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

mer said:
I guessing "someone said something at a developer summit about should we look at this" and it became gospel instead of something to be discussed.
Click to expand...
You're guessing. Don't spread FUD you do not know because now someone will say that some developer suggested it. Don't guess. Guesses take on a life of their own perpetuating the insanity. Just stop it!
 
vermaden said:
You assume that with switch to PKGBASE You will lose the distinction between FreeBSD Base System and third party packages - and it will be like with yum(8) on RHEL or like with apt(8) in Ubuntu ... IT WILL NOT.

Its just the Base System instead being 'just a bunch of files' - they will be 'organized' and packed into their pkg(8) compatible packages - and they will be served in a SEPARATE pkg(8) repository.

That means you can still upgrade just FreeBSD Base System with specifying the FreeBSD-base repository - like that:

# pkg upgrade -r FreeBSD-base

You can also upgrade only the packages with this:

# pkg upgrade -r FreeBSD

... and freebsd-update(8) is far from perfect - HardenedBSD after making the fork from FreeBSD even provided its own not delta based version called hbsd-update(8) instead.

You can not create your own on premise freebsd-update(8) infrastructure and update servers - but you can do that with PKGBASE:
- https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2023/12/09/personal-freebsd-pkgbase-update-server/

You can also convert any freebsd-update(8) system into PKGBASE if needed:
- https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2025/07/20/freebsd-pkgbase-pkgbasify-tool/

The freebsd-update(8) is also VERY interactive which is FAR from ideal for automation or updating large amount of machines or Jails.

... and no matter if you use freebsd-update(8) or pkg(8) with PKGBASE just remember to ALWAYS create new ZFS Boot Environments with beadm(8) or bectl(8) to have snapshot of a working system before the upgrade.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
OK, there's still hope in this forum. A massive THANK YOU!
 
cy@ said:
You're guessing. Don't spread FUD you do not know because now someone will say that some developer suggested it. Don't guess. Guesses take on a life of their own perpetuating the insanity. Just stop it!
Click to expand...
Apologies. Noted. Will not do again.
 
I have a feeling that this a lot of much ado about nothing. You can ignore the KDE option--it's err, optional, pkg base doesn't seem like it will be a big deal--I also tried it today in a VM, and it seemed fairly straightforward. As vermaden said, pages ago, I think, it doesn't mean it's going to be like apt or dnf and update your system with your packages, so, it'll be the same, just a different tool to do it. As for rust, that's a coder's issue, and I'm not a coder.

As for it being newcomer friendly, if that happens, well, it hasn't ruined GhostBSD, and I doubt it will affect FreeBSD, save in a good way. Maybe bringing in a few more people, and maybe meaning more hardware and software vendors will think about FreeBSD.

So, we will see, but in the interim we can have a 25 page thread about how good/bad it is. Which reminds of a line from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia--these forums remind me of that a lot--not sure if it's saying something bad about the forums or me--when Mac is in an argument and says something to the affect of I can bring up whatever fact supports the point I'm trying to make. I'm an American.
 
You guys and girls are on page 10 I'm picking up on page 6 ! The Popcorn Show ended yesterday at 11:53 PM (Est time-clock, Toronto) and started soon after at 1:47 am then a comment each hour until 4 am where the show began with comment every 30 15 5 min every hour!! I like that FreeBSD is alive!
At this rate, I'll give my take in one year!
 
I'm a new user of FreeBSD. I replaced my prior OS on all my machines and my kids machines just over 2 years ago. I was looking to get my systems away from the Linux Foundation. These changes being discussed sound interesting. The offering of KDE on install is brilliant in my opinion. It sounds like the update process is being somewhat simplified? I don't know if I fully understand the pkgbase discussion but it sound like consolidation of some of the functions of pkg and freebsd-udpate. These things sound good to me. Just my two cents on the discussion.
 
KDE in an install medium is probably for gaining users who need Accessibility due to physical or other impairment, and for Internationalization for support of more written languages through fonts in the install. As long as this is optional though. KDE also runs on top of libxcb. There's no other solution which is all being on top of xcb, has internationalization and has accessibility.

As long as it's optional, doesn't put KDE in a base install, which it won't bc of the license. Also, if it gains more users and contributors from internationalization and accessibility, than the availability of current contributors, then it could work out. However, since KDE is in C++, it means more obstacles in base leaning towards being being fully C, which isn't a near term issue.
 
