What Berkeley Software Distributions do the BSD users of GH use?

[xtrafrood]

Which Berkeley Software Distribution do you use?  Can we call them BSD distros?  Or is that ridiculously redundant?

Recently I checked out nomadbsd-1.2-RC1.  I should probably preface this review so that you know that I'm still a first year BSD user, and sixth year Linux user.  But I won't.


NomadBSD:
Is based around FreeBSD and Openbox (plank and tint2 for dock/panel).  The documentation is to the point and much less hunt and peck when compared to the information found in the FreeBSD Handbook.  I've installed FreeBSD several times on a few different mediums. Can confirm, there's a lot to read.  Although this BSD is meant for persistent usb thumb drive type needs, it works fine on a HDD.  From what I see the 'persistence' is more of a BSD designed around flash storage rather than an actual SquashFS (Pupply Linux, Slax, etc.) based persistence OS.  I would definitely poke around trim documentation if you want to install NomadBSD to a SSD.  As of writing this NomadBSD is deployed with UFS filesystem and EFI for boot.


Obligatory Screenshots:

Default Programs:
Included but not limited to (some are either or unless installed explicitly with pkg): Firefox, Palemoon, Thunderbird, LibreOffice, Vim, Leafpad, Cantata (Musicpd client GUI), DeadBeeF, VLC, HexChat, FileZilla, Pidgin, Qtransmission, Thunar, PCManFM, Sylpheed, lxappearance (gtk theme changing, etc.), GIMP, Mirage, Xsane, Xfburn, Asunder CD Ripper, Geany, Gvim, Midnight Commander, qpdfview, Galculator, Sakura (terminal emulator), and obviously OctoPkg.  I've probably missed a few..  Holy moly.


Installation:
The installation was painlessly straight forward (2x).  Extract the '.iso' (actually .efi) from the .lzma file and then copy to your preferred storage device with dd.  No worries this is all in the documentation.  If you’re not comfortable with dd it’s fine--maybe skip NomadBSD for the time being (sudo dd can and will completely fubar a live system--backup all the things people).  However, if you're a Windows user you can skip dd and use Win32 Disk Imager instead.  For ports (_overkill_) you’ll probably need another BSD to resize/grow the root UFS partition BEFORE you boot NomadBSD for the first time.  The first boot establishes the home partition.  No resizing root after that (also #mkdir /var/db/portsnap).  Obviously the next step is to boot into NomadBSD.  Follow the guided configuration menu for keyboard layout, timezone, character encoding (.e.g UTF-8), etc..  I needed to configure /etc/rc.conf and /boot/loader.conf to jumpstart my Realtek wifi^[1].  Par for the fresh FreeBSD/OpenBSD installation wifi course.  I spied in both /etc/rc.conf and /boot/loader.conf module entries and other configuration goodies for ethernet.  Wired DHCP should be fine--I'm just to lazy to lug this desktop PC ~5.5m to my right to test.


