Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Script Making It Easier Turning A FreeBSD Install Into A Working Desktop

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
    That being said the man power at work is less and they for some reason don't focus on the desktop that much and having to pull in drivers for modern graphics cards from ports is a big disservice. In conclusion the elegance of the engineered solution that is FreeBSD is something to be admired while at the same time their struggles to make an easy to setup desktop and refusal to incorporate modern graphics drivers into the core do the project a huge disservice.
    Nearly every user has his/her favorite DE/DM, providing n amount of iso's each release would just be more resource intensive. It's a bit like Arch Linux, build your own system, isn't Arch popular among Linux-users?

    Originally posted by fuzz View Post
    Hmmm... It's unfortunate that there's nothing to support flatpaks/snaps on BSD or I'd actually try one of these out.
    I'm at the point in my linux desktop where I can install pretty much distro and still be able to use flatpaks. It's very nice and I wouldn't want to go back to how it was before...
    EDIT:
    To clarify, I'd love to be able to use existing flatpaks. Not necessarily just implement something *like* flatpak on BSD.
    https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/p...freebsd.68354/

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by kpedersen View Post
      Not caring about UNIX in this day and age is still quite naive. "Commercial UNIX" (such as AIX, Solaris) on the other hand possibly wont be in this world much longer. Which is a shame because we can learn a lot from them but their "owners" are old fashioned people and will unlikely open-source them so the world can benefit.
      Unix actually had rather good phylosophy. Say I do like the idea of fast (usually C) independent programs, piped into each other or coordinated by shell scripts. At least it order of magnitude better than present-day hipsters approach where they throw whatever shithonrust megaframework or anything that is buzzword here and now, just to ditch it 2 years later.

      However, as time has shown, sometimes unix way also imperfect. Say, systemd can prepare arena for future process of even sub-hierarchy of processes, sandbox that and policy it. Since it being privileged entity capable of executing syscalls directly, it just in right place at right time to do that. Classic unix way somehow lacks appealing way of doing this. Making sandboxed processes and containers pain in the rear. Because classic unix-way approach needs a lot of access outside of prepared arena, which could already be unavailable. Ironically its *nix security and syscalls models that mostly lead to this state of things. At which point it rather process should be ran as root and sandbox itself. And then each and every programmer have to put same code again and again for each and every program. Which is clearly silly and overall very huge duplication of efforts.

      As for AIX, etc... imagine it's source now dumped to e.g. github. What is supposed to happen next? Sun attempted something like this, yet their time been long gone - so everyone who needed or wanted to lurk in source gone Linux long ago. Those who give no crap just use windows and enjoy MS backdoors, spyware and forced reboots, moaning eventually here and there (yes, that's what you get for the lack of control over your working environment - and its deserved, isn't it?). And before Linux came and showcased it can thrive, proprietary companies were just too greedy to share. So short-term local gains killed off long-term development and destroyed ecosystem. Not to mention lack of standard API for anything going beyond chroot() + setuid()/setgid() which aren't terribly great sandboxing.

      The future is created today. Be a greedy proprietary bitch today and suffer for that tomorrow - just because future happens without you, when smartest of us get fed up with artificial limitations and pointless bitching for the sake of nothing but arrogance. Some have to learn this simple idea hard way.

      p.s. btw, script is rather simple and clean and easy to modify. So its clearly not a worst solution I've met. However it isn't solution for newbies and casual users, and therefore it doesn't makes $subj user-friendly. At most slightly more geek-friendly, dev-friendly or so. Oh, not even link would load, so you have to view page source to get idea... he-he, pretty much in BSD spirit.
      Last edited by SystemCrasher; 08-18-2019, 09:41 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post

        Well, you could learn a lot from the simplicity Idea, but with mega/hyper strange projects like systemd, you can forget..
        To learn a lot in Unix, you need very qualified people working with them,every day..
        This machines are a lot less than x86 ones, which means that only a few touch them..

        But the reality is that majority of people that comes to Linux and tries to develop something ...this people came from Windows and are completely off the Unix simplicity and Ideals..
        In production with large companies. The vast bulk of systems are linux. Redhat seems to be popular for general purpose. SUSE dirrectly supports SAP, so SAP on SLES is very common.

        AIX, the big tuna, is widely in use. If you thought systemd was complicated or hard, you've never used AIX. Its a very powerful system, but its not easy to understand the slightest, and very hard. People have and made careers out of simply reading snaps.

        The advantages of Linux and GNU is its human readable UNIX. things like /proc and /sys are human readable. gnu --options make it easier to understand. config files are consolidated in /etc/, and often well commented. bash shell with tab completion. It also scales well in both directions. You can run linux on everything from embedded, to super computers and everything in between.