One thing really scares me - a thing that I did not knew before - and its written in this comment:
- https://github.com/freebsd/pkg/issues/2485#issuecomment-3133396711

To quote:
No, only 2 packages are vital, clibs and runtime
Click to expand...

So with PKGBASE the pkg delete -af command will WIPE almost all FreeBSD Base System including /rescue tools - so one will be left even without vi(1) (or any other) editor ...

That is far from POLA for my standards.

I would expect LOTS of misuses of pkg delete command with these defaults ... lots of guides on the Internet say 'just remove all the packages - its safe - you will still have your Base System' ... not sure if I have and good thoughts about these defaults ... but probably there is some logic behind these decisions that I just do not understand ...

So for now - with PKGBASE - start to remember this one single rule - never use pkg delete -af command ...
 
What if /rescue can be bootstrapped, the same way that pkg is bootstrapped?

It seems that for zfs, it needs to be common practice to leave /boot, /rescue,
/root and other directories, maybe the root of / on UFS. Or have zfs able to be bootstrapped too.
 
The /rescue is just one of the 'non protected' (non vital) packages called FreeBSD-rescue:

Code: 
# pkg info -l FreeBSD-rescue | (head; echo; tail)
FreeBSD-rescue-14.1p6:
        /rescue/[
        /rescue/bectl
        /rescue/bsdlabel
        /rescue/bunzip2
        /rescue/bzcat
        /rescue/bzip2
        /rescue/camcontrol
        /rescue/cat
        /rescue/ccdconfig

You can just keep it somewhere and even extract it with tar(1) if needed.

Generally the best protection is still creating the ZFS Boot Environment before any changes with beadm(8) or bectl(8) command.
 
vermaden said:
So for now - with PKGBASE - start to remember this one single rule - never use pkg delete -af command ...
Click to expand...
Well, just did my own RTFMing for this on my 14.2-RELEASE system:
pkg(7) says this about the -f flag:
Code: 
If the -f flag is specified, then pkg(8) will be fetched and installed regardless if it is already installed.
Click to expand...

pkg(8) does not even mention the -f flag:

pkg-delete(8) mentions that the -f flag is for forcing the operation:
Code: 
-f, --force
                Forces packages to be removed despite leaving unresolved
                dependencies.  In combination with the -a or --all flag,
                causes pkg(8) to be removed as well as all other packages.
Click to expand...

Only now I know -AF to not use THAT command... ;) Not that intuitive, but one more case where it's important to RTFM and not rely on offhand judgement. If somebody is ready to own up to destroying their own system due to their own utter stupidity of not RTFMing, raise your hand! Yep, UNIX is that harsh, and requires adult levels of discipline.
 
I think KDE is a very good choice to integrate with.

I hope it does not get more complicated though. Ubuntu and systemD have been getting on my nerves lately as some updates broke SSH to remote servers which is very hard to fix.
I much prefer a less overcomplex OS and hope FreeBSD is it.
 
I have read all the post in the now 10 pages of that thread, my take is as follows, basically I think minus the exaggeration and the emotions that everyone's concern here is at the right place. So I tend to agree with both side. Personally all the technicality put aside, philosophically, and politically I'm for access for everyone except the corporate capitalist been facilitated I agree that FreeBSD has everything to make a great desktop for a new user who is going to sit on gold mine that if he or she wants to can explore and play with or just use for is basic need, the power to serve extended to desktop user. That doesn't mean that the server side or the professional or hacker using BSD would be left aside, I don't think that it's the objective here. And don't think that both vision and or side have to fifth, FreeBSD remains the same if I understood correctly It only becomes more and more sophisticated and user-friendly for all the species of user and in 2025 I think it fucking great! I'm kind in the middle because I'm not a hacker, but I'm not either a complete new be I learned all by my self and unfortunately, I'm not proud to say it, all the contrary, I would have been to say otherwise, but I don't own anything for 95% of my capabilities to forums like these, but I have to say that in my voyage in the free and open-source community when I had real support I learned a lot. For advanced user, I think it's like when were are adult we tend to forget what It's like to be an adolescent we have been through it, and we don't care we forgot, but in my opinion it not a good attitude, all the opposite, it's nefarious for the community and keep the future at bay. For me, FreeBSD is a solid playground, and it's community without bias, but speaking by my own experience which is far from complete or referential, is the best. I mean Top down. I share the desire of both side and I think both side speak the truth. For FreeBSD, I see nothing but the best to come, those who fear in a decade are going to look a that thread and laugh.

