Incredible. It's like you've done absolutely no research on the situation. Do you even bother to challenge your assumptions? Or why things are the way they are?Which is exactly why FBSD is falling behind.
Incredible. It's like you've done absolutely no research on the situation. Do you even bother to challenge your assumptions? Or why things are the way they are?Which is exactly why FBSD is falling behind.
My point is there is no “falling behind” because it’s not a competition.Which is exactly why FBSD is falling behind.
FreeBSD has apparently been "falling behind" for decades and yet... well, it is still pretty darn competitive isn't it? Otherwise you wouldn't even be on these forums.Which is exactly why FBSD is falling behind.
This attitude is why Linux is younger than FreeBSD but has more mindshare than FreeBSD.
There are many different users of computers. FreeBSD serves a certain set of users really well ... for example the NetApp, Juniper and NetFlix set. It serves another set of users pretty well (server users), although there the numbers are tiny compared to Linux. You correctly point out that judging by the user response, FreeBSD doesn't serve desktop users very much. OK, that's a fact.It's providing what users are asking for.
You say this as if it were a bad thing. Maybe it is a good thing? Maybe FreeBSD is not interesting in serving the desktop?This is why FreeBSD has been losing in the desktop & in getting new tech from hardware vendors -you're actively ignoring users who aren't running servers.
Much more important than mindshare is market share. Let's see: Among supercomputers (for example the Top500 list), Linux' market share is 100%. Not a joke: there is no single supercomputer running an OS other than Linux on the list of the largest 500 publicly known ones. Among servers, there are de-facto only two OSes: Linux and Windows. We can argue whether the split between them is 70:30, 60:40, or 80:20, and which direction it is (I think it is 80% Linux, 20% Windows), but all other server OSes (like FreeBSD, AIX, zOS, HP-UX, NonStop, Solaris...) are at the percent level or below.This attitude is why Linux is younger than FreeBSD but has more mindshare than FreeBSD.
Sorry to be blunt: You have no idea what FreeBSD is for. And your opinion of what it should be is irrelevant.NO, FreeBSD is NOT mainly for that. That's where it's mainly being used, but that's not really what it's for.
THIS. You get it. Desktops (including laptops) have a shrinking share of machines for using information. And people who install/configure/maintain their own desktops are a tiny fraction. Nearly everyone uses a computer as an appliance: You buy it at a store, it has a working OS on it, it gets upgraded (today that's nearly completely automatic), and there is no need to make decisions. And they work exceedingly well, with very little effort.Fighting for the desktop in 2021 is a fool's errand. The desktop is disappearing. The predominant mode of computer use for the vast majority of humanity is the mobile phone.
Agree, but not completely. I think I am one example of a rare case who thinks FreeBSD desktop is a best possible solution. I have a windows machine, but do not want or like to use it. The question here its not only GUI, but also the OS behind it, ZFS, etc. Actually, GUI-s are not FreeBSD. I have several GUI-s installed on the same machine for different moods - MATE, KDE Plasma5 and Xfce. But using GUI does not mean using the OS (at least for me) and this is where Windows and many Linux distros fail. Many people just do not use the OS, but only GUI and some desktop applications. Web browser for example. My Firefox and Chromium are working very well on this FreeBSD machine, also my Thunderbird and other desktop applications I am using. Another story is, what applications are availabe...There are many different users of computers. FreeBSD serves a certain set of users really well ... for example the NetApp, Juniper and NetFlix set. It serves another set of users pretty well (server users), although there the numbers are tiny compared to Linux. You correctly point out that judging by the user response, FreeBSD doesn't serve desktop users very much. OK, that's a fact.
Those terrible "cloud DRM" things should only ever be run in a VM. Even on Windows.
DRM itself is the problem. The solution is to get rid of DRM, not to enable it. Therefore I agree with kpedersen, It belongs to VM.This attitude is why Linux is younger than FreeBSD but has more mindshare than FreeBSD.
Could you please, define the "Modern User"? Anyway, I'm anti-modernity, thus you can completely ignore my question.Most modern users don't know [...]
I recently again used Linux (Debian) for a longer while for my desktop, because of its hibernate capability.FreeBSD is very user friendly, by being simple and well-documented. It is not a point-and-click type of OS and that's precisely the point.
This is an interesting question because there are no such 'guys' who can answer this. Many people have done a great job developing different parts of this Operating System, but obviously they have no resources and maybe even skills to work on (yet)another Window Manager. Different WM communities have also done a great job, but they are not directly linked to the FreeBSD project.What I just don't understand is why the guys don't make good postinstallers for FreeBSD that make it easy for casual users to set up a working office or multimedia box in a snap.