        AIX? Support is phenomenal. Its natively virtualized, so AIX is the software stack from top to bottom. AIX hypervisor, AIX guests, AIX kernel, AIX userland. The hardware is supported by IBM, and the processors IBM Power. IBM sells and supports the entire stack kit and kaboodle. When it breaks, and you can't figure it out. Call IBM, ftp them a snap and they take care of it. HD fails? The hard disk itself phones home, and its replaced within 6 hours by an IBM technician.

        Now, does Oracle DB run just as well on Linux x86 as it does AIX power? Yeah, it does. Does it have nearly the same level of support? No. Not even close. Even if Redhat does try their hardest to be the IBM of Linux x86.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
          AIX, the big tuna, is widely in use. If you thought systemd was complicated or hard, you've never used AIX. Its a very powerful system, but its not easy to understand the slightest, and very hard. People have and made careers out of simply reading snaps.
          I think systemd is over-complicated, in comparison..
          AIX is different in a lot of aspects, starting by the centralised idea of the ODM database( I have mix feelings about it.. ), intrinsic logical volume management, and so on..good memory management..

          some time ago,
          I was puzzled by a conference were the S6 init system creator said that 'almost no one uses /etc/inittab..'
          I work with AIX servers..
          And yes we do use '/etc/inittab' all the time.. it's a requisite!

          In AIX you can also analyse core dumps, to check what was wrong, or simply check the system errors report..
          each time you solve a problem, you need to clean it by hand...( the amount of failure is equal to yours..since you are the one in control.. ).

          To work with AIX you need to have a UNIX mentality and like simplicity/good taste( sometimes you also find complexity, its not all roses, but its solid.. )..
          The problem with a lot of people,
          Is that their reality is the MS Windows world were they have been experimenting with, and from a Unix perspective, they have a tremendous lack of good taste( ..this 2 worlds are very different.. ).
          Windows do a lot of workflows completely on contrary of AIX or even Linux, and so its also difficult to define a strategy when you don't know more about something..

          So is UNIX difficult?
          Depends on what you are comparing yourself with..
          If a MS Windows user makes it transition to Linux, and you give him a AIX system...it will be very painful, and difficult to understand since what he knows is Windows, he doesn't even understand Linux..
          How will he understand AIX, or embrace the Unix ideals..?
          To this user( MS Windows user mentality ), systemd seems a nice thing..
          To a user that embraced Unix Ideals long ago, systemd is outside scope..It will work against him..

          Linux won a lot of market share..
          Even IBM acknowledge that( Linux support for Power8/9, RedHat been a IBM asset..etc ),
          So I don't know what will happen to AIX, in the future( you can say the same about MS Windows server.. ).

          If you give me Linux or Aix to choose, to run a big Oracle database, and only to choose based on performance, off-course I will chose Aix..

          without the intention to start any Ideological war,
          But in simplicity/good taste,
          I regret to say, that AIX or bsd's world seems more sane than the "today's Linux" one..
          With Linux systems acquiring so many bloatware,
          I believe that bsd's are starting to become more interesting, and its threshold to the data center is each time smaller and smaller..
          Last edited by tuxd3v; 09-16-2019, 05:44 PM. Reason: complement..

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post

            I think systemd is over-complicated, in comparison..
            AIX is different in a lot of aspects, starting by the centralised idea of the ODM database( I have mix feelings about it.. ), intrinsic logical volume management, and so on..good memory management..

            some time ago,
            I was puzzled by a conference were the S6 init system creator said that 'almost no one uses /etc/inittab..'
            I work with AIX servers..
            And yes we do use '/etc/inittab' all the time.. it's a requisite!
            Are you really trying to tell me that lsrsrc, lssrc, startsrc, and stopsrc are easier to use or less esoteric than systemctl? WHAT?

            Then its sometimes used /etc/rc.d subdirectories? Then errpt? Then what is UNIX like about smitty?

            While I certainly do admire AIX along many fronts, especially its robustness, it is certainly nowhere near as easy to use as GNU or Linux. It's init system is far more confusing the systemd.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post

              Are you really trying to tell me that lsrsrc, lssrc, startsrc, and stopsrc are easier to use or less esoteric than systemctl? WHAT?

              Then its sometimes used /etc/rc.d subdirectories? Then errpt? Then what is UNIX like about smitty?

              While I certainly do admire AIX along many fronts, especially its robustness, it is certainly nowhere near as easy to use as GNU or Linux. It's init system is far more confusing the systemd.
              Linux use lots of files for configuration in '/etc'..
              Aix, one of the bigger differences.. the ODM database..
              Because of that,
              You have the situation that you are talking about, a SysVinit system( which is very simple, easy ), but with a database( a single point of failure.. ) were you can define services, weird ..
              IF it gets corrupted, its a pita to have the system up and running..

