should I try a flavor of BSD ?

[beartard]

If you're going to try a customized, desktop-oriented install of a BSD, go for DesktopBSD over PC-BSD. It is the "purer" of the two. dBSD gives you a customized install of FreeBSD with everything set up and configured like you'd like it, using a nice, KDE desktop. On top of the FreeBSD base are the DesktopBSD tools, such as a synaptic-like package manager and a network manager. Since it uses the standard FreeBSD base, you can draw on support from that entire community. PC-BSD uses FreeBSD as a base as well, but it departs from "tradition" and uses its own packaging system.

But don't expect what you get from Ubuntu. BSD, because of its stability, is way behind Linux in some areas. You'd never see xorg 7.2 with compiz and beryl because, unlike the wild Linux-ites, the BSD group knows their system is stable...and they want it to stay that way.

Also, BSDs use OSS, not ALSA. I think Linux should still use OSS, too, but that's just my opinion. Apps that require ALSA, therefore, made themselves Linux-only. If you have anything along those lines that's essential (like music notation and MIDI for me) Linux might be better to stick with.

It is true that BSD can run some Linux binaries (like java, adobe reader, flash, etc.) but this comes at the expense of installing a significant portion of a Gentoo system under a /compat directory under BSD. Is it worth it?

[tchoklat]

I would like to put PC-BSD on an unused partition on my multi-boot system. Can I get assistance as follows?

I install it to an unused partition.
To continue to use my exusiting Ubuntu Grub what do I do?
Do I chainload or configsys or what?


tchoklat

[bAdSkAtEr]

I appreciate the non-warlike responses to a question such as "what is the best BSD?"

I have used OpenBSD and FreeBSD, and I prefer each for different reasons:

Overall, OpenBSD is my favourite. Very clean basic installation. Supposedly (one of) the most secure OSs available. Sure, that is up to debate, but OpenBSD continues to be the OS of choice for many folks making edge devices and other machines which sit at the periphery of a network. Fast, for most applications, and crazy stable. OpenBSD, so far, is steadfast in keeping anything which is non-Free out of their system (Google terms such as "OpenBSD", "wifi", "blob") I use it as a firewall/gateway, and as a Web server (Apache, MySQL, PHP, Perl, that kind of thing) and also email server. MySQL performance for sizeable (is that a word?) databases is on the poorer side in OpenBSD, though for the kind of data I keep it is fine. Several clients, however, need more juice to run MySQL, which brings me to...

FreeBSD. Generally, FreeBSD is a bit faster than OpenBSD in many areas. Certainly MySQL performance is much better under FreeBSD than OpenBSD -- even approaching that of a good Linux MySQL server. In a perfect world, I would have Web and possibly email services running on OpenBSD, and database services running behind on FreeBSD (or Linux, though I prefer BSD for production servers). FreeBSD is often considered to be (one of) the most stable of OSs.

I think someone mentioned this before, but with the various BSDs, think stability and maturity rather than latest and greatest. That being said, I *do* like my gadgets, bells, and whistles on my desktop, so I tend to use Linux there (at this time, Ubuntu 7.04).

[ertrules22]

I use FreeBSD for one reason only. Ubuntu is too large for one of my laptops. If you have an old laptop with less than 512 or 248 megs of ram, than I would reccommend FreeBSD (or another Flavor). It has the same GUI feel for the most part as Ubuntu, but a much different terminal and kernel design. Also, there is a lot more internal file editing to get it to work how you want (with a GUI) at the beginning. I do like the way they do installation though. You put in one disk to install FreeBSD, and another to choose from all the ports that are available. Than you choose which ports/packages you want.
I would rather run Ubuntu, but FreeBSD is fun to play around with, and is perfect for an old and/or slow machine.
(like mine)

[SlCKB0Y]

[QUOTE=beartard;2656106You'd never see xorg 7.2 with compiz and beryl because, unlike the wild Linux-ites, the BSD group knows their system is stable...and they want it to stay that way.

It is true that BSD can run some Linux binaries (like java, adobe reader, flash, etc.) but this comes at the expense of installing a significant portion of a Gentoo system under a /compat directory under BSD. Is it worth it? [/QUOTE]

I dont know where to start with this post. I was running FreeBSD in January 2007. I was running xorg 7.2 and Beryl. So you are WRONG! Now xorg 7.2 is in ports, which make installing it even easier than when I used it.

Installing a small linux compat layer to be able to run a good proportion of linux binaries......yea ...a total waste of time.

[Bachstelze]

Installing a small linux compat layer to be able to run a good proportion of linux binaries......yea ...a total waste of time.

I disagee here. It is a good, low-hassle way to run some Linux programs that are distributed in binary form without recompiling (games like OpenArena or NeverWinter Nights for example).

EDIT : Or was it ironic ?

[beartard]

I dont know where to start with this post. I was running FreeBSD in January 2007. I was running xorg 7.2 and Beryl. So you are WRONG! Now xorg 7.2 is in ports, which make installing it even easier than when I used it.

Installing a small linux compat layer to be able to run a good proportion of linux binaries......yea ...a total waste of time.

If I'm wrong, I don't mind admitting it. I still don't think you were using an xorg 7.2 port in January. The point I was making is that Linux is quickly moving along with the bleeding-edge eye-candy stuff that causes endless headaches and makes the system as stable as George Bush. The BSD variants don't include such nonsense officially until it's been tested and is working with very few flaws. The xorg bit was just by way of example.

[beartard]

I disagee here. It is a good, low-hassle way to run some Linux programs that are distributed in binary form without recompiling (games like OpenArena or NeverWinter Nights for example).

I agree it's low-hassle. I see it as a concession on the part of the BSD world. I never use it on my BSD systems, almost for ideological reasons, if that makes any sense. I'm an operating-system racist: I like my computers pure.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I have heard a lot of good things about the newest PCBSD, and I myself have debated on trying it

[ErusGuleilmus]

You should go with PC-BSD. I actaully just downloaded it today and am running it as a virtual machine in Ubuntu. It is really nice.