Why do they have to name/market an install batch for some DE as a something (for the ignorant) apparently completely independent "OS"?
To be correct, Linux did not start on 80's, but (according to Wikipedia) on 1991. Personally I installed my first public Internet server on 1995 and my first attempt was on Linux. It was a complete crap! Fortunately I understood within a week that I should remove the Linux and install everything on FreeBSD.On usage statistics, i.e. (Linux > FreeBSD):
A group of people love to ask this question: why Linux went up, and FreeBSD didn't, 80s I suppose!
Then, there's another group, trying to rationalise the situation. I've heard the stories. court, UNIX, phone number, etc.
I prefer to go with Black Swan theory (Nicholas Taleb). I think Linux happened, because things happen. Random things happen. A mini/semi version of Black Swan.
This is truth.The predominant mode of computer use for the vast majority of humanity is the mobile phone.
Most Linux' distros target the average user. FreeBSD does not target the average user. There are far more average users today.why Linux went up, and FreeBSD didn't
1) It takes developers away from work that needs to be done on the core system.why the guys don't make good postinstallers for FreeBSD that make it easy for casual users
because dont need to, besides if the instalacion was for a desktop user o server is just fineWhat I just don't understand is why the guys don't make good postinstallers for FreeBSD that make it easy for casual users to set up a working office or multimedia box in a snap.
Why do they have to name/market an install batch for some DE as a something (for the ignorant) apparently completely independent "OS"?
So many examples, from PC-BSD to GhostBSD or whatever.
I just don't understand it, this is foreign to me.
That is not how I see it. The project is small and has limited resources. People only work on what they want.
Nearly everybody is a volunteer. True we have a small user base. You can only herd the cats. There is no kernel boss or distro chief. It is a core team. Some of these people come from industry and have projects.
Many of us here are veteran computer users. We have passed through many operating systems before settling on FreeBSD.
We have some pretty rugged Free software too.
Actually, I've been a FBSD user since the late 1990s. I've literally watched it happen. These aren't assumptions, & I already know why things are the way they are.Incredible. It's like you've done absolutely no research on the situation. Do you even bother to challenge your assumptions? Or why things are the way they are?
Yeh, that's what people who've lost generally say...My point is there is no “falling behind” because it’s not a competition.
Watching development from the sidelines? You only got yourself to blame then.Actually, I've been a FBSD user since the late 1990s. I've literally watched it happen.
Actually, it's not very competitive. I'm on these forums to address issues. When I first started with FreeBSD, it WAS competitive. That was long before I joined the forum. I'm definitely not here as much as I used to be.FreeBSD has apparently been "falling behind" for decades and yet... well, it is still pretty darn competitive isn't it? Otherwise you wouldn't even be on these forums.
It still has made a much larger dent on the desktop than FreeBSD has. And honestly, the fact that FreeBSD is now importing Linux code means that Linux has already surpassed FreeBSD. Its a harsh reality, but it's reality all the same.All of that effort that Linux has made to be user friendly has made such a little dent in the consumer desktop market. If those efforts were spent elsewhere, Linux would be vastly superior to FreeBSD.
The majority of the Linux community doesn't do that. Additionally, each of those projects failed for different reasons -none of which have anything to do with desktops & themes. Nice try, though.Twiddling with desktop themes and making fun little installers is not a good investment in time. Especially when they don't improve the OS in any meaningful way. The fact that these forks like TrueOS, FuryBSD, DesktopBSD and others consistently seem to fail as projects should start to become good evidence for this.
The Linux kernel is already competing in that space & is actually doing very well -or have you not ever heard of Android?iPhones are younger than Linux and have more mindshare. That doesn't make them something that Linux should aspire to be. And when Linux does inevitably go that route (mobile and cloud), FreeBSD will always be available to you as a stable sane platform to fall back on to get some work done.
Honestly, that's a very lazy argument. There seems to be no shortage of such individuals to work on the Linux kernel. The fact of the matter is that such people are actively choosing to work on various aspects of Linux instead of various aspects of FreeBSD. And though many companies would rather choose BSD-licensed code over GPL-licensed code, the majority of them are STILL choosing to improve the conditions of the Linux community, rather than improve the conditions of any of the BSD communities.Don't get me wrong though, FreeBSD isn't perfect. The project needs more skilled developers to work on drivers for new hardware. Unfortunately the OS is tied to physical metal which needs to be kept up to date. Those kinds of developer are also *much* harder to find than those who can customise UIs. I also believe this skillset is shrinking in the industry as people are losing touch with the lower levels of operating systems. This is the #1 threat to all free operating systems (and interestingly, looking at OpenBSD it seems it isn't even tied to popularity or userbase. They do very well even with a much smaller userbase than FreeBSD.)