Testing:
I saw around 450MB of RAM in use at initial startup, which IMO isn't terrible.  Ok, so not OpenBSD (~120MB) or Gentoo sleek but totally usable.  Thanks to current Firefox, even 4GB of RAM should be fine for NomadBSD.  From what I can see as of 2019-02-01, the project uses OctoPkg as a graphical front end for pkgng.  Though you could also launch Sakura (the default terminal emulator), and run sudo pkg update/install/upgrade/search if you'd rather keep an eye on all the details as you update or install new packages (I like to see the details).  Graphical performance in line with a new Kubuntu, Lubuntu, or dare I say KDE Neon installation.  Fantastic.  The whole UI has this very cool reverse ArcoLinux vibe.  Never thought FreeBSD could look this good to be honest.  My ‘tweaks’ were some basic zsh aliases, ranger config, and I switched the Raleigh GTK theme to Adwaita-Dark.  You may be pleasantly surprised with the smoothness of simple things like scrolling webpages, or window transitions.  Responsive UI even on a goram 7.2K RPM PATA HDD.  Like seriously.  If memory serves me (coffee pls) OSX 'borrows' quite a bit of code from FreeBSD..  YMMV.  Things I didn't test: multi-monitor support, touchpad, sleep cycling, battery indicators, and bluetooth.  All my Vim plugins are preset when I load Vim and they function as intended (nerdtree, airline, tabular, etc.).  I wasn't able to use my always wired Xbox One controller, or Wacom tablet with NomadBSD--I might be nitpicking at this point.  It’s a pen drive OS.  Overall a pleasant testing experience, and an all around beautiful desktop environment.  I think I’ll keep this one around for cross platform testing in the future.  With that said, there was this weird hiccup while chainloading with grub that I’d like to address.  It's configured to load correctly--just requires a few extra key presses.  Not a 'deal breaker' (whatever that means).  I'm sure the developers never intended anyone to chainload NomadBSD with Grub anyway.  <written from NomadBSD | edited with Leafpad/Vim/lowriter>


Security:
The caveat emptor (here be dragons).  I don't see a graphical front end for one of the popular BSD based firewalls.  Really I'd only expect to see that in Debian based systems (e.g. gufw).  Otherwise you're probably ok (sans typical FreeBSD exploits of course).  I mean, the setup 'wizard' does ask for both user password and root password.  No credentials are required at login by default.  NomadBSD.  Could be worse.  It's probably fine.


Conclusion:
Not bad for BSD newbies.  Great as a pen drive for the toolkit or as a spare BSD for testing software.  Obviously not great if you're the type to portsnap fetch/extract immediately after the first boot.  NomadBSD is not terrible on memory like I said before, and the modular nature of the desktop environment lends itself to future proofing.  NomadBSD is also a great entry BSD for the person that doesn’t want to read books on the subject of FreeBSD just yet.  Just awesome.  And speaking of large books, since NomadBSD is based around FreeBSD one can consult the FreeBSD handbook for those rare moments of system introspection.  Which is also pretty neat.  I'd say check out NomadBSD if you're interested in BSDs.  So there it is, NomadBSD.  Rad.


^[1]Additions for rtwn (Realtek) wifi

More

/etc/rc.conf

Code: [Select]

++ wlans_rtwn0="wlan0"
++ ifconfig_wlan0="WPA DHCP"
/boot/loader.conf

Code: [Select]

++ if_rtwn_usb_load="YES"
++ if_rtwn_pci_load="YES"
/etc/wpa_supplicant.conf

Code: [Select]

++ network={
++     ssid="myssid"
++     psk="mypsk"
++ }
No need to reboot

Code: [Select]

# service netif restart

[JP]

I only know of BSD since pfSense runs on top of FreeBSD. Never ran tried any flavor as a main OS though.

[SBJ]

I only know of BSD since pfSense runs on top of FreeBSD. Never ran tried any flavor as a main OS though.

That is the extent of my knowledge of BSD as well.
I wouldn't mind trying it out though. My Linux machine isn't getting any younger.

[xtrafrood]

One day I'll figure out the magical incantations needed to make OpenBSD use my realtek wifi device to connect to the outside world..  One day..

[JP]

One day I'll figure out the magical incantations needed to make OpenBSD use my realtek wifi device to connect to the outside world..  One day..

Oh gosh...the painful memories. 

[Leslieann]

You don't need to extract the ISO. You can use something like Etcher or Rufus (I prefer the latter) and write the ISO directly to a USB stick or use Virtualbox and just load it up in a virtual system straight from the ISO.



Do not confuse using ram for efficiency, that actually IS efficiency. You have ram there to be used, if no programs are using it, there's no reason for the OS not to take advantage of it. Would you prefer an OS that runs dog slow and uses 100 megs of ram or one that uses 20% of all your ram, runs fast and will relinquish that ram if programs need it?  It hasn't been a good way of judging an OS in quite a long time, modern memory management allows it to shift to where it's needed. This goes double for desktop environments and window managers. 