I am for pkgbase, I am for KDE proposition in the installation as a default desktop, I use it every day, and it is a great desktop along with the console where I can play too and explore FreeBSD. For Rust in the base system I don't know, what is the reason for that integration, probably because some code there has to be rewritten and that rust is the language for that. I would be surprised if there is no good reason for that. And yes I, I mean we all agree, agree that FreeBSD must remain the same in terms of coherence, solidity, utility and simplicity. I agree that other serious projects, because FreeBSD doesn't lack playgrounds to play in, must be maintained and invested in, for example de updating and fortification of the documentation mainly the man pages and the handbook.

I really appreciated reading that thread, it was epic, I will remember it for a long time. It is a proof that it's a great community, everything was connected top down and serious discussion followed up immediately in the mailing list, big up!!
 
JohnK said:
so, what's the problem if your system gets borked by freebsd-update or pkg? same difference; BE to the rescue!
Click to expand...
I've used FreeBSD on between 1 and 3 machines since 2012 or 2014. I have NEVER had freebsd-update "bork" it. I have reinstalled it twice during that time, and again, the install worked flawlessly (although after an install it takes me about 2 days to get everything set up again).

If updates ever became so unreliable (more than 0.1% failure rate or something of that order), I would drop FreeBSD like a hot potato. The fact that BEs exist (which is a good thing) doesn't mean that the reliability of upgrades can drop.
 
ralphbsz said:
I've used FreeBSD on between 1 and 3 machines since 2012 or 2014. I have NEVER had freebsd-update "bork" it. I have reinstalled it twice during that time, and again, the install worked flawlessly (although after an install it takes me about 2 days to get everything set up again).
Click to expand...
For me 20+ machines for at least 10-15 years (since 9.0-9.1 I believe), I too never had freebsd-update(8) bork things, it's been quite reliable for me.
 
Another reason FreeBSD needs the option to install a desktop environment and even a graphical installer option is to avoid a fork from getting all the attention and resources, avoiding fragmentation.

As long as it's all optional and not mandatory I don't see any issue with it.
 
ralphbsz said:
I've used FreeBSD on between 1 and 3 machines since 2012 or 2014. I have NEVER had freebsd-update "bork" it. I have reinstalled it twice during that time, and again, the install worked flawlessly (although after an install it takes me about 2 days to get everything set up again).

If updates ever became so unreliable (more than 0.1% failure rate or something of that order), I would drop FreeBSD like a hot potato. The fact that BEs exist (which is a good thing) doesn't mean that the reliability of upgrades can drop.
Click to expand...

So then put that same faith in pkgbase (aka: the developers behind it) and see what happens. I'm sure everything will be fine. Afterall, we are discussing a feature in an engineered system; smart people have put a lot of thought into this.

A failure rate of 0.1pct (and dropping like a hot potato) I feel is a bit melodramatic though. Even a catastrophic failure of pkgbase will only be on the runtime, NOT your data. Put the runtime back and move on with your life but, I you do what you feel is right.
 
rbranco said:
Another reason FreeBSD needs the option to install a desktop environment and even a graphical installer option is to avoid a fork from getting all the attention and resources, avoiding fragmentation.

As long as it's all optional and not mandatory I don't see any issue with it.
Click to expand...
Graphical ? Why ? Current installer is really good and i think graphical would just take up resources/time and effort for no reasons at all just eye candy.
 
GlitchyDot said:
Graphical ? Why ? Current installer is really good and i think graphical would just take up resources/time and effort for no reasons at all just eye candy.
Click to expand...
I don't fancy them but also don't despise them. Some people like it and I understand the appeal of a live installer where people can try stuff.
 
Hello everyone, I am a FreeBSD newbie (one year old + 1 week) so I cannot give an informed opinion on this, just my experience of why I left Linux and came to FreeBSD. These 10 pages have been fun to read. I dislike the trolls that send this thread into unrelated Linux rage topics, i empathize with the developers who want to work and work well (on a robust and FREE open source project) but meet angry comments and stonewalls, and I also feel the passion of people (both knowledgeable and newbies like me) who want FreeBSD to keep it's own identity and keep away from Linux distributions.

