GhostBSD vs. PC-BSD  [SOLVED]

Post your general questions or comments about GhostBSD here!

GhostBSD vs. PC-BSD

Postby sun » Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:53 am

Hi,

I was contemplating trying out GhostBSD as I've recently installed PC-BSD on my laptop, but nothing I see is actually compelling me to do it. Can anyone list some of the notable features of GhostBSD that are exclusive to itself? Maybe less hassle to get wireless to work out of the box, etc. - that sort of thing.

A bit about myself and my needs. I was unveiled to the SUSv4 world when I first installed Ubuntu. Even though I've been using SUSv4 conformant OSes for about four years, the command line interface is often a challenge for me. Though, over this course I've learned some bits of C/C++, Bourne Shell, Perl, etc. Still, I'm looking for an easy to use OS where most of the things I need are installed by default. I was shocked to have downloaded 3.4GB of PC-BSD to find that the default installation contains neither a web-browser nor an office-suite. Sigh. Compiling large source tar ### is always inconvenient. It becomes ### if the software is taking 2-3 days to compile on my old hardware. I've noted that the default gnome environment is outdated. I most certainly have no intention of compiling the latest GDK, GTK, Gnome, Glib and Dbus by source just because of the time it takes. I hope a binary package for the latest Gnome exists somewhere?

So, does anyone here think that GhostBSD will fit my bill? I'm looking for ease of use, and a sensible set of default software.

EDIT: For those wondering what SUSv4 is: It stands for Single UNIX Specification (version 4) Go here: http://www.unix.org/version4/overview.html. This link is also useful http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/.
sun
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:31 am

GhostBSD vs. PC-BSD

 

Re: GhostBSD vs. PC-BSD

Postby ericbsd » Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:34 pm

I GhostBSD 3.0 Gnome2 have Office have Libre Office to and Firefox For Browser.
Gnome 3 Is not ready under FreeBSD yet.
ericbsd
Site Admin
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: GhostBSD vs. PC-BSD

Postby bsdkeith » Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:33 pm

PC-BSD packages contain, or used to when I looked at it, all the necessary libraries for the package in question, therefore if you install packages that rely on the same libraries, you get multiple instances of them, making the system inefficient in my eyes.
Most BSD use shared libraries, just like Linux.
Linux user between 1999 - 2014; now a BSD user.
User avatar
bsdkeith
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:36 pm
Location: Surrey/Hants Border, England

Re: GhostBSD vs. PC-BSD

Postby adripillo12 » Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:13 am

sun wrote:Hi,

I was contemplating trying out GhostBSD as I've recently installed PC-BSD on my laptop, but nothing I see is actually compelling me to do it. Can anyone list some of the notable features of GhostBSD that are exclusive to itself? Maybe less hassle to get wireless to work out of the box, etc. - that sort of thing.

A bit about myself and my needs. I was unveiled to the SUSv4 world when I first installed Ubuntu. Even though I've been using SUSv4 conformant OSes for about four years, the command line interface is often a challenge for me. Though, over this course I've learned some bits of C/C++, Bourne Shell, Perl, etc. Still, I'm looking for an easy to use OS where most of the things I need are installed by default. I was shocked to have downloaded 3.4GB of PC-BSD to find that the default installation contains neither a web-browser nor an office-suite. Sigh. Compiling large source tar ### is always inconvenient. It becomes ### if the software is taking 2-3 days to compile on my old hardware. I've noted that the default gnome environment is outdated. I most certainly have no intention of compiling the latest GDK, GTK, Gnome, Glib and Dbus by source just because of the time it takes. I hope a binary package for the latest Gnome exists somewhere?

So, does anyone here think that GhostBSD will fit my bill? I'm looking for ease of use, and a sensible set of default software.

EDIT: For those wondering what SUSv4 is: It stands for Single UNIX Specification (version 4) Go here: http://www.unix.org/version4/overview.html. This link is also useful http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/.



I used PC-BSD for long and it is so "touched" that runs slow and only good idea is to use PBIs (like packages), if you decide to use ports the system dies, I mean you will never be able to make it stable.
The best option for desktop in my opinion is FreeBSD + Video Drivers + Desktop. and able to use ports.
So GhostBSD looks better for my case.
adripillo12
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:04 am

Re: GhostBSD vs. PC-BSD

Postby mzs_47 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:09 am

fatmac wrote:PC-BSD packages contain, or used to when I looked at it, all the necessary libraries for the package in question, therefore if you install packages that rely on the same libraries, you get multiple instances of them, making the system inefficient in my eyes.
Most BSD use shared libraries, just like Linux.


This was old, the new pbi version uses hash tables to load the libraries which are needed, if a lib is already there in the memory, it does not load it once again. So its just like any other FreeBSD OS.
But the problem lies in large package downloads and storing them. Which should NOT be an issue, unless you are short on storage space.

The other issue which I find will slow your PC are,
zfs with compression, by default PC-BSD uses zfs with compression, so this also taxes your CPU and memory.
This caused my PC(laptop) to poweroff by itself, as it heated up. But this should not be a problem if you have 4GB ram, fast HDD/SSD and recent dual core CPU with cooling.

Another thing as adripillo12 mentioned, you cannot use ports. But you can use binary packages. I have tried this and the OS was ok.
Again, I prefer binary packages, I cannot be waiting and wasting unnecessary time and energy for compiling when they are already available. Some may argue that there is performance gain(which is negligible), this should only be an option when you want to customize an app to your requirements.

What bought me to gBSD was that it is easy to use, easy to install yet very lightweight and compatibility with FreeBSD, so I have access to 24k apps.
mzs_47
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:07 am

Re: GhostBSD vs. PC-BSD

Postby bsdkeith » Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:51 am

UPDATE.