[xtrafrood]

You don't need to extract the ISO. You can use something like Etcher or Rufus (I prefer the latter) and write the ISO directly to a USB stick or use Virtualbox and just load it up in a virtual system straight from the ISO.



Do not confuse using ram for efficiency, that actually IS efficiency. You have ram there to be used, if no programs are using it, there's no reason for the OS not to take advantage of it. Would you prefer an OS that runs dog slow and uses 100 megs of ram or one that uses 20% of all your ram, runs fast and will relinquish that ram if programs need it?  It hasn't been a good way of judging an OS in quite a long time, modern memory management allows it to shift to where it's needed. This goes double for desktop environments and window managers.

I'm not 100% certain if you're referring to the review of NomadBSD.  Even though I am leaving the NomadBSD review unedited I'll address your concerns in this post.  If there was as reason to edit my review of NomadBSD (conflict of morals or inaccurate information) I would be happy to do just that.

Why I followed the NomadBSD documentation regarding the installation of NomadBSD (dd or Wine32 Disk Imager):

The first NomadBSD download as of writing this is nomadbsd-1.2-RC1.efi.lzma.  Which extracts to nomadbsd-1.2-RC1.efi.  Please take note this is not a traditional ISO file extension.  As noted in the screenshots provided VirtualBox rejects the .efi file extension, and I don't even see an option to few All Files with Etcher or with SUSE Studio Imagewriter (my favorite).  Thank you for mentioning Rufus (rufus.ie).  I just tested it and yes that does work (need to change the dropdown menu from ISO to All Files) in Windows 10 at the moment.  I showcased NomadBSD because it's a decent user friendly BSD that I thought could use some love.  Yes, OpenBSD in comparison is easier to install but I believe NomadBSD is a bit more feature rich by default and supports bluetooth and other devices that OpenBSD does not without some tweaking.

Current attempts to use Virtualbox and SUSE Studio Imagewriter with nomadbsd-1.2.RC1.efi

Why I mention RAM usage when I talk about a fresh OS installation:

For those with 8GB+ of RAM this is less of a problem.  If I were to go by Canonical's latest user RAM statistics 4GB of RAM is still pretty normal. Especially for our friends across the pond that might be more inclined to use BSD or Linux as their main desktop.  I've seen Gnome 3 use as much RAM at startup (fresh install/dedicated GPU/~1.2GB) as Windows 10.  And for anyone that loads into a desktop that automatically eats 1.2GB+ of RAM using Chrome/Chromium for research can lead to a seriously slow if not unresponsive desktop experience.  I myself have reached the point where switching to another user session (tty[1-7]) to close Chromium becomes impossible.  And the problem is exponentially worse for users with integrated graphics.  So I mention RAM usage of a fresh OS installation as a courtesy, not as a blight to those with 8GB of RAM or more.

[Leslieann]

I could have sworn I saw an ISO when I looked at it last night night... Not sure why they are using such a convoluted setup when ISO is so simple. A hash would provide security.

Rufus is pretty much the best image writer I've found since it lets you force MBR or GPT formatting (which it handles), handy when dealing with Windows. MBR installers tends to cause Windows to default to MBR and can be a problem on some systems with EFI.



Getting back to the ram, it's a bad metric that keeps getting perpetuated.
It scales with available resources, so your number is not the same as someone else's number with different ram. This is very easy to see in a  VM (all had 6 cores and an "ssd").

This took a while to do but was actually kind of fascinating as the numbers started coming in. I was only going to do Mint Cinnamon and Windows with 2,4 and 8 gigs but decided to try more as a result. Oddities? Mint being "better" than XFCE and Win10 for 1-4GB, yet the "worst" when you reach 16GB. XFCE stays relatively flat through almost all of it. This is precisely what I was getting at, some newer systems scale better than others, and by scaling, I mean better take advantage of what is available. Another interesting note is how Windows is programmed to function best with a certain level of ram, this has long been known, but is interesting to actually see in numbers.

