Indeed, probs for the best. I do tend to upset Docker kids when I introduce them to reality but they simply can't understand.
Yep. The handbook documents loads of 3rd party ports. Some good; some not so good. None of them are officially part of FreeBSD.
And it's better they stay that way. Pkgbase is actually a good thing since it makes optional other stuff that people may not need like the lp* commands.
.... and actually getting it right, as opposed to most Linux distros. Not to mention, achieving the same results is just a matter of automating the stuff you already have. It is a UNIX philosophy to make sure your components do one job, and do it right BEFORE stringing 'em together via the pipe.
This is long gone thanks to ZFS and I seriously hope that noone would advocate ditching ZFS only because it's a filesystem, a volume manager, a storage manager and so on. I'm old enough to remember SunOS admins cursing at ZFS and swear that they would have never used that blasphemy because it was "against the UNIX philosophy".
It's not that hard to see from somebody's comments if they read the manual or not. Besides, manuals are meant to be references, not teaching material for newbies. Something wrong with referring people to known documentation where EVERY flag is spelled out? Being able to use reference material is a pretty basic component of learning ANYTHING, y'know.
Not in FreeBSD. And I'm grateful for that.
Honest question:
Something wrong with just not installing the stuff you don't need? Unlike Mac and Mic(rosoft), FreeBSD actually gives you the freedom to do just that.
Gatekeep much? Just install the entire base and forget about people who don't use FreeBSD the same way you do... unless you think there's more of them than you and they'll "take control?" What do you think they're going to "do to you"?
My goodness... Let's seriously hope this is just a troll.
They are obviously strawmanning the viewpoint I brought up.
In the same way that people would get annoyed if FreeBSD dropped support for laptops. What you call "gatekeeping" is actually called "calling out breakage and bad ideas".
You will see in the thread that the issue raised by many of us is not about how we install base; its about base being broken. Either the "entire base" will be polluted with crap. Or they will start picking holes in it; making it impossible to install an "entire base".
I think that's in your mind. We want people to come to FreeBSD. We don't need to break the OS to do so. Not only can it stand on its own merit but honestly as Linux becomes less and less usable, FreeBSD kind of wins by default and is attracting people at a faster rate than ever.
Many do care about avoiding breakage. There are growing amounts of infighting; particularly around Rust in base (another bad idea as an example) as you probably know. FreeBSD compared to Linux is quite a slow moving and stable target; what do you think the reason is for that? Yes, the people driving it choose for it to be stable and move at a responsible pace.
That is funny. I purged my collection of Walnut Creek CDs and old versions of printed handbooks a while ago.
"When we get a working graphical installer"
I sadly have the feeling the foundation will stay on the Rust, KDE, and pkgbase train to "catch up" with Linux, when what they really should have done is be glad that Linux hasn't caught up with FreeBSD. Also, the Laptop and Desktop Working Group seems to care more about getting Linux converts instead of staying mainly loyal to FreeBSD's main targets: Servers and Technical Workstations.
freebsdfoundation.org