PC-BSD 10 now uses FreeBSD 10.0 pkgng package manager as default, so they say, so now you can have a system without using PBI's. I know this because I have just installed a FreeBSD system & two PC-BSD systems. However, if you use AppCafe on PC-BSD, you are loading a PBI not using pkgng. This does make a big difference in speed! I installed Firefox & PySolFC with AppCafe & they were very slow to load. I deleted them & use pkgng to reinstall them & they loaded up quite fast. So from personal experience, PBI's do slow the system down. :!:

Whilst I'm making comments about PC-BSD, I'd like to point out that you can install from a choice of Window Managers or Desktop Systems from the installer, you don't have to 'suffer' KDE :D ; read up on it in their documentation if you are interested
Linux user between 1999 - 2014; now a BSD user.
User avatar
bsdkeith
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:36 pm
Location: Surrey/Hants Border, England

Re: GhostBSD vs. PC-BSD

Postby balloon » Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:55 am

AppCafe was adopted in an update package in PC-BSD 10.0.2 shown soon.
AppCafe seemed to perform correspondence to pkgng in this version.

At first, please settle a problem at hand before talking about the problem of the rival.
When will you reply the problem that I posted?
When this problem is not settled, I cannot use new GhostBSD!
balloon
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:48 am

Re: GhostBSD vs. PC-BSD

Postby blackrosegul » Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:07 pm

I was shocked to have downloaded 3.4GB of PC-BSD to find that the default installation contains neither a web-browser nor an office-suite. Sigh. Compiling large source tar ### is always inconvenient. It becomes ### if the software is taking 2-3 days to compile on my old hardware. I've noted that the default gnome environment is outdated. I most certainly have no intention of compiling the latest GDK, GTK, Gnome, Glib and Dbus by source just because of the time it takes. I hope a binary package for the latest Gnome exists somewhere?
Pass your ccna certification exams in first try by using our guaranteed it certification & ccna exam cost and best quality fcc.edu along with goucher.
blackrosegul
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 5:03 pm

Re: GhostBSD vs. PC-BSD

Postby ericbsd » Sun Jan 11, 2015 12:30 am

Yes Gnome 3 is in repository.
ericbsd
Site Admin
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: GhostBSD vs. PC-BSD  [SOLVED]

Postby TheRaven » Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:51 pm

Gnome 3 has caused a negative stir and pushed forward a movement toward the Mate desktop. As far as Gnome is concerned Mate focuses on GTK 2 purposely and looks to continue developing the GTK 2 libraries laterally to GTK 3 aiming for comparative quality without the overhead. Systematically GTK 2 and GTK 3 should be managed globally within the Gnome project, but for what ever reason GTK 2 was dropped. Mate is not outdated GTK, but an active project continuing the growth and refinement of GTK 2 essentially doing what Gnome should have done.

Maybe the Gnome group was strapped for developers and couldn't keep GTK 2 and develop outside of the box with GTK 3 and came to a cross roads. Honestly, what's done is done and its time to move forward.

PC-BSD is in the mode of api development and software development abstracting and interfacing with freeBSD where the GhostBSD philosophy keeps users whom want a natural BSD experience and the convenience of a GUI. PC-BSD is more in tune with R&D philosophies while GhostBSD is purist/testing and the intersection of the two will inevitably lead a far more compelling experience from the end user vantage in the future. Both serve distinct purposes filling important roles in the progressive development of BSD whether anyone chooses to admit it or not. Desktop specifics like GUI shells have been debated with arguments like BSD is a server system, but alas every system is a client and server side implementation with views, service, logic and data layers including Windows, Linux, Solaris and BSD distros on the short list.

BSD in general is not about one implementation/distro over another, but rather that which appeals and fulfills end user requirement - this is the real post-UNIX philosophy.

Old world UNIX has evolved and so to has BSD as it was destined to from the start with grass roots in main frame computing made evident by the MIT inspired XORG server technology. AT&T, Bell Laboratories, Berkeley University of California, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, contributions from the Unix system 4 & 5 code pools and much more inside BSD. This heritage of deliberation and discernment considering the system's development still exists in the community and is a standard - sometimes it appears as though development is sluggish and things appear out of date, but in reality operations move forward at a steady, controlled rate for consistency and maintainability for the long haul.

The system you want to use is present in both GhostBSD and PC-BSD and both can be configured to work with Ethernet and WiFi quite easily. It is simply a matter of drivers most times and not the operating system that causes the headaches common to users unfamiliar with service oriented architectures (SOA) in contrast to the Windows Model View Controller (MVC) way of doing things. It takes a little patience in order to saddle up BSD coming from Windows and even Linux and sometimes it takes a little research and a strong will capable of asking for help.

BSD initially put me off because it looked crusty, old and a touch un-intuitive and then became an issue of freeBSD or PC-BSD over time maturing into BSD full circle. Following the advice of Raadt the openBSD project's lead and paraphrasing many BSD community members I use the BSD that suits my particular interests; right now, I use GhostBSD as an HLL development environment where RAD GUI tools are a plus - Lazarus and Code::Blocks play nice with GTK consequentially Mate thus it's a done deal. Additionally, GhostBSD comes equipped with the Linux Compatibility layer facilitating the often hated Linux specific Flash plugin, etc.

GhostBSD has quite a great deal going on under the hood, so there are selling points to having it around even if in a virtual machine (Qemu/Virtual Box) or tucked away on a DVD - a bird in the hand.

I'm done now...
TheRaven
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:07 pm


Return to General Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest