~rjpugh

[link]

Over the last several years, I’ve used just about every major operating system in the world of x86 computing, to varying degrees of success. Those of you who know me personally know that this has simultaneously been a source of joy and frustration. Well, throughout it all, there was one operating system that I, for no apparent reason, never tried: BSD. I’ve tried a few of the commercial underdogs (BeOS, OS/2), different shell enhancements, and several variations of Linux, but for some reason I never tried Tux’s lesser-known half-brother, Beesdie {pronounced similar to “beastie”}. A few weeks ago, that changed.

I've long been a computer geek. In addition to trying several different operating systems, I've tinkered with a variety of hardware. I used to get a charge out of tinkering with a computer and getting it to do new and wonderful things, but recently I've come away thinking "that was more trouble than it was worth." Now I'm interested in function. Have I turned lazy? Perhaps. It's also possible that I would rather spend more time with my wife and family. When I use my computer, I want it to run applications on it, rather than reconfigure the damn thing to run said applications. I don't want to invest that kind of time any more.

Some months ago I seriously thought of switching over to a Macintosh, and it's not hard to explain why. I am sick and tired of Windows. With it's bug-ridden registry, bloated applications, and constant need for troubleshooting, I've seen more dirty windows than the Sears Tower. However, a Macintosh tends to be far more expensive than it's x86-based counterpart; the magic apple was out of my checkbook's reach. So, I had to stick with traditional PC- architecture. In theory, Linux should be the answer for those who need to use PC-architecture, but don't want to fork out the money.

But for me, there was another problem. As tired as I am of Windows, I'm equally - if not more - tired of Linux. With it's fussy configuration files, arcane module dependencies, lack of consistent support, and compatibility issues, there have been several times that I've wanted to eat rotisserie-style penguin for dinner. All that constant reconfiguring I mentioned? That was largely in Linux, not Windows. In getting away from Window's buggy program registry, I encountered Linux's Byzantine file dependency system. Some trade.

However, I still needed an operating system with at least some level of support, and that could work on modern hardware; that ruled out most of the minor players. I have Windows XP, but I've had too many breaks to ever totally trust it. And I wasn't going to go back to Linux unless there was no other option. Fortunately, there was one option I hadn't tried: the little red daemon from Berkeley.

So, a few weeks ago I installed PC-BSD 1.4.1 on my Pentium IV, as a multi-boot option. I had some problems getting it to launch, but most of those were the result of my computers BIOS rather than any flaw in BSD, or Windows XP for that matter. My earlier experience with Linux had taught me how to correct or work around problems of this type, but any newbie would have been thrown out of the game. I say that to point out that despite what it's advocates say, BSD is still best left to users with some experience and/or a lot of guile. This isn't an operating system for the timid.

Anyway, after some tinkering, PC-BSD fired up like a charm. It took a little while to get the GUI looking and working the way I wanted it to, but the experience was comparable to Windows-XP. In this case, that's a good thing, because configuring a Linux instillation was often a total nightmare. in Linux, just getting the GUI to work at all can require Herculean determination. BSD let me get down to business in a relatively short time.

Then I tried the PC-BSD *pbi system, which seems to be a variation of FreeBSD's standard package system. The first program I tried worked without a hitch. During the second program install I received a warning about a file dependency. Since I was connected to the Internet, the system asked if I wanted to retrieve the package now or later. I told it to retrieve the package, then try the install again. Which it did, and the program ran just fine. Windows-XP's install shield scripts (or whatever they call them) do a similar thing, and usually work fine.

By contrast, I found that installing a *rpm or *deb file in Linux was always a crap-shoot (though less with *deb than *rpm). Half the time I would get dependency errors, with very little information about how to resolve them. By contrast, BSD let me know exactly what I needed, what needed to be updated, and offered to get all the components for me. If only I could get such service in the local restaurants.

Which brings me at last to the Ports. PC-BSD offers the Ports directory as an optional component during install. I knew that BSD users spoke highly of the Ports system, so I opted to include it. Back in my Linux days there was a particular graphical file manager that I really liked, so I was naturally pleased to see that it had been included in the port tree. Using an administrator terminal, I told my system to install the beast, half expecting it not to work. For roughly 20 minutes that terminal window was full of rapidly scrolling gibberish, which told me that at least it was trying. When the scrolling finally ended, I held my breath, and tried to call up the program. I was presented with two quick questions confirming some configuration options, and then my old file managing friend launched perfectly. I was amazed! In Linux, I had to tweak and fiddle for hours just to get the thing to compile! Here it was, running clean and strong after minimal effort. I was rapidly approaching Nirvana.

Another interesting happened to me while in the Ports. Just for fun, I tried to install a very high-end graphical system navigator, the X-Cruiser. The system went through the Ports scripts as usual, but I received several warnings. When I tried to launch the program, the system couldn't handle it. One of my x-terminals was displaying several messages informing me of what had happened down in the X11 engine room, and with the help of some on-line documentation I was able to decipher the messages, and one in particular: "incompatible firmware." The core issue was my video card: it just didn't have the necessary firmware, and the program wasn't going to work. Ever. PC-BSD had essentially said "sorry boss, I can't handle this one."

Strange as this may sound, I found that oddly refreshing. BSD had told me, flat out, that this program wasn't going to work no matter what I tried. Linux would have crashed the program with a set of cryptic error messages that I would have been compelled to decipher, and would have left me guessing. BSD spared me that frustration. I said "oh well," told my system to remove the dead weight program, then went on my way.

To sum up, my experience with BSD has so far been a very positive one. It's fast, feature rich, and very reliable. In terms of usability, it gives Windows-XP a real challenge, and leaves Linux completely in the dust. In just a few sessions, I got my PC-BSD instillation to work exactly the way I want it to work, and I can change things with minimal effort should the mood take. I never achieved that in Linux, even after months of using it.

I'm sold. On my home machine, Tux's office is closed. Beesdie's office is open.