The direction of FreeBSD is determined by those whom contribute; either by developed/maintained code, or by $$ (paying to have something done).
You want to turn FreeBSD into a Bentley lebarondemerde ? (good choice BTW). Then whip up some Bentley code, and submit it.
Alas. That's about as good as it's going to get, I'm afraid. But all-in-all, I wouldn't choose any other OS as my "daily driver" (pardon the pun).
SystemD (and Linux)?
Well, I know that one of the original distros, disavows SystemD. What's more; it's the closest FreeBSD (feeling) Linux I know of. Namely Slack Linux.
OK it's not the newest kernel. But if it ain't broke. Why fix it? At least one Linux distro stood up for what's right!
--Chris
Many people are using xfce and the various wms because they work in a deterministic way and most importantly, are platform agnostic. TrueOS devs gave birth to Lumina out of uncertainty for the latter.
If you have to buy into an OS in order to use a certain DE (Cinnamon, Aqua, Gnome, whatever) then the people behind that DE don't care about compatibility (at all). They don't just build a DE, they build it for a particular platform. That's why you have to install Linux in order to use Cinnamon. Similarly, if you wanted to use Aqua, you'd have to buy a mac, and so on... It eventually depends on your tolerance and comfort levels.
Arguably, there is a priority that favors function and utility over form and aesthetics, especially since the project is a small group of software developers (not artists / designers).
Indeed, but even when you do it yourself and submit patches, they can take an eternity to be included. Or get derailed. Then good luck getting any response
I still bother to submit them, but for the first time in more than a decade, I've not donated to the Foundation this year ... so being ignored may have unintended consequences.
I don't feel passionately about it, but I have to agree with you at least partially. I've never been "blown away" by Xfce, but have used it in the past and installed it for others on a few occasions, because the two main alternatives are massively overweight or have other issues. When you consider that those alternatives consist of some kind of horrible mutant of a tablet/touchscreen UI with virtually no user customisation possible or gigabytes of shiny gloss , transparent stuff and "widgets" - both of which are mostly all about "pretty" and/or imposing someone's idea of how your desktop should work, it's not hard to see why some take the Xfce option.
Trident is the combination (collaboration) of GhostBSD, and TrueOS, As I understood it. GhostBSD was to head up the UI, while TrueOS managed the underlying OS.
I completely agree. One big reason why I use FreeBSD over Linux is because FreeBSD is more focused on the one complete FreeBSD operating-system with: Ports, packages, bhyve, etc.. preventing fragmentation, whereas Linux seems to be very scattered with so many different minor distributions these days.
The past few weeks I've heard stories of many distros calling it quits, e.g. Scientific Linux was a major distribution that stops its activities.
Don't know if it helps when an absolute Newbie adds his 5 pence, but anyway: I try out BSD from time to time. My target is to browse the net, develop some stuff, maybe some TeX... delopment is in .NET core, Python or Qt, a little bit Docker - so no low hanging fruits here. But I'd like to give it a try.
Either you do know or you don't know. You don't.
Either you do know or you don't know. You don't.
I can help. Follow the basic outline, substitute pkg for ports and you can be at the desktop within 3 hours:
Beginners Guide - How To Set Up A FreeBSD Desktop From Scratch
I'm going to guide you though the process of getting a fully functional FreeBSD 13.0-RELEASE desktop up and running, complete with system files and security settings, step-by-step as if you've never used UNIX or the command line. Now let's get started: Insert your boot media and at the Welcome...forums.freebsd.org
It's not. It tries to cater to both sides, and just gives you the tools. But you're going to have to get your hands dirty and configure everything yourself. It doesn't matter if you configure FreeBSD as a server or as a desktop, you're going to need to configure it to make it work the way you want it. And we like it that way.
I think you're misunderstanding the differences between FreeBSD, GhostBSD and TrueOS. Both GhostBSD and TrueOS are derivatives of FreeBSD and have their own ideas on how a desktop system should be set up and try to do this completely automatically. You don't run TrueOS "on top" of anything, TrueOS is based on FreeBSD -CURRENT (development version). GhostBSD was based on a -RELEASE version. TrueOS also tries to do things a little differently when it comes to packaging and maintenance of the OS.
Now wash your mouth. With soap!
This is what a lot of people can't seem to understand. The default install does not give you a shiny desktop environment. It gives you a system with enough installed that you can create the shiny desktop environment that "YOU" want, not what someone else thinks "YOU" should have.
Then maybe you are the wrong audience for a proper, multi purpose OS, but should rather stay in one of those completely governed and predefined ecosystems with their app-stores...
That's completely irrelevant to what I said. macOS's merits on usability has nothing to do with Apple's way of handling it's ecosystem. I'm comfortable in both environments, actually (ie hence the administration bit), but there's this thing called time people care about. Yes, it's a multi purpose OS... for servers/embedded. Perspective goes along way people!
