GhostBSD vs. PC-BSD

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 I've noted that the default gnome environment is outdated.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: 427
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


Return to General Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron