Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FreeBSD 13.2

freebsd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–108 of 108 posts

Re: FreeBSD 13.2

#101

Post by jmort253 »

okasaki wrote: post #71
jmort253 wrote: post #32

I tried FreeBSD on ARM64. I couldn't get the browsers, like Firefox or Epiphany, to load without crashing. I'm not sure if it was something I was doing wrong or if the ARM ecosystem just isn't well supported yet. I was also running in a VM with QEMU. On the surface, FreeBSD sounds cool. I liked that I could boot directly to a console and then run the GUI only if I wanted to. Everything felt more modular. It reminded…

> I liked that I could boot directly to a console and then run the GUI only if I wanted to. You can do that in Linux... > Only I'm not sure I'd be able to use it as a daily driver. I felt like I'd be spending my time administering the machine and nothing else. Not really? I think the BSDs are simpler, change less and are better documented. Source: I ran OpenBSD on desktops in early 2000s.

> You can do that in Linux...

I think I _may_ have done that before. What I thought was interesting is FreeBSD just did that without any extra steps. When I "apt-get install" a desktop environment in Ubuntu or Debian and reboot, the desktop environment loads by default. In FreeBSD, I guess there's some startup scripts I would need to edit to start X and the desktop manager...

Re: FreeBSD 13.2

#102

Post by gruturo »

yakubin wrote: post #66
gruturo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A coherent userland (not without occasional warts, but without stuff being deliberately, maliciously ignored, broken or replaced to foster someone's agenda). ZFS as a first class citizen, without wondering if Oracle will show up and take the ball away. Jails, although that's not super relevant to the desktop experience. I won't mention systemd, although I truly dislike it (though I have no particular attachment to in…

For me, jails aren’t only technically better, but also have better ergonomics. With Docker: - I always end up running out of disk space, because of Docker’s love of immutable layers for everything — my jails just live in a normal directory in the filesystem, no need to overthink it; - I have no idea how to restrict /dev in Docker containers — I’m sure you can, but it’s a mystery to me; - copying/moving files between…

I agree wholeheartedly. I like jails a lot (and jails+ZFS even more) and I'm not a fan of Docker at all. But the entire planet adopted it and isn't even aware jails exist.

You won't find a premade pihole jail, a downloadable HomeAssistant jail, etc. That's what I mean with ecosystem. Being the better solution is surprisingly unimportant when nobody knows you exist.

Re: FreeBSD 13.2

#103

Post by bionsystem »

sph wrote: post #39
chongli wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used Arch for a number of years before switching to a Mac when I went back to school. At some point I may go back to Linux or FreeBSD (I've used both!) but I'll never go back to rolling releases. The whole reason I switched to Mac was that I got tired of things breaking constantly due to the never-ending updates. And if you put things off then you end up getting a whole lot of breakage all at once. No, I would pref…

The only sane Linux setup for a workstation is an immutable distro like Silverblue/Kinoite, and an Arch Linux toolbox (or any distro you prefer). I will die on this hill, and whoever disagrees has never tried what honestly feels like the future. My Linux PC is as stable and reproducible as my iPhone. One day I will finish my Fedora Silverblue master guide that has been a draft for months... (No, sorry, NixOS ain't be…

I can't figure out a decent workflow for Kinoite. It's probably a little bit too much work for me to change my habits right here right now. But I agree that this is a great setup and ultimately, what I want to aim to. Complete separation of user and OS, containerized apps everywhere, and so forth. But my quick trial of a few hours was too short to adapt. Also I love excel too much unfortunately.

Re: FreeBSD 13.2

#104

Post by anthk »

Zababa wrote: post #93
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://surf.suckless.org/ ah, the memories this + dwn https://dwm.suckless.org/ then I said to myself "why am I wasting so much time tinkering with stuff that gains me nothing" and moved on in my life

I had the opposite experience with dwm. I don't like cycling through overlapping windows on the same "desktop", and I don't like taking the time to place windows correctly. With 2 screens, I have 18 "desktops", which is more than enough, and the automatic tiling is exactly what I want. On the other hand when I use GNOME/KDE/Windows I'm always losing lots of time navigating. Also I must have some kind of curse because…

This, but cwm for floating instead of tiling, almost the same philosophy. Set keybindings, fire, forget. I use Wmaker because that was my first WM and I like it, but CWM it's my "failsafe" wm when things break.

Re: FreeBSD 13.2

#105

Post by okasaki »

jmort253 wrote: post #101
okasaki wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I liked that I could boot directly to a console and then run the GUI only if I wanted to. You can do that in Linux... > Only I'm not sure I'd be able to use it as a daily driver. I felt like I'd be spending my time administering the machine and nothing else. Not really? I think the BSDs are simpler, change less and are better documented. Source: I ran OpenBSD on desktops in early 2000s.

> You can do that in Linux... I think I _may_ have done that before. What I thought was interesting is FreeBSD just did that without any extra steps. When I "apt-get install" a desktop environment in Ubuntu or Debian and reboot, the desktop environment loads by default. In FreeBSD, I guess there's some startup scripts I would need to edit to start X and the desktop manager...

Yeah, Debian will auto-configure that for you. Distros like Arch do not.

Well, it depends on what you install. If you install just xorg and a window manager, it usually won't boot into it.

If you install GNOME or KDE that ship with a display manager, it will be configured to boot into it. That is what you would usually want though.

Re: FreeBSD 13.2

#106

Post by RealStickman_ »

jmort253 wrote: post #101
okasaki wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I liked that I could boot directly to a console and then run the GUI only if I wanted to. You can do that in Linux... > Only I'm not sure I'd be able to use it as a daily driver. I felt like I'd be spending my time administering the machine and nothing else. Not really? I think the BSDs are simpler, change less and are better documented. Source: I ran OpenBSD on desktops in early 2000s.

> You can do that in Linux... I think I _may_ have done that before. What I thought was interesting is FreeBSD just did that without any extra steps. When I "apt-get install" a desktop environment in Ubuntu or Debian and reboot, the desktop environment loads by default. In FreeBSD, I guess there's some startup scripts I would need to edit to start X and the desktop manager...

You can just disable the login manager on Debian and you'll start at the TTY every time.

Re: FreeBSD 13.2

#107

Post by ranger_danger »

VagueMag wrote: post #72
fullstop wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ZFS as a first class citizen, without wondering if Oracle will show up and take the ball away. Is this still true now that FreeBSD is using the ZoL/OpenZFS tree?

The FreeBSD installer provides out of the box options to put the root filesystem on an encrypted ZFS partition. The last I looked into doing root-on-encrypted-ZFS on Linux it was a lot more involved.

Ubuntu 22.04 at least, supports root-on-encrypted-ZFS right from the installer and it worked just fine for me.

Re: FreeBSD 13.2

#108

Post by thecosmicfrog »

veidr wrote: post #70
slackfan wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is nice historical revisionism, considering Canonical was all in on upstart.

No, the parent you are replying to meant that Canonical only gave up on upstart and accepted defeat (and thus went with systemd) when Debian made that decision.

Correct - that was what I meant. I remember the init system debates all too well.
Post reply on HN