Another interesting thing to see was that Windows seemed to function with only 256megs ram while Cinnamon and XFCE couldn't even handle running Apt update in terminal without problems with 500megs. Keep in mind that Win10 wouldn't actually let you install with less than 1gig (2gig for 64bit), and it would be miserable (see the notes), but it still actually ran. Disk IO was 100%, memory was at 90%, CPU was at 10% due to the caching, under normal circumstances the CPU idles at 1% with IO at 0%.  Mint requires a minimum of 1gig for their distros, now we know why


Mint 19.1 32bit  Cinnamon installer:
24GB of ram, the OS uses 1.8GB of ram. (note, this is more than Windows 10)
16GB of ram, the OS uses 1.5GB of ram. (note, this is more than Windows 10)
8GB of ram, the OS uses  1GB of ram.
4GB of ram, the OS uses 697MB of ram  (note, most "efficient" of the three from here down)  <---
2GB of ram, the OS uses 552MB of ram.
1GB of ram, the OS uses 490MB of ram. 
500Mb of ram, the OS uses 347MB of ram. System barely functional, even updating Apt update created glitches)


Mint 19.1 64bit  XFCE installer:
24GB of ram, the OS uses 870MB of ram.
16GB of ram, the OS uses 793MB of ram.
8GB of ram, the OS uses  747MB of ram.
4GB of ram, the OS uses 716MB of ram  (note, this is more than Cinnamon)
2GB of ram, the OS uses 652MB of ram. (note, this is more than Cinnamon)
1GB of ram, the OS uses 624MB of ram. (note, this is more than Cinnamon and system was sluggish)
500Mb of ram, the OS uses 287MB of ram. (System barely functional, even updating Apt update created glitches)


Windows 10 Pro 64bit installed in VM:
24GB of ram, the OS uses 1.5GB of ram.
16GB of ram, the OS uses 1.3GB of ram. (note these are identical, showing how Windows doesn't scale evenly)
8GB of ram, the OS uses 1.3GB of ram.  (note these are identical, showing how Windows doesn't scale evenly)
4GB of ram, the OS uses 1.3GB of ram (note these are identical, showing how Windows doesn't scale evenly)
2GB of ram, the OS uses 1.1Gb of ram.  (the OS was noticeably sluggish here)
1GB of ram, the OS uses 900MB of ram.
500Mb of ram, the OS uses 485MB of ram.  (still booted!)

256MB of ram, the OS used 236MB of ram  yes, it booted. SUUPER slow, but it did. Everything cached to the drive and while task manager took forever to load,  the start menu was merely sluggish. R.I.P. any drive you do this to.

[xtrafrood]

There are SHA256 checksums for each lzma/image provided by NomadBSD.  Sure an ISO would be convenient, but I would argue that the Slackware persistent USB script is convoluted by comparison.

Albeit I've no clue how accurate VM metrics are in regards to RAM usage,  I see that the 64bit systems RAM usage is relatively the same across the board plus or minus a bit here and there.  I definitely appreciate the effort--those metrics are rather interesting.  Though I'm still going to report my personal findings when I test systems in the future.  Maybe I should list out my hardware specs like I did in one of those NomadBSD review screenshots so someone could get a better idea of what hardware I'm testing with.  I would be curious as to what RAM metrics other users come up with when testing NomadBSD.  Obviously as I kindly mentioned earlier I wouldn't recommend dd to first time U*nix users.

I just downloaded a fresh copy of OpenBSD in hopes to figure out my Realtek pci wifi issue.  I'll spare everyone the boring 1K+ word review on the subject.  There are tons of reviews out there for OpenBSD.

[Leslieann]

VM software was designed for use in network operations center, they function pretty much exactly the same as it would in a normal computer. That's the whole point.

