People can follow the guide, but do beginners prefer modifying manually than having GUI in installation? I won't say that FreeBSD GUI disk image should be on the download page, but it will save troubles if there is GUI option in installation process like openSUSE. When I first tried FreeBSD, it took 2 weeks to install GUI(because of xorg configuration), and this is not the situation that newbies want.
I was worse. But good! That process is good. It's called learning.
No problem; I didn't read it as you thinking it was a good thing. I was just using your statement as an example of "why systemd may not be a good thing".
I agree on that. And I think this is where an important part of (Free)BSD comes in: Once you learned it you don't have to re-learn accomplishing the same thing over and over because underlying stuff changes so frequently. Have a fundamental question/problem with FreeBSD? You find some information in a mailing list archive from 2009? Great! Most likely it's still the same!
Unfortunately, just setting up a desktop system is half the game. For a user which wants to use FreeBSD but doesn't want to go through the installation process as it is today you'll find that they'll most likely also expect/want high-level configuration tools, GUIs for system updates/upgrades and so on.
Well systemd just cares about Linux, because they are using many features where FreeBSD might have different solutions in place or no equivalents.
Yep and by looking at that one can start to see "why do they need systemd for that?". Shim layers have been in place for a long time. linuxkpi used by drm-kmod is a popular one.
Well... I've started with Slackware 3.0 until the horrors of 4.0~7.0 then I've changed to Gentoo. Today I use FreeBSD and Artix+OpenRC. YMMV, but I can see your point, usually lazy people don't want to try different/better things, specially if one doesn't want to walk too far away from piloting a mouse.
I've partially quoted your comment, but the entire comment is very well articulated.
And they did not realized that BSD is too easy to use, trust me I experience it everyday at my job...
For example?
One of the earliest things Mr. Poettering said about the BSDs and systemd was that "niche kernels" would not be supported. He clearly expressed both his contempt for and ignorance of the BSDs in that simple statement.
You mean Lennart ist root on Reddit, many forums, the LKML, Ycombinator, and he edited their databases of posts to change the past?
He is the creator of them, but stepped down as maintainer and project lead from both years ago. Some nasty (?) people say that since then Pulseaudio became drastically better compared to the state it was in before. Avahi though still many consider to be quite the mess.
What other kernels does systemd support anyway?
This is a huge "Why would you do that" for me.
Stable Windows HyperV servers? Hold my beer, because Microsoft has different opinion on this, just look at that Linux patch coming from them: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200914112802.80611-1-wei.liu@kernel.org/T/
Perhaps he does, but things we knew before are difficult to find again on the Internet anyway. Sometimes, information was there, but whatever occurred afterwards is all that's found. and it's like whatever happened before that can't be found. The search engines seemed to work better a few years ago. Either that, or there's so much on the Internet, compared to before.
Those don't belong in the ports tree, but then I only get told, to use Poudriere. That's no solution. The problem is embedded, and without getting rid of it completely, we're just chasing our tails for a minimal effect.
Indeed, but its interaction with RHEL/CentOS was less then stellar, and the company will not consider other distro's. I do believe if you want ZFS on Linux, Ubuntu is the go-to distro at the moment. I can't comment on the actual OpenZFS code itself, but I have not heard anything concerning about it so far.
