My 2 Cents on GhostBSD after a couple of Weeks

[fmh]

Why try GhostBSD

Well I like trying different OSes almost like a hobby. If I find one I like I stay with it. Or if there is a specific need I try it out and use it for that need if it meets my needs.

What I like about GhostBSD

There is a 32-bit build. I don't have the latest spare hardware laying around. So if I run an OS it will have to be able to run on a couple generations back or more hardware wise. I test OSes out in VMWare or VirtualBox also but ultimately if I like the OS it will make its way onto real hardware.

GhostBSD has a light footprint with the base install. Important to me for what I stated above that I normally have older hardware to work with. The light footprint has nothing to do with usability. All the required software to have a fully functional machine is in the base install. This is a major plus. Install and be usable right away.

There is plenty of BSD Documentation available on the Web. The GhostBSD Forums assistance have been invaluable to me with software installation issues that I have had.



What Issues I have had with GhostBSD

Installation has been hit or miss with Ver 3.5. Ver 4 RC1 has been much better so far. Since Ver 3.5 is almost obsolete there's no need to rehash the issues. With Ver 4 I am still having trouble installing it on real hardware but as stated above most of the hardware I have is old and I lay a good portion of the blame towards the hardware. But the improvements from Ver 3.5 to Ver 4 RC1 have been huge in my experiences on real and virtualized. I do have Ver4 RC1 installed on real hardware a Dell XPS 400 and it is rock solid.

Installing software has been a chore for me. The Bxpkg Package Manager in Ver 3.5 worked but the BSD 9.2 repositories appeared to be messed up. So this isn't a GhostBSD problem but in the end it effects me the GhostBSD User. In Ver 4 RC1 I don't have a straight forward method yet to install software. On the Dell XPS 400 I messed around for an hour at the command line doing all kind of voodoo and now I can do 'sudo pkg install <pkgname>' and it will install the software without issue assuming the package name I type is in the Repository.


What I would like to see improved in GhostBSD

A Package Manager. The Bxpkg Package Manager in Ver 3.5 was fine to me. The BSD 9.2 Repository was at fault. It was proved out on the GhostBSD Forums that if you didn't use the Package Manager the software in the BSD 9.2 Repository was boogered up. I didn't try install and compile from Source. I may have had better luck with that. Since Ver4 uses the BSD 10 Repository this is no longer a concern. A Package Manager for the Noob, Casual, or Curious user to GhostBSD would be welcome. But if this isn't the focus of GhostBSD and is geared more for the hardcore command line user then this isn't an issue. For me a Package Manager would be a very welcome addition to GhostBSD.

[bsdkeith]

Good to hear you are enjoying yourself, fmh, I hope you stick around.

I believe there will be a GUI front end for installing packages, but the main push has been to get back to a single desktop (Mate) & getting it all setup properly.

Eric has done wonders with integrating this new installer into GhostBSD; now that he only has to concentrate on the one desktop environment, he has been able to give us an almost perfect Ver4.0 at RC1. I would also like to mention that his good lady also contributes to GhostBSD, so we have a lot to thank them for.

[ericbsd]

A graphical interface for Pkgng is a must have for GhostBSD, I will not rewrite a Package Manager for GhostBSD, I will write an interface for Pkgng, I should say I have already started. Yes GhostBSD needs a graphical interface for the new FreeBSD Package Manager Pkgng but not a new Package Manager.

Not all users like to mess around with CLI software and this is why GhostBSD is a project which is trying to bring FreeBSD power under a GUI. FreeBSD have lots of ground as a server OS with tons of powerful CLI software but no GUI for those powerful tools and it is why a graphical interface for Pkgng is must have, Pkgng is a powerful tool when mastered.

CLI = command line interface
GUI = graphical user interface

[fmh]

I believe there will be a GUI front end for installing packages, but the main push has been to get back to a single desktop (Mate) & getting it all setup properly.

I was never a big fan of Gnome desktop but Mate is very clean to me. I do agree having a single desktop allows more focus on other aspects of the project.

[fmh]

A graphical interface for Pkgng is a must have for GhostBSD, I will not rewrite a Package Manager for GhostBSD, I will write an interface for Pkgng, I should say I have already started. Yes GhostBSD needs a graphical interface for the new FreeBSD Package Manager Pkgng but not a new Package Manager.

Not all users like to mess around with CLI software and this is why GhostBSD is a project which is trying to bring FreeBSD power under a GUI. FreeBSD have lots of ground as a server OS with tons of powerful CLI software but no GUI for those powerful tools and it is why a graphical interface for Pkgng is must have, Pkgng is a powerful tool when mastered.

CLI = command line interface
GUI = graphical user interface

What's wrong with the Bxpkg Package Manager? It worked fine under Ver 3.5. The FreeBSD 9.2 Repository was at fault not Bxpkg. The software was boogered even if manually installing the software via Terminal.

[ericbsd]

Bxpkg used pkgsrc which will slowly die on FreeBSD, Bxpkg has a feature that is way too buggy, but did what we needed in the past for our project, and there is no plan to update Bxpkg to use pkgng. This is why we have removed that project from GhostBSD.

[Prince]

I agree wth the part that states "Eric has done wonders."

However, I think that it would have been much more interesting to have customized Xfce to look like Mate. Voyager Linux did a fine job of exploring Xfce's potential.

Not dissimilar to how the Purity edition consolidated those cluttered Gnome menu options, the same would be needed for Xfce.

Imagine possessing Xfce's geeky powers under the hood, Xfce's speed and stability, along with Mate's mature appearance?

Then again, for thought, the desktop seem to struggle as the Android x86 is approaching to make the desktop, desktop menu design, and ease of use appear clunky and old.

Another issue is during the bootup process... waiting for the BIOS to give up control?
Since when have unix waited for the BIOS?

Manufacturers have made it more difficult for unix by installing the slow and unix unfriendly BIOS.
I think it might be time to consider Plop Boot Manager to speed up the boot process and rid of the BIOS clutch.

[ericbsd]

I was struggling on the choice of MATE or Xfce, I had seen Xfce development to be not constant and stable and have decided to go for MATE. But now that I am maintaining MATE, I see that XFCE is way more easy to work with the code than MATE. I can say that right now I am stuck on 2 ports for MATE 1.8, I can't find how to fix that problem because, my C knowledge is limited and the reset of FreeBSD Gnome team did not help for the ports problem. I might Come back on my decision about MATE.

[ericbsd]

Oh and for the boot FreeBSD is going there slowly and with openlaunchd this will change lots of things.

[bsdkeith]

Personally, XFCE would be the better choice, not just because I prefer it, but also because the man behind it is, I believe, French, so if you had any problems, you could most likely communicate in your own language.