FreeBSD Foundation Flounders on 15 with Rust, pkgbase, and KDE

RetroComputingCollector

RetroComputingCollector

FreeBSD Update is probably not going to exist in 15.0-RELEASE! The text below is boilerplate from previous releases and should be replaced with instructions for using pkgbase once those are finalized.
Click to expand...
I found this on the official 15.0 release notes. This is a nightmare. It seems like, to compete with Linux, the Foundation wants to turn BSD into Linux. I hate the idea of pkgbase being the only way to update FreeBSD. That is the main reason why I fled the Linux world. Furthermore, the KDE integration is also so Linuxy. I also hate the push for rust and zig and whatever is the new fad. FreeBSD is abandoning its UNIX roots to chase trends and imitate Linux. I probably will not end up switching to OpenBSD (atleast for the forseeable future), but this new route is concerning, to say the least.
 
RetroComputingCollector said:
I found this on the official 15.0 release notes. This is a nightmare. It seems like, to compete with Linux, the Foundation wants to turn BSD into Linux. I hate the idea of pkgbase being the only way to update FreeBSD. That is the main reason why I fled the Linux world. Furthermore, the KDE integration is also so Linuxy. I also hate the push for rust and zig and whatever is the new fad. FreeBSD is abandoning its UNIX roots to chase trends and imitate Linux. I probably will not end up switching to OpenBSD (atleast for the forseeable future), but this new route is concerning, to say the least.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree.
Explain to me how pkgbase is turning FreeBSD into Linux.
Explain to me how offering at install time the option to include a graphical environment is turning FreeBSD into Linux.

I will agree about Rust et al in the kernel as potentially problematic, but again that is not turning FreeBSD into Linux.

The option to add a graphical environment at install time could be simply to bring more "toe in the water" type folk. There is also historical precedent for this: my faulty memory says "FreeBSD installer from say 3.x to 9.x presented the user with Optional Sets" such as "Is this being used for a Workstation with X" which would install Xorg (maybe XFree86 at the time) plus TWM. If the 15.x installer is doing similar but presenting KDE? Meh, so what, project has been there, done that already. What does the OpenBSD/NetBSD/DragonflyBSD installer do? If they present "optional sets", then one could argue "FreeBSD is catching back up to them".

Offering an optional set is completely different from "installing by default".
 
Indeed. I do understand the worry. Its not worth fighting though; there is a lot of noise coming from Linux-centric people these days. For cleanliness I feel OpenBSD's opinionated (and less welcoming to non-technical users) approach is the way to go to keep things correct.

Admittedly I moved to OpenBSD when pkg-ng came about. But am still very active with FreeBSD because sometimes you *really* need Linux and luckily FreeBSD is the only usable Linux around :)

mer said:
Explain to me how pkgbase is turning FreeBSD into Linux.
Click to expand...
What do you predict will happen when the FreeBSD base is torn up into hundreds of packages? Lets say 250. Can you see it remaining at around 250 for years after that? Honestly, I don't feel that will happen; "idea men" will pick at it until it changes weekly; just like every other distro.

If it was simply integrating base.txz into the FreeBSD native package system; I agree with you; its not a problem. But I have not seen any evidence so far (for 3 decades) that packages maintained this way can stay consistent in terms of base package selection.
 
mer said:
I completely disagree.
Explain to me how pkgbase is turning FreeBSD into Linux.
Explain to me how offering at install time the option to include a graphical environment is turning FreeBSD into Linux.

I will agree about Rust et al in the kernel as potentially problematic, but again that is not turning FreeBSD into Linux.

The option to add a graphical environment at install time could be simply to bring more "toe in the water" type folk. There is also historical precedent for this: my faulty memory says "FreeBSD installer from say 3.x to 9.x presented the user with Optional Sets" such as "Is this being used for a Workstation with X" which would install Xorg (maybe XFree86 at the time) plus TWM. If the 15.x installer is doing similar but presenting KDE? Meh, so what, project has been there, done that already. What does the OpenBSD/NetBSD/DragonflyBSD installer do? If they present "optional sets", then one could argue "FreeBSD is catching back up to them".

