I moved all of my personal computers away from proprietary operating systems, with most of my laptops running Linux, and one running PC-BSD. PC-BSD is very good, but there are some weird quirks compared to Linux. For example, I have still never really figured out how to get my screen-brightness to adjust properly, and none of my laptops' integrated WiFi seem to work out of the box with any BSD. T…

> However, there are some nice perks to having a system that runs on ZFS. Due to its frequently-snapshotting nature, it's much easier to do risky stuff without having to worry about nuking the whole system, since you can always revert to the previous snapshot (kind of like Git). Agreed, this is an amazing feature, as are jails to keep things compartmentalized. I hate having to clutter my FreeBSD home server root inst…

While I do love Btrfs and use it on my Linux laptops, there's more to ZFS than just snapshotting.

Raid-Z is a great soft-raid that allows you to lose up to 3 disks (depending on your configuration level), and `zfs send` is really useful for keeping disks synchronized on different machines.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone moved to PC-BSD (TrueOS) from macOS?

#39
post #26
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I chose PC-BSD because i had a bad data loss and wanted something more reliable. ZFS on FreeBSD is very mature and stable and PC-BSD provided nice desktop integration. For stuff I couldn't do on PC-BSD I used Windows virtual machine. I don't have anything against Linux. But last I read, ZFS on Linux is not native and integrated into the system as well as on PC-BSD. I was thinking more along the line of building a sma…

I still fail to see the benefit for a desktop user with ZFS or BTRFS. I find that backing up policy of 2 copies local and one off site (I use CrashPlan) is a very robust system that saves any data loss. My main data loss comes from hardware problems or a command problem like mv photo.jpg and forget the don't over wirte command. That's a simple fix on my side. I copy the effected file over.

I can only speak for myself, but here's the gist of it.

(Not an expert in this field so please bear with me if I'm too fuzzy or not rigorous enough).

- COW[0] + snapshotting[1] basically give you git-like rollback/failsafe capability. You could e.g. trigger it manually before updating or tweaking stuff, or have it automated everytime you run some pacman/apt/yast/whatever.

- subvolumes[2] give you the features of partitioning without the physical/ordering limitations (each subvol can expand into free space, etc.) Combined with snapshots (you can snapshop each subvol discretely as its own fs), especially towards another physical btrfs drive, and some automation tool (like Snapper from openSUSE or simply crons), your 'machine-wide git' becomes an effective backup solution (1st order at least but you can snapshot to several machines including off-site obviously).

So it's a "set it up and forget it" very powerful filesystem base for your machine, regardless of what you do with it. Rollback instantly, automated backups, self-healing in case of corruption, and btrfs in single-disk or RAID 0/1/10 is incredibly performant. It basically allows you to utterly destroy your install and get it back up and running within minutes (if your snapshotting strategy is well devised, it can be as painless as a matter of changing the boot drive and fixing a single UUID entry in the /boot files, literally 5 minutes).

Note: on your root drive, on OS install you'd typically subvol /home, /var, /var/log (so as to debug externally), or domain folders like /var/www and so on and so forth. It basically makes most 'nix fs architectures constrain-free of most physical drive limitations.

[0]: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/SysadminGuide#Copy_o...

[1]: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/SysadminGuide#Snapsh...

[2]: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/SysadminGuide#Subvol...

Re: Ask HN: Anyone moved to PC-BSD (TrueOS) from macOS?

#40
I started my real computing journey with FreeBSD, and there are lots of things to love about the BSDs ecosystem (despite how firmly superior I think GPLv3 licensing is), but honestly I haven't been keeping up with them. I do remember that the underdog I have been rooting for is DragonFlyBSD, which has taken some novel approaches to the network stack and filesystem, etc.

It used to be, freebsd on desktop, openbsd/netbsd on devices, Solaris on the servers. These days though I think you might be in for a bit of a shock in the differences between the mach kernel Macos and current BSD land, especially depending on your use case. Can you elaborate on why you are considering this, and what your normal use is like?

Post reply on HN