That's the point. There're desktop users asking to be better supported by FBSD & before the developers can even say anything, the community itself is rejecting them. None of the BSD communities are in any position to reject users.There are many different users of computers. FreeBSD serves a certain set of users really well ... for example the NetApp, Juniper and NetFlix set. It serves another set of users pretty well (server users), although there the numbers are tiny compared to Linux. You correctly point out that judging by the user response, FreeBSD doesn't serve desktop users very much. OK, that's a fact.
If that were true, then there wouldn't be desktop software in ports, nor would there be desktop packages. Additionally, the core team wouldn't be importing Linux code into the repository.You say this as if it were a bad thing. Maybe it is a good thing? Maybe FreeBSD is not interesting in serving the desktop?
You can't get marketshare without mindshare. There's a reason that FBSD isn't present in the HPC market -no one wants to port any of the necessary software to FBSD. In fact, Plan9 has better support on supercomputers than FBSD. Perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.Much more important than mindshare is market share. Let's see: Among supercomputers (for example the Top500 list), Linux' market share is 100%. Not a joke: there is no single supercomputer running an OS other than Unix on the list of the largest 500 publicly known ones. Among servers, there are de-facto only two OSes: Linux and Windows. We can argue whether the split between them is 70:30, 60:40, or 80:20, and which direction it is (I think it is 80% Linux, 20% Windows), but all other server OSes (like FreeBSD, AIX, zOS, HP-UX, NonStop, Solaris...) are at the percent level or below.
Desktop OSes aren't going anywhere. Markets can only hold 3 leaders. The desktop is no different. Right now, those 3 leaders are Windows, Mac, & Linux. There aren't many mobile OSes, & their growth is purely in the mobile space. Mobile OSes aren't replacing desktop OSes. Additionally, it's entirely possible for FBSD to get about 2% of the market. It's not even the developers rejecting the desktop.Among desktop users, the Linux marketshare is probably about 2% (the remainder is Windows and MacOS). And desktop OSes are rapidly vanishing compared to mobile OSes (iOS, Android, ...). You are upset that the FreeBSD market share on the desktop is tiny compared to Linux. You are overlooking that it is a tiny market share of a vanishingly small addressable market. Even if FreeBSD managed to split the FOSS desktop market 50:50 with Linux, it would still be irrelevant at the big scale.
That's false. A person isn't crazy for using a system on the desktop when there are desktop packages that are officially distributed. Try again.Face it: Only a few crazy hobbyists want to run FreeBSD on the desktop. And it makes a fun hobby, because it is so charmingly difficult. I see it as something like sport sailing (small sailboats): Not a practical means of transportation, but a great way to to spend every evening tinkering with a project, and then going really fast in circles on the weekend, while getting soaking wet and bitterly cold.
I'm going to be just as blunt as you are. Unless you started using FBSD before 1997, then YOU have no idea of what it's for. Mind you, that's when I started using it, but I became aware of it in 1995. That's 2 years after it was first released. As for my opinion of what it's for, my opinion is that there should be more support for what it claims to offer -which is true of ANY product. Times are changing. Anything that can't adapt to change is destined to die off.Sorry to be blunt: You have no idea what FreeBSD is for. And your opinion of what it should be is irrelevant.
To be honest: I also have no idea what FreeBSD is for. I find that it is very useful for what I like to use it for (a small server). I don't try to use it for something that it would predictably be bad at.
Labeling a question as dumb just because you disagree with it is intellectually dishonest, & most certainly ignorant.Now, you are perfectly free to ask the people who set the direction of FreeBSD what it is intended for (Kirk, Justin, George, ...). While I've talked to quite a few of them, I've never asked such a dumb question.
This argument is broken. Desktop computers can be bought with Linux pre-installed. This should be possible with FBSD, but the community is the problem. Likely, FBSD will be surpassed by GhostBSD.THIS. You get it. Desktops (including laptops) have a shrinking share of machines for using information. And people who install/configure/maintain their own desktops are a tiny fraction. Nearly everyone uses a computer as an appliance: You buy it at a store, it has a working OS on it, it gets upgraded (today that's nearly completely automatic), and there is no need to make decisions. And they work exceedingly well, with very little effort.
Absolutely none of this has anything to do with the fact that desktop users would like to use FBSD as a desktop system, without having to fight the OS to do things that it can supposedly do. Also, modern users are users who aren't stuck in the 1970s, in terms of how to interact with computers.DRM itself is the problem. The solution is to get rid of DRM, not to enable it. Therefore I agree with kpedersen, It belongs to VM.
Could you please, define the "Modern User"? Anyway, I'm anti-modernity, thus you can completely ignore my question.