Offering an optional set is completely different from "installing by default".
Click to expand...
The issues isn't pkgbase itself, rather it's the deprecation of traditional updates. The design philosophy of pkgbase might work in an embedded system, but package based installs have caused me nothing but trouble on every Linux distro ever. Also, why choose KDE of all things‽ I get it's easy to use, but why not also provide an option for CDE or twm?
 
RetroComputingCollector said:
I probably will not end up switching to OpenBSD (atleast for the forseeable future), but this new route is concerning, to say the least.
Click to expand...
By the way, I've been thinking about it (about what to switch to in case of emergency so to speak) too. I guess that if FreeBSD-15 shows up more surprises, it would be the time I would start playing around with other BSD systems on my spare laptop. I've never tried any of them, but I guess that OpenBSD would be my first choice too. Still I'm pretty sure I won't find _anything_ like FreeBSD. Is someone aware of any OS (BSD it would be, I guess) which has not violated the main UNIX principles to such degree and is nearly as reliable and simple as FreeBSD is?
 
You can build your FreeBSD base from source or you can install the same very base from an individual pkgs that the base "subdivided" too. It will be the same whole base system as if you unpacked base.txz and do binary updates with freebsd-update but in more fine-grained manner. I find it to be nice. it has nothing to do with linux or linuxism while it may look so
 
angry_vincent said:
You can build your FreeBSD base from source or you can install the same very base from an individual pkgs that the base "subdivided" too. It will be the same whole base system as if you unpacked base.txz and do binary updates with freebsd-update but in more fine-grained manner. I find it to be nice. it has nothing to do with linux or linuxism while it may look so
Click to expand...
I just think there should be a choice. What is most Linuxy is completely reinventing the wheel for a non-issue.
 
RetroComputingCollector said:
The issues isn't pkgbase itself, rather it's the deprecation of traditional updates. The design philosophy of pkgbase might work in an embedded system, but package based installs have caused me nothing but trouble on every Linux distro ever. Also, why choose KDE of all things‽ I get it's easy to use, but why not also provide an option for CDE or twm?
Click to expand...
Everything below is my opinion. Agree, disagree, tell me I'm an ID10T error, all good.

I'm not sure that "pkgbase on FreeBSD" is an apples-apples with "...on every Linux distro ever".
Deprecation of traditional updates: For a long time "traditional updates meant upgrade from source".
I can visualize "freebsd-update" evolving into a script that does the appropriate pkg command for pkgbase. Would that satisfy your requirement?

KDE: Again, I have no dog in this fight, but anything that has ever installed a GUI/DE everyone argues about what it should be. Why are there so many Ubuntu distros? Because KUbuntu installs KDE by default, GUbuntu installs Gnome2 by default, etc. I don't know how many people don't want KDE, install KUbuntu but then wipe and resinstall a different distro instead of just installing a different DE.

Why stop at providing an option for CDE and twm? I want WindowMaker as an option, others want XFCE4, some want awesome. Slippery slope appears.
Everyone of us that has been around for a while understands what we need to do.

Maybe I'm naive or just been around for too long, but sometimes, it's not bad to just wait and see what happens instead of panicing.
 
mer said:
I will agree about Rust et al in the kernel as potentially problematic, but again that is not turning FreeBSD into Linux.
Click to expand...
It slowly will.

mer said:
The option to add a graphical environment at install time could be simply to bring more "toe in the water" type folk.
Click to expand...
FreeBSD is not MS Windows, it does not have to sacrifice the philosophy to make an average computer dummy happy. If one needs a graphical environment - one does go ahead and install it himself. Period. Don't get me wrong, I do use X11. But X11 has nothing to do with FreeBSD. It's a third party anyway. I did go and installed it myself. I don't need an 'optional set'. No one does. I would say if one is not able to install a desired graphical environment himself _and_ has not will enough to learn how to do this, one doesn't want to run FreeBSD.

mer said:
If the 15.x installer is doing similar but presenting KDE?
Click to expand...
An OS installer does not need an 'optional set' of graphical environments. KDE? Man... Man.. Sometimes I think that FreeBSD is slowly loosing sanity.

mer said:
What does the OpenBSD/NetBSD/DragonflyBSD installer do?
Click to expand...
Who cares? I mean who cares? These OSes are not FreeBSD. It does not matter what they do. OpenBSD does not treat /usr/local as we do; so shall we go ahead and do the same?
 