Here are some of my opinions as someone who learned Linux 10 years ago and moved to FreeBSD 1 year ago.
  • freebsd-update hasnt failed me yet. I see the point that going to pkgbase feels like reinventing the wheel, or replacing something that wasn't broken (commonly known as the Linux way). As vermaden said, this won't convert pkg into "apt" or "dnf" which was one of my concerns. If it allows every user to keep personalizing FreeBSD as they want it to be, having self-hosted repositories of "base" is great and it was something that freebsd-update couldn't do, so I am keeping a curious eye on this.
    I want FreeBSD 15 so I can mount ZFS datasets on jails much easier, only by editing the jail.conf.d/jail file. I am willing to wait for FreeBSD 15 as long as it needs for pkgbase and the Mobile Hardware improvements to work properly. I also haven't tried pkgbase yet, so it's on me (and everyone else complaining in this thread) to install FreeBSD 15 current and test things out and give proper feedback.
  • I am concerned about having pkg delete -af break what can be considered the "base" system. In my eye, FreeBSD gives you an ISO (or the source code), and when you install that then you got the Base FreeBSD. You don't even need to connect it to the public internet (or use ports) to have a very strong system that will last for years.
    I haven't yet run into the issue of having to clean and remove all extra packages, but knowing that I always had the option to start clean (removing /usr/local) was always conforting and it spoke well about the design of FreeBSD. Simplicity over everything else and strict separations of responsibilities.
    I am sad to see that the bug that vermaden posted about this has already been closed. I am on a few lists on the mailing lists but only reading for now since my FreeBSD knowledge is limited.
  • About KDE as an install option hmm.... It's a bit divisive. My own personal opinion is that the FreeBSD installer on an ISO image should only contain FreeBSD, no external packages. Again, FreeBSD gives you only a barebones OS. Having external packages be included opens the door to have more options and more options. Simplify the setup of FreeBSD at the expense of more developer time being used on things that users should learn on their own (or can read on the manual), and when will it be enough? Until how many optional packages in the installer will it be over? It reminds me of the Debian installer which has had since forever those install options for desktop environments (ticked on by default). Who knows if those options follow best practices or if they are updated, or if they lead to a working system... but that is Debians choice.
    I was using KDE as my main DE for many years, but over time I've felt it as it evolved more clunky and unstable over time. I've used the main KDE distro (KDE Neon) and things were always breaking. Last update I did on that distro broke my video meetings screen sharing which was extremely frustrating. Since that update, I switched to FreeBSD and from 14.0 until 14.3, video screen sharing never broke. This next sentence is a little bit baity but, if the KDE people cannot maintain their own KDE distro... what does it say about them?
    Finally, will the FreeBSD KDE installer use Wayland or X? That is another endless topic haha. I've tried to install KDE on Wayland on FreeBSD, but it never worked, and there is a multi-page thread on the Forums about installing KDE on Wayland. I eventually lost interest, moved to DWM on X11 and I am very happy.
  • I am very interested however in having FreeBSD on my Laptop, and it makes me happy to see that FreeBSD is focusing more on mobile hardware. This is the main reason why KDE is involved, because since a couple years ago they started doing relationships with Fedora and other providers to sell Linux Laptops (with KDE) as a standard, to simplify the life of the average computer user. You and me and everyone in this forum are not average computer users, we might as well be advanced users.
  • THIS NEXT SECTION IS ONLY MY OPINION, I AM NOT INFORMED ON THIS TOPIC, THIS MAY EVEN BE FUD OR MISINFORMATION! but I wonder what does KDE get out of this relationship with FreeBSD. Someone wants to manufacture FreeBSD laptops with KDE and sell them... or does FreeBSD want to capture more laptops market share? In that case things have to change in FreeBSD to accomodate that. In exchange KDE gives support for FreeBSD in mobile hardware... and what do they get in return? Money? Sponsorship? Influence over the design of FreeBSD in the future?
I can't talk about rust since I am not an OS developer. I see this thread mostly as pkgbase, and changes that have to happen for it to work. Changes on the installer for it, and changes on the installer for the KDE install.

Thank you for reading, and I am happy to be forever in this long discussion over FreeBSD 15 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top