Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:15:20 -0700 From: Predrag Punosevac <punosevac@math.arizona.edu> To: Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 7.0 installation, and Xorg in particular Message-ID: <474DCC58.8030808@math.arizona.edu> In-Reply-To: <eeef1a4c0711281129l3ad2eb3fw41c599edc0611a2a@mail.gmail.com> References: <eeef1a4c0711281129l3ad2eb3fw41c599edc0611a2a@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Freminlins wrote: > I used to find FreeBSD easy. What has happened? I have a couple of machines > I usually install new versions on, one is headless the other is a desktop > machine (which was a 100% reliable 5.4 installation). I boot the headless > machine using floppies, then install across the net. But something has > happened such that I now need five floppies, and I have to put the boot one > in at least twice. This wasn't the case previously. It now reminds me of an > OS/2 installation with its floppy shuffling. > > Then for my desktop machine. sysinstall crashes if I try to install x.org. > So I do a pkg_add -r xorg. After about 70 packages I give up. I only used to > have about 65 packages in total on my old desktop, now I need more than 70 > and I haven't even got x windows up yet. So I go off and have a look and > discover that x.org 7.x is modular - " > http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/unix/bsd/archives/xorg-72-on-freebsd-13661". This > fellow is talking about 300 packages just for x.org! This is nuts. No two > ways about it. Whoever decided to do this needs their head (or heads) > examined. It used to be so simple. Now it's not. If x.org didn't work for > some reason I wouldn't want to track down which of hundreds of packages is > missing. Who would? Also, I noticed that python as well as perl was being > installed. Is not one scripting language enough for x.org? Why are two > needed? > > I am really frustrated. I don't understand how installing X* this way is > supposed to be an improvement. What does it actually give me that I didn't > have before? Note my old system was reliable, as is my desktop at work (a > 6.2 machine). I was so frustrated that I gave up installing 7 on my home > desktop and am now in Windows land. It just seems so pointless. It reminds > me of the nastiness of Gnome, which has bazillions of packages, and Gnome > needs nearly all of them so why make them separate? > > I've done enough head banging tonight. Maybe Xfree86 is still available. I > haven't looked yet. > > > Frem. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > NetBSD still uses Xfree86 and complete installation including X is 200Mb. All packages of NetBSD are adjusted to use Xfree86. You system install crashed probably because of false assumptions on your part during the installation. 7.0 beta is NOT release. Xorg should be installed after the installation using ports or pkg_add . Ports three should be taken after the installation by portsnap utility. As of number of floppies I really could not comment on it. I did FTP installation that went without a hitch but booted a computer from the 5Mb CD. I really like OpenBSD FTP installation and the fact that you need only one floppy but in total they have five floppies depends on the type of machine you want to boot and for some you will need I think three. I do not know if creation of such specialized boot floppies would be possible for FreeBSD. It seems that younger generation does not even use floppies any more:-) What can I say. Major part of your letter is concerning XOrg which is not really a part of OS. Yes they went modular and made some significant changes. Best, Predrag
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?474DCC58.8030808>