KDE ports team is being the most productive and it has the most attention among any other DE , so it is reasonable choice. If you make grep in git history in ports tree you will get what I mean. I am not a KDE proponent, I use wayland for many years and minimalistic system. And i will do so in future. What is never ceased to amaze me is the ability to create drama out of nothing.
 
tembun said:
An OS installer does not need an 'optional set' of graphical environments. KDE? Man... Man.. Sometimes I think that FreeBSD is slowly loosing sanity.

Not sure how long you've been installing FreeBSD, but historically, the FreeBSD installer offered optional sets to install. One of the sets was basically is this going to be a workstation with GUI? So in the past the FreeBSD installer offered it, then it stopped and now it is again.
Click to expand...
 
angry_vincent said:
You can build your FreeBSD base from source or you can install the same very base from an individual pkgs that the base "subdivided" too. It will be the same whole base system as if you unpacked base.txz and do binary updates with freebsd-update but in more fine-grained manner. I find it to be nice. it has nothing to do with linux or linuxism while it may look so
Click to expand...
If we would have a look on this: for decades FreeBSD has been self-sufficient and one just has been installing the system and just use it _or_ add some pieces/components/tweaks one needs. Now, it's not enough to just install the system. Oh, by the way, you can't just install the system as you used to do for decades. Now there's a workaround. Oh, yeah, and also by default there's a bunch of garbage in the kernel and the base to make newcomers from MS Windows happy. You now have to exclude it by yourself. And somehow this becomes normal? Isn't that ridiculous?
 
mer said:
Maybe I'm naive or just been around for too long, but sometimes, it's not bad to just wait and see what happens instead of panicing.
Click to expand...
Actually, as I've gotten older I prefer the opposite approach. Drown the seed in glyphosate before it has a change to sprout. When you sit back and "let things happen" stupid decisions get made, and then it's too late to halt the momentum in many cases.
 
mer said:
Explain to me how pkgbase is turning FreeBSD into Linux.
Click to expand...
I used pkgbase when it was called "Gentoo Linux" for a decade.

The fragmentation of base will make it hard to release a tested version of the OS because the packages will all move independently. This inevitably leads to a mess of incompatible versions. You wind up spending hours on every upgrade because of some freakin' incompatibility that was added at the last minute.

It really makes me sad. I might have to make a hard choice when 14.x goes unsupported. Maybe it'll be a big enough disaster that they'll revert it before 16.x. I can hope.
 
Jose said:
I used pkgbase when it was called "Gentoo Linux" for a decade.

The fragmentation of base will make it hard to release a tested version of the OS because the packages will all move independently. This inevitably leads to a mess of incompatible versions. You wind up spending hours on every upgrade because of some freakin' incompatibility that was added at the last minute.

It really makes me sad. I might have to make a hard choice when 14.x goes unsupported. Maybe it'll be a big enough disaster that they'll revert it before 16.x. I can hope.
Click to expand...
This is the real danger :(
 
It is important that pkg for base and pkg for applications (ports) still remain separate in these plans. Unlike in Linux where they are the same.

The importance is that getting into unresolvable dependency hell in applications still allows you to blow away the whole application tree and reinstall it without have to touch the base system, much less forcing a reinstall which is what Linux is facing in these situations.
 
I am all in for rust in the kernel and base system, this is a requirement by various industries, so why not make FreeBSD a more attractive option? And I am all in for pkg base.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top