Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I use PC-BSD on my desktop. The reason that I chose it over FreeBSD is due to their upgrade process and their use of ZFS boot environments (beadm). And the fact that X "just worked" with their installer.

In terms of packages and uppdates: The way a pkg update on FreeBSD goes is that you do pkg-update && pkg-upgrade, and it updates your packages in place. In PC-BSD, it makes a new clone of your current root environment, and does the upgrade there. It makes this the new boot environment, and at reboot, you boot into the updated system. This is much cleaner, and allows you to easily roll back in the rare event of something blowing up.

I hope TrueOS keeps this.

Ugh, The name reminds me of Tru64 from DEC in the 90s..




> beadm

This is how it works in FreeBSD too. At least that's how I do it. beadm is not mandatory, nor is used "by default", but it is there, it's the only way I update.

So I see no advantage here.


> It makes this the new boot environment, and at reboot, you boot into the updated system.

So you have to reboot to apply the changes? Sounds familiar :)


Unbelievable, right? One could instead do a zfs snapshot and retain everything. You don't even need zfs for snapshots. UFS could do it for ages.


You can always overwrite in place (that was how it worked before beadm), but it's riskier.


> Ugh, The name reminds me of Tru64 from DEC in the 90s..

So I wasn't the only one!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: