OSNews

"7. I selected custom partitioning with this layout (common in unix land):

/
/boot
/usr
/var
SWAP

I'd like to ask you two questions:

First, where's your home partition (typically /home)?

Second, why do you place kernel and modules on a separate partition (/boot) and not onto the root partition (/)?

In most cases you would have something like this:

/dev/ad0s1b = SWAP
/dev/ad0s1a = /
/dev/ad0s1d = /var
/dev/ad0s1e = /usr
/dev/ad0s1f = /home

The root partition / holds /boot as well as /stand or /etc and the entry points for further mount stages.

"and after installation I was greeted with following error message:

"No /boot/loader
No /boot/kernel/kernel"

Maybe because it's not located on the boot device /; the /boot parition is not mounted and therefore /boot/loader and /boot/kernel/kernel cannot be found. Try changing settings in /boot/loader.conf, see the "currdev" and "rootdev" settings documented in /boot/defaults/loadder.conf.

"I suggest to make default partitioning scheme at least for beginners- one root partition is considered lame in unix."

Completely right.

"Further suggestions: [...] 5. Autologin function sould be optional, not selected by default."

But I think newbies and Steven Q. Average like it the way it is. :-)

Edited 2006-11-26 20:52

[quote]First, where's your home partition (typically /home)? [/quote]
On FreeBSD /home is usually a symlink to /usr/home
And where is /tmp? Without a /tmp you may fill your /

[quote]First, where's your home partition (typically /home)? [/quote]
On FreeBSD /home is usually a symlink to /usr/home
And where is /tmp? Without a /tmp you may fill your /

I can mount home partition later from other hard drive or over NFS. /tmp partition is 800MB, memory based, swap space backed, virtual filesystem in PC-BSD by default.

"On FreeBSD /home is usually a symlink to /usr/home"

That's not a good idea. It's better to have user data (/home) separated from system data (/usr = UNIX system ressources) partitionally. /home should reside on a different partition (or even hard disk, or NFS if you like). I don't know why FreeBSD does this by default, it should be changed anyway.

"And where is /tmp? Without a /tmp you may fill your /"

Good point! You're right, if / is small enough, let's say with 128 MB (which is enough), it would be filled very quickly.

There are two good ways to have /tmp moved away from the root partition /.

First way is to have /tmp attached to a memory disk. It could work similar to this:

# vnconfig -e -s labels -S 1024m vn1
# disklabel -r -w vn1 auto
# newfs /dev/vn1c
# mount /dev/vn1c /tmp
# chmod 4777 /tmp

It's fast and does not need to be cleaned automatically or manually. But it consumes RAM, of course.

Second is to have it symlinked to /var/tmp where /var is big enough. /tmp should be able to hold enough data, so the /var partition could be 2 GB - that should be enough.

(The implicit third way is to have a real /tmp partition.)

[/i]That's not a good idea. It's better to have user data (/home) separated from system data (/usr = UNIX system ressources) partitionally. /home should reside on a different partition (or even hard disk, or NFS if you like). [/i]

I heard this mantra before, when I first installed linux, so it was a little weird when I saw home under /usr in FreeBSD. It is similar, albeit less dangerous than the www should be under /var

I think it makes sense with linux distroes where a system update means a clean reinstall (and sadly, most linux distroes I have tried fall in to that category) - but it doesn't make any sense with FreeBSD, where the preferred way of upgrade is via a buildworld, buildkernel, installkernel, installworld mechanism.

Having your data on a separate partition isn't safer either. In 99.99% of data corruptions are due to hardware failures, so having a separate partition on the same disk won't help you there. It isn't safer either unless you never ever execute scripts or run progs from your home partition (because in that case, you may argue for mounting /home with noexec).

I don't know why FreeBSD does this by default, it should be changed anyway.

That's a somewhat arrogant advice, because you didn't try to understand why home is under usr in the first place. Besides the reasons cited above (/usr is as good as any) it makes a lot of sense under FreeBSD. >90% of FreeBSD users use ports to install software. Ports is under /usr. Software needs space to build, some more than others (openoffice needs ~8 Gb!). That means that you have to create a /usr partition large enough to accomodate possible future uses - say a 12Gb usr. Now that 8Gb remains unused for the better part of the year (I don't build ooo.o more than twice a year). Having /home under /usr I can use that space, and when I need it, I can simply move my data to external storage (USB, DVD, etc.).

In fact, that is what you are supposed to do if your data is important for you: do regular backups (which again, obsoletes the /home should be on a separate partition argument).

