From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 23 15:00:12 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BCBA106566C for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:00:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tonyt@logyst.com) Received: from smtp.webfaction.com (mail6.webfaction.com [74.55.86.74]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FF08FC19 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:00:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pz0-f202.google.com (mail-pz0-f202.google.com [209.85.222.202]) by smtp.webfaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682B71C7557C for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:00:11 -0600 (CST) Received: by pzk40 with SMTP id 40so4943225pzk.7 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:00:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.89.16 with SMTP id r16mr7198882rvl.290.1261580410643; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:00:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20091223131733.GA34302@night.db.net> References: <541b7a870912150733m4bc34148j98790a6142d4521c@mail.gmail.com> <20091223032410.GA25393@comcast.net> <20091223131733.GA34302@night.db.net> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:00:10 +1100 Message-ID: <22166b750912230700s84ed17aw1dea98384ef56974@mail.gmail.com> From: Tony Theodore To: Diane Bruce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why BSDs got no love X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:00:12 -0000 2009/12/24 Diane Bruce : > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 07:24:10PM -0800, Charlie Kester wrote: >> On Tue 15 Dec 2009 at 07:33:49 PST Jan Husar wrote: >> >http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1123&tag=nl.e011 >> >> Others have pointed out that PC-BSD meets the need expressed in this >> article. > > I believe this is because of a common misconception of what FreeBSD is. > In essence FreeBSD would be the equivalent of the Linux kernel, except > we have a userland integrated. No one would claim that the Linux kernel > was a 'distro' that needed a GUI installer, yet some think that of FreeBSD. I think of FreeBSD as kernel/base/ports, the equivalent in the Linux world would be a mix of Debian/Gentoo. In essence, FreeBSD is an operating system (the primary distro of the kernel) with derivatives that enable specific applications (FreeNAS, PC-BSD). I don't think anyone would claim FreeBSD is a kernel and userland that required arcane knowledge to install and run. I'd compare PC-BSD to Ubuntu, but even kernel/base has no real equivalent in the Linux world. I still wonder about the drive geometry messages though; but after many years, have learnt that I can safely accept what the bios is reporting. True, I'm ambivalent about a graphical installer, but I've bootstrapped installs from kernel and network drivers (for fun), and I don't think the current installer is clear or obvoius without the handbook (if only we could get people to read it!). >> As for FreeBSD itself, the question must be asked: do we WANT to get >> more love from people who judge an OS by whether or not it has a >> graphical installer? > > No, but it would be great if there were some offerings in ports for > those who wished to roll their own 'distro' ;-). In many ways, the base/ports design is of itself a way to roll your own. Tony