              The services..
              It depends what you want, if you want to start a service on boot, you can just use the good old model, and for example use the inittab to spawn or respawn it for example.. its a lot easier than systemd.
              Almost every time the ODM database is in the mix, it turns things more difficult to configure( for a user that is not AIX Native.. )..

              define a service ( using the odm database, ie: sshd ):
              Code:
              mkssys -p /usr/sbin/sshd -s sshd -u 0 -a "-D -f /etc/ssh/sshd_config" -e /dev/console -i /dev/console -o /dev/console -R -Q -S -f 9 -n 15 -E 20 -G ssh -d -w 20
              check if it exists is smitty like output format:
              Code:
              lssrc -S -s sshd
              check again querying the odm database( lower level check.. ):
              Code:
              odmget -q subsysname=sshd SRCsubsys
              start service:
              Code:
              startsrc -s sshd
              restart service:
              Code:
              stopsrc -s sshd;startsrc -s sshd
              You can list services like you do with smitty.. for example by subsystem 'inetd' with 'lssrc -ls inetd'
              The start and stop for services is easy,
              The creation of the service, seems more difficult,
              But if you compare to a systemd service file, ...its only a line, issued in the shell prompt..easy

              Then you have deamons.. I just use the good old inittab for that with services in '/etc/rc.d'

              Also the command options for Unix programs,
              Usually have less features by tool( in line with the UNIX philosophy )

              ksh, has some limitations in versions prior to ksh93( in 64 bits IBM power systems.. ),
              An example, a variable holding a integer, is limited to 32 bits signed integer, which means a positive limit of [ ( 2^32 / 2 ) -1 ], instead of [ ( 2^64 / 2 ) -1 ], yeah..

              The bigger differences, are related with the fact that it uses a database( odm database ) to store and control the system.. and GNU/Linux, chooses several files across /etc, to configure the system..
              Apart from that,
              It does have lots of specialisation in a lot of areas, wel..l its more difficult

              But in return you get a more optimised system, using less resources, a very good file system jfs2, storage managment top notch, load balancing, and so on, everything top notch( you had payed for it.. )
              Last edited by tuxd3v; 09-19-2019, 05:55 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                I'll give you third alternative for service management. IMHO far simpler and user-friendlier than your praised systemd.

                service stop/start/restart/status - service related commands

                define service you'd like to run
                servicename_enable="YES" in /etc/rc.conf
                servicename_args="some flags/conf options" in /etc/rc.conf

                Example service script (which is software-porter's problem, not user's. User has no need to go anywhere further from /etc/rc.conf)
                #
                # Add the following lines to /etc/rc.conf to enable the D-BUS messaging system:
                #
                # dbus_enable="YES"
                #

                . /etc/rc.subr

                : ${dbus_enable=${gnome_enable-NO}} ${dbus_flags="--system"}

                name=dbus
                rcvar=dbus_enable

                command="/usr/local/bin/dbus-daemon"
                pidfile="/var/run/dbus/pid"

                start_precmd="dbus_prestart"
                stop_postcmd="dbus_poststop"

                dbus_prestart()
                {
                /usr/local/bin/dbus-uuidgen --ensure
                mkdir -p /var/run/dbus
                }

                dbus_poststop()
                {
                rm -f $pidfile
                # The following two lines may be removed after 2018-01-01
                rm -f /var/db/dbus/machine-id
                [ ! -d /var/db/dbus ] || rmdir /var/db/dbus
                }

                load_rc_config ${name}
                run_rc_command "$1"

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post

                  define a service ( using the odm database, ie: sshd ):
                  Code:
                  mkssys -p /usr/sbin/sshd -s sshd -u 0 -a "-D -f /etc/ssh/sshd_config" -e /dev/console -i /dev/console -o /dev/console -R -Q -S -f 9 -n 15 -E 20 -G ssh -d -w 20
                  Well, here I am thinking it was complicated. Good thing that's super simple as, lets say something hard like an ini like 15 line key=value file where everything is in plain english.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
                    Well, here I am thinking it was complicated. Good thing that's super simple as, lets say something hard like an ini like 15 line key=value file where everything is in plain english.
                    In service management, I believe is a lot simpler..
                    It could be more complex, in networking/storage areas( but in AIX you also have a ton of possibilities.. ).
                    AIX is good, but it costs you both eyes, and maybe both kidneys, that is why Linux become so popular( not only, Linux has the big advantage of been open )..
                    But when you look into it, you see Linux using lots and lots of memory Ram, is heavier, and so on..
                    Nowadays Intel, Samsung, Allwinner( yeah it brought Micron ), sell Ram memory, and Intel also develops a lot for Linux( so its memory problems, never get fixed..its business.. ).

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X