Also, you have to understand why separate partitions exists under unix - it's not because of security for the most part (except for logging for instance). It is because you can have different filesystem parameters for different usage patterns. Having /var on a separate partition (relatively small, but with frequent writes) allows for tuning for it's specific use characteristics. Similarly, having /home on the same partition as /usr makes sense, because you have both static and changing data on both (downloads, edits on /home, installed software and software builds on /usr).

So no, you don't have to have /home on a separate partition. It has no significant benefits on FreeBSD - in fact, it has only downsides, like wasted space (we are talking gigabytes here). In fact, if you have a good linux distro (like archlinux) which has a similar update mechanism (some say debian is like that, but I have botched my system with dist-upgrade more than once), it doesn't make sense on linux either. It may have been OK years ago before linux distroes were not mature enough to handle system updates (some are still not there), and when external storage was expensive and rare, but when you can have 4Gb of data moved to a <1$ DVD in less than 5 minutes, you don't have to say things like "it should be changed anyway" Especially for a desktop oriented distribution like PC-BSD

EDIT> read man:tuning for further details about why separate partitions exists. It is also a good example why you should first think of how you will use your system, and then decide what layout is best for it, not the other way around. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=tuning&apropos=0&s...

Edited 2006-11-27 14:57

Adding one more point, this release doesn't seem to install in a Qemu virtual machine (0.8.2). It either doesn't continue booting or it stops at configuring X. (this done with and without using kqemu)

I would love to see a version with Gnome as well. I like KDE a lot but having a choice of desktop managers would be nice.

Either way, PC-BSD seems to be coming along nicely.

Its about time to add Gnome support to PC-BSD.

Nah.

I think for this kind of project you're better off picking a DE and concentrating on making the best-integrated environment you can based around whichever DE you chose.

Why waste resources on integrating and supporting multiple DEs when this time and effort can be better spent elsewhere?

I would like to see the PC-BSD guys take some time to clean up their website though, so it looks a little more professional.

Why focus on KDE? It is not as that good.

Thay should give user a at least minimal choise:
Gnome
Xfce
KDE

I'd like to see most of the Window managers like E17, Icewm, XFCE, GNome ported on PCBSD...

E17, XFCE, Gnome are WMs?

Then why even bother PC-BSD? go FreeBSD all the way and have everything build for YOU not for masses.

Edited 2006-11-27 11:47

From what I read on their forum, they won't offer any other D.E. any time soon because they have other priorities and probably because they want to have a unified product. If you want a Gnome or XFCE desktop, you're better off using FreeBSD.

From what I read on their forum, they won't offer any other D.E. any time soon because they have other priorities and probably because they want to have a unified product. If you want a Gnome or XFCE desktop, you're better off using FreeBSD.

We ALREADY offering other window managers BY DEFAULT. FluxBox is default if you choose "server" installation method.

First way is to have /tmp attached to a memory disk. It could work similar to this:

# vnconfig -e -s labels -S 1024m vn1
# disklabel -r -w vn1 auto
# newfs /dev/vn1c
# mount /dev/vn1c /tmp
# chmod 4777 /tmp

It's fast and does not need to be cleaned automatically or manually. But it consumes RAM, of course.

You guys actually read what I wrote already? We use SWAP backed /tmp and it won't consume that much memory.

/etc/rc.conf:
# tmpmfs Flags
tmpmfs="YES"
tmpsize="800m"
tmpmfs_flags="-S"

That's all- this is default in PC-BSD.

Edited 2006-11-27 13:27

I really like the idea of having GNome into BSD... The speed at which PCBSD is catching... Linux guys need to worry on desktop side.... and also need to learn how they are making things easy to use. I'd like to see most of the Window managers like E17, Icewm, XFCE, GNome ported on PCBSD...
Infact PCBSD need not have to give pre-installed these packs... if they could just provide pbi file for it and let user install it! to experience how easy it is to install a package in PC-BSD!

"I'd like to see most of the Window managers like E17, Icewm, XFCE, GNome ported on PCBSD..."

At least on slower machines it would be nice to have something faster than KDE, for example XFCE or even IceWM. This would be a good attempt to have more people using PC-BSD whose PCs are not the newest ones.

BTW: WindowMaker would be great too. :-)

I second that - a nice, user friend BSD with GNOME. an idea i've had floating around in my head (as well as a friend of mine) for years, but niether of us have the talent to do a damn thing about it.

All in good time

I tried modular xorg on freebsd (see http://wikitest.freebsd.org/ModularXorg) - and it worked fine, but failed to build beryl for some reason. But they are (I mean FreeBSD xorg port guys) are working on it (latest modular xorg + beryl goodies). Once they hit official ports, you'll see them in PC-BSD. Probably in 1.4.

People end up using GNU software on PC-BSD.

About what GNU software you are talking about?