[PC-BSD Testing] samba module

Arthur Koziol A-Koziol at neiu.edu
Tue Jan 12 06:49:30 PST 2010


On 01/12/2010 3:30 AM, Stephan Assmus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2010-01-11 at 22:49:34 [+0100], Kris Moore<kris at pcbsd.org>  wrote:
>    
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Mike Bybee wrote:
>>      
>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Kris Moore<kris at pcbsd.com>  wrote: On
>>> 01/10/2010 17:53, Dru Lavigne wrote:
>>>        
>>>> system settings ->   samba: needs to prompt for admin password or else
>>>> everything is greyed out
>>>>
>>>> none of the buttons work in samba ->   printers when it is started
>>>> with kdesu kcmshell4
>>>>          
>>> kcmsambaconf (users tab is also still empty)--I will tell readers that
>>> these two tabs will work in a future version of PC-BSD as this is most
>>> likely a KDE issue that won't be solved soon
>>>
>>> The missing "administrator mode" button for system settings will be
>>> added in KDE 4.4. it sounds like :)
>>>
>>> However, in the meantime, users can run samba config by going to start
>>> ->  system ->  Samba Manager, where I've created an icon to run it with
>>> kdesu :P
>>>
>>> There are several 'patches' of this sort in PC-BSD, and I'm wondering;
>>> is this normal for KDE? I'm typically not a KDE user (I use it only on
>>> PC-BSD), but it seems that it lacks a lot of polish. KDE 3.5 seemed
>>> more 'finished' than 4 does.
>>>        
>> In the past it hasn't been so normal, but this particular bug just took
>> them a LONG time to get fixed, not sure what the deal with that was. Even
>> OpenSUSE and others we're having to do workarounds like this to make it
>> functional :(
>>
>> At least its going into 4.4 now, so going forward we can expect this to
>> be fixed finally.
>>      
> Hopyfully this doesn't come across the wrong way, I don't mean this to be
> discouraging, it's just an observation: When I have been installing various
> operating systems these past days, I noticed many faults, broken stuff and
> missing features. FreeBSD was an especially mixed experience. I installed
> all these operating systems to perform a specific benchmark. FreeBSD was
> great in that it was the best performer. It kicked Linux butt by being
> about 13% faster. What I also liked about FreeBSD was that the porters of
> Gnome left most of the default configuration intact so I could see Gnome as
> it was intended to work. Unfortunately, a lot of stuff is either missing or
> not working in Gnome on FreeBSD. For example, the users/group
> administration is simply not working at all. Since I was ignorant of what
> the "wheel" group means in FreeBSD and somehow managed to not have my
> regular user be part of this, this was especially annoying for me. In fact,
> if there would have been no #freebsd on freenode, I would have been totally
> lost facing most problems. A second computer browsing documentation was
> also a necessity.
>
> I've also used PC-BSD 7.1.1 and openSUSE 11.2 as KDE 4 systems. So far, I
> am pretty disappointed in KDE. The technology underneath it may be great.
> I've been programming with the Qt toolkit a bit to know it's quite a decent
> framework. However, while I've read great things about the innovativeness
> of KDE 4, I cannot *at all* see what's innovative about it in terms of
> end-user experience. I find the Gnome experience much smoother and much
> more geared towards putting the user in control.
>
> In any case, I am digressing, since I don't want these observations to be
> about Gnome versus KDE... instead I want to make a point about
> "distributions". From my observations, what seems to be the case is that
> distribution makers are somewhat detached from the projects that they use
> to put their distribution together. If something is broken in the software,
> complete features are being turned off, as was suggested already several
> times in the short time I've been subsribed to this list. On the FreeBSD
> platform, there seems to be this additional layer of the "port".
>
> As a result, the quality of the platforms/distributions I have tried, seems
> to be a direct reflection of how good the ability of the team to actually
> fix issues in the used software (or to extend the software with some much
> needed tools, for example KDE4 on openSUSE is so much more useful thanks to
> YAST2). I don't expect that line of thought to be a revelation to any of
> you, but I would urge you guys to take your time with the PC-BSD 8.0
> release. Try to fix not only mis-configurations, but also real problems in
> the software you are putting together and your OS will be so much better.
> And send the patches back upstream. :-) It may be a totally wrong
> impression I have got, but to me it seems like there is too little working
> together between various projects.
>
> Best regards,
> -Stephan
> _______________________________________________
> Testing mailing list
> Testing at lists.pcbsd.org
> http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/testing
>    

Stephan,

One thing you have to understand is that FreeBSD in NOT a distribution 
and you cannot at all compare it to the various and sundry Linux distro. 
It's the closest thing to real Unix and it's related standards. That's 
not to say Linux is not as standards compliant , but, IMHO, it's like 
comparing diesel to unleaded gas. I think historically, and as I 
understand it, the FreeBSD developers have used KDE because it's what 
*they* have chosen and what *they* feel works best for FreeBSD in 
general. They can't be faulted for what the KDE guys are doing and the 
direction they are choosing to take. FreeBSD is much more strict in 
terms of what goes into it while I feel Linux is becoming a hodge-podge 
and your viewpoint may be biased from the what you observe the current 
bleeding-edge distro developers are doing with Linux. The most stable 
Linux distros are usually a few kernel point releases old and use more 
baked components. FreeBSD is as solid as it is because it bakes much 
longer than what components I see going into Linux. It's also the 
Achilles heel in that *some* things come out much later in FreeBSD land 
than they usually do in Linux land. I've tried Gnome and KDE, and I like 
KDE overall. I think with KDE 4.4, all the stuff that people have 
complained about when KDE 3.5.x development ceased will *finally* be up 
to par. Qt 4.6 still hasn't made it to BSD as far as I know but it's got 
huge performance improvements, even compared to those of Qt 4.5.x. Linux 
has a lot more effort going into it than FreeBSD so it gets better 
treatment sooner than FreeBSD but the work that Kris and others have put 
into PC-BSD to get it to where it is today is nothing short of 
spectacular. When Qt 4.6 and KDE 4.4.x make it to FreeBSD (KDE 4.4 is 
contingent on Qt 4.6 being ported), we'll see some good performance 
parity and lots of bugs and annoyances get fixed that have made KDE a 
less than pleasant experience to use. For me, the KDE 4.x series is 90% 
there of where it needs to be. I look forward to KDE 4.4 and some of the 
neat stuff to debut in FreeBSD 8.1 (hello Grand Central Dispatch!). Just 
my 2 cents.

Arthur


More information about the Testing mailing list