This point, I would like to voice my disagreement about. The ports (as in software packages, not TCP/IP variety) are something that is part of the FreeBSD project. I would think that the Foundation has quite a bit of say in how that part of the project is managed. I know that the ports are a rather open and unwieldy part of the FreeBSD project, so I hope the Foundation will put in some effort into implementing a bit more discipline into ports.
While this is a desirable goal, it is also a huge amount of work. Perhaps it would make sense to have a two-tier system, with an upper tier of audited and supported ports/packages, and a lower tier of volunteer-prepared and maintained ones?
Indeed, there is, and our code relies on it.
depend does not work across different files in jail.d though, that was my point.OpenBSD does audit their ports collection, IIRC. Limiting what goes into the ports tree is a good idea. OpenBSD's version of KDE seems to lag behind FreeBSD's, though.
I don't think so but could be wrong.
Ah, my apologies. I missed that in my reading.
The only thing I can think of is traffic shaping support using dummynet for pf. I believe that's already in progress:
I second this. I also tried both with Openbsd and Freebsd and failed. It would be so nice to be able to replace the Chinese plastic boxes running some dodgy version of Linux with a nice PC Engines box running vanilla BSD.
In this particular thread it's fine to make such requests. We'll be collecting all the requests in one place and some will be candidates for supported work.
Since feedback/requests are being requested, my situation is similar to the above except it's for more than home servers. FreeBSD has been rock solid and performs well for my production uses - Apache, PHP, MySQL, pf, UFS, wired networking, etc. So please don't lose sight of the server-orientated core/use cases, including the work required to support modern server hardware (e.g. 10G NICs, lots-of-cores CPUs, ARM, NVMe, EFI, etc.)
Completely agree. As a server, FreeBSD is not only rock solid, it is also well built and engineered. One of the reasons I like to use it is: it doesn't make me mad with crappy decisions, half-baked ideas, and sloppy implementations. It's just more pleasant to work with something that was put together with good craftsmanship. OpenBSD is the same way, only things are even neater and tighter. Linux is not at all that way, it's a good-awful mess and cluttered (even though it works well).
It doesn't mean FreeBSD took a wrong turn. Maybe didn't have the right software or lacked for graphical processing, or didn't move fast enough in the market place. Popularity is a big reason, and also FreeBSD is a product that markets itself by showing what it can do, than have the exposure that Linux has. One reason for the lack of popularity is the amount of setup and customization required for FreeBSD, especially for a desktop.
To answer that, I think I would answer more broadly.
). He was willing but the school would only accept those on the website because the kids had to install and run their own systems and they deemed it too hard. (You'd think LEARNING was a problem given that attitude!)gotta sell the idea of FreeBSD a bit better than that. Otherwise, you just come across as a FreeBSD fanboi who doesn't care what others think, and just chants. 'FreeBSD is the greatest, FreeBSD is the greatest, FreeBSD is the greatest! Try it!'. Figure out what their difficulty is with getting stuff to run on Pi, and show them how FreeBSD does the same thing so much better. If you look at comments people make about what prompts them to move to FreeBSD from Linux - the reasons vary by the person.I asked him to try using FreeBSD (what's FreeBSD he says!
\This is simply not going to happen. 'Pi founders all use Linux and originally did substantial work to get Linux working on it. A huge user community has coalesced around the 'Pi running Linux and for them FreeBSD doesn't buy anything -- its API is just like Linux but far fewer devices work with it.
