If you'll prevent (or discourage) people from going their own way, with distros or whatever: it'll be less open. Less freedom.
That's not what I said, neither what I want nor what I wanted to suggest or even I'm capable of.
I just told how it is.
Fact is, individual ways increase diversity thus ensures existence by more adaptivity.
But it's also a law of nature the more branches the fewer the power per branch thus weakening each one.
Those are the two sides of the same coin.
Not bad, not good, just a law of nature.
But one of my main reasons I'v chosen FreeBSD instead of Linux is with FreeBSD there is a system of having a consistent OS by
preventing uncontrollable growth.
That exactly makes the difference between many experimental Linux branches nobody really uses anymore, even died a long time ago, and the successful ones such like Suse, Debian or ubuntu. Not even the difference between Linux and all others.
This does not mean I am against uncontrollable growth or even growth at all.
Absolutely not!
We need growth, experiments and even uncontrollable growth - if this stays in limits, and not rampanting into other areas.
Without it there would be no progress.
But we also need reliable, stable systems.
Namely for the use.
You see it from the point of view from of an OS expert.
For developers of new OS, admins/roots and some enthusiasts there is a big danger to think of the OS itself would be the whole point at all.
It's not.
The OS - as the choice which one to use - is extremely important, because it provides many, many important jobs, does a buttload of work... and takes most of the responsibility - no question there.
But the OS is neither the main actor nor the director, even not the plot or especially not the movie.
The Users are, their work, and applications.
You don't need to think of a better filesystem if there is no data to be stored on.
We need both:
experimental growth and stable, reliable... -
controlled - systems.
The first one for progress, the second for use.
Wildely growing, experimental OS are not a good choice for the actual daily use.
Just because for the single fact only that their future is not reliably for sure.
Especially if you are not into OS development you just want to use the computer only.
For that you need is a OS you don't need to care about much - the less, the better.
That does not mean FreeBSD should become another turnkey OS - absolutely not! Complete contrary!
(Obviously one really has to look out for not willfully being misunderstood.)
Having a mature, stable, reliable, consistent, complete... system does not necessarily mean it has to be a foolproof fully automated tunkey OS.
The point of turnkey OS or modularity is a complete other question.
Those are also just two sides of the same coin:
Either you have to stay with a preconfigurated turnkey OS or have to make efforts.
But that's completely independend of the question experimental or practical suitable.
(Of course a modular system is way better fo development, but that's also another point.)
I've chosen FreeBSD knowing that this ain't no effortless turnkey OS on the silver plate, because I wanted to learn and understand the OS I am using and found the best match of my personal compromise of reliable usage, control, self-paced configration and learning effort.
But - and that is very important to me - FreeBSD is neither a wild growing experiment with an uncertain future, nor is it aiming to become one.
It's a principled OS.
That is the base of a practically usable, ....reliable, mature,... serious, genuine, authentic... real OS.
Trying to change that may bring progress - but for other systems, because this would actually kill this one.
Series production goods are not for experimentation.
(That's why Microsoft sponsors open software projects such as Linux.)
That doesn't mean I want to prevent progress.
. Debian, Gentoo, and Arch do have 3rd party repos.