LXQT's ram being the same across the board has nothing to do with being 64 vs 32bit, and more to do with how the system and DE manages and uses memory.  Both appear to be fully or mostly loaded into memory by about the 700meg mark, the rest is probably just preload.

[xtrafrood]

I put some effort towards reviewing a BSD I believe in and you come in and toss shade all over it because some rank amateur (me) has the gall to post about technology they (me again) couldn't possibly understand.  I get it.  That's fine, no hard feelings that's just how the world works.  But could you please at least try to post about a BSD or of the subject of BSDs.. in the BSD thread.

[Leslieann]

I didn't come in and toss shade all over it.
I was confused about the ISO part, I still think that's silly, but that's on them, not you. As far as the memory goes, I'm sorry you think I was attacking you, I was simply trying to dispel a myth that simply will not die. People don't understand the memory side of it, that was my whole reason for speaking up, it was nothing against you or the review.

I haven't messed with BSD much lately, but I try and learn as much as I can about as many OS as I can, which is why I popped in. I did try a few the other night but then ended up spending 5 hours fixing a Mint install after a bad update. Maybe later this week I'll have a chance. I'll make sure Nomad is on the list.

[Findecanor]

I've been thinking of installing and hacking FreeBSD, but I have not got around to it because I'm a lazy bastard.

[xtrafrood]

The FreeBSD handbook is a glorious thing (NomadBSD loads the handbook in the first Firefox tab).  It's a hefty read though.

What really peaked my interest in OpenBSD was a Facebook post by John Carmack.  I was BSD curious at the time I read that post so naturally I wanted to see why a mastermind like Carmack would want to use such an obscure OS.

Wow, I feel silly for not sorting this wifi issue out sooner.  Finally managed to configure OpenBSD to use my random Rosewill Realtek rtl8188eufw usb wifi.  And MY RAM usage wasn't bad.  Less than 1GB with FVWM, Firefox, and a few xterm windows.  Though that's not really the point of OpenBSD, light RAM usage is definitely a perk.  Anyway, I'm going to leave some of my notes in the More tab in case anyone else on the interwebs has the same issue when using the OpenBSD 6.4 (installXX.iso) installation with an old rtl8188eufw.  Included a screenshot because that seems like the right thing to do.  As my Dad would often say, "Now what?"  Well, I guess the intention is to one day use OpenBSD as router/wlan/firewall for the network.  Even though that might be a lofty goal (at least a firewall).  Sounds like a fun project either way.

OpenBSD 6.4: Realtek rtl8188eufw firmware 'installation'

More

Found the root of the issue with a firmware not loaded kernel message (cat /var/run/dmesg.boot | grep <device> (.e.g ath0)) .

For urtwn-rtl8188eufw (Rosewill Realtek rtl8188eufw)--could work for other firmwares if needed
> # firmware.openbsd.org/firmware-dist/urtwn-1.2.tar.gz
> # cp /dir/urtwn-1.2.tar.gz /etc/firmware/urtwn-1.2.tar.gz
> # cd /etc/firmware
> Acquire urtwn-1.2.tar.gz from http://firmware.openbsd.org/firmware-dist/
> #$ <Magical incantations to mount usb drive and move firmware to OpenBSD partition>
> # extract urtwn-1.2.tar.gz to /etc/firmware
> # cp /etc/firmware/urtwn-1.2/urtwn-rtl8188eufw /etc/firmware/urtwn-rtl8188eufw
> # ifconfig urtwn0 up
> # ifconfig urtwn0 scan
> # vi /etc/hostname.urtwn0 (sorry nano fans)
> # ++ join "yournetwork"
> # ++ wpakey "yourkey"
> # ++ dhcp
> # reboot (if needed)
> $ ping -c 4 8.8.8.8
> # fw_update -v
> # reboot
> $ profit (rubshandstogether.gif)

I'm just an OpenBSD tourist at the moment.  Securing your connection is up to you.

[rowdy]

I used to use FreeBSD quite a lot on servers at work and home.  But I found hardware support lacking a bit for the weird hardware we were using at work, and we had a need to run Oracle Java which didn't work natively on FreeBSD.

Then I started using NetBSD at home, mainly due to the extreme cross-platformness of it on the wide variety of hardware I used to have, from VAXen to various Sun servers, even a Cobalt Qube.

Now I've gotten rid of most of it (I still have the Qube, and somehow accumulated 3 Raqs too), but they are running Debian, at least the last time I looked.

I've also down-sized considerably, and for hardware support I tend to run Linux, either Ubuntu or CentOS, although I do still have a NetBSD VM or two lying around for various purposes.

The FreeBSD handbook is fantastic!  And the NetBSD "man afterboot" documentation is likewise great.

[jaredj]

FreeBSD for storing my files at home; a little NetBSD VM at work for all the things that PowerShell isn't good at. (also Debian, Fedora, and OpenWRT at home.)

[xtrafrood]

Ok, I tried FreeBSD13-C, OpenBSD6.4, NomadBSD1.2-RC1, DragonflyBSD5.4, and NetBSD8.  Of those NetBSD supported all of my 2007 Acer hand-me-down laptop mobo. features.

NetBSD /dual monitor config., & Atheros card: not great.  Jumpy windows in XFCE.  Twm was fine.  Debian9: XFCE, KDE, Gnome, all great.  One day I'll have another Lenovo...


edit - Got around to FreeBSD 12 Release. 

Installed Mate and Gnome 3 meta packages with ZFS.  A little tweak here and there and it's not bad.  Works well with my wonky mismatched dual monitor configuration.

[joesventek]

Which Berkeley Software Distribution do you use?

I use OpenBSD wherever reasonable. I love it because of its simplicity and excellent documentation.

[xtrafrood]

Which Berkeley Software Distribution do you use?

I use OpenBSD wherever reasonable. I love it because of its simplicity and excellent documentation.

True. Of the vanilla BSDs I tried OpenBSD was simple to install (supported hardware) and boot to a GUI.  IIRC the OS itself is also difficult to exploit.  I see why John Carmack donated $10K to the foundation.

[dndlmx]

I'm a fan of FreeBSD. I like their approach and how they run stuff. The release cycle is more drawn out like a Debian, and not too many unexpected things happen. It's just a nice, clean, free version of UNIX.

I have messed around with OpenBSD on numerous occasions, but it's not my cup of tea. But it's hard to ignore the fact that a lot of innovative, if crazy and somewhat paranoid, stuff has come from the OpenBSD project.

[no, the other guy]

Although I don't have a BSD desktop today and my BSD servers (mostly FreeBSD with some OpenBSD in the mix) are gradually replaced by Solaris (well, illumos, to be precise), my switch from Android to iOS brought back more BSD into my life again. Well then, so be it.

OpenBSD is a damn fine desktop operating system if you have a matching WiFi chipset though.

[xtrafrood]

A little while after this post I shared a screenshot via Twitter (FreeBSD/Mate image below).  In the description I mentioned I fixed a minor kernel panic (typo in rc.conf or something simple), and one of the replies was this:

"there is no such thing as a "minor" kernel panic.
They are all huge."

Obviously coming from Linux, an OS community in which kernel panics are nearly a rite of passage, I was really confused.  Has anyone else experienced this kind of thing in the BSD community?



I guess I should have posted the FreeBSD BSPWM/Polybar desktop rather than Mate

More

*ridiculously tedious flex*

Though it could have been because there was a desktop (GUI), that might have been the issue.

[yui]

Apart from FreeNAS and a bit of pfSence i have not really used BSD, i tried to install FreeBSD for the hell of it, but never managed... (now 6 years ago)
Although would you consider Darwin/MacOS and the PlayStation 4 OS as being part of this thread, both are technically based upon BSD, not that i use either but by curiosity.