> The truth is that FreeBSD doesn't want casual users, …

I shouldn't overgeneralise.

https://github.com/orgs/FreeBSDFoundation/projects/1/views/3... … and so on.

The current expectation is that the desktop script, which was originally scheduled for inclusion with FreeBSD Installer for 15.0, will be included with 15.1.

A blocker, although this bug was not the reason for rescheduling:

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=290024

No, it's not done. You forgot configuration.

> yagni

TIL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_compared_to_other_dist... exists, but probably does not answer your question.

For Arch users of KDE Plasma and applications, are essential packages ever missing? <https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/KDE#Installation>

From https://gist.github.com/grahamperrin/307b8cdef5d4dcd30f5fdc4... for FreeBSD:

> It's not unusual for a Tier 1 platform to have no package for a wanted desktop environment. Two platforms are at this tier: …

For example, kde for FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT was recently missing for a few days for AMD64; is still missing for aarch64 (64-bit ARMv8).

This is not to criticise the maintainers of packages or repos. I do understand the constraints.

The absence of an essential meta package is, inescapably, an impedance when aiming to test installers and upgrades, especially with pkgbase.

That's a tad dramatic, Daphne.

LSU context: the completeness is out of scope.

Current aims include enhancement of the installer for FreeBSD; KDE Plasma and applications as an option.

Yep, the coherence is a strong point.

Unfortunately, we now have a few people complaining about predictable, consistent behaviour with packaging that is coherent. The base system, FreeBSD, packaged.

The complaints are about the effect of wilful force.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned.

When I force something with my eyes shut (ignoring warnings), I do expect the unexpected as a result of my ignorance ;-)

>Maybe I'm old-fashioned.

No your not, even in the Sun-Solaris time they asked themself why rm should be able to delete /.

>The complaints are about the effect of wilful force.

Don't make a function no one uses (because it has no function) but is able destroy the system.

Compare it to a aircraft, shutdown your fuel has probably a emergency function, make a button to instantly destroy your aircraft has no real function nor will it ever be used (aka pkg remove -af).

>Unfortunately, we now have a few people complaining about predictable, consistent behaviour with packaging that is coherent.

That's not predictable but stupidity, try to remove all pkg/Application/Apps from MacOS, Windows, OpenBSD, NetBSD or Android...will the system boot or not? All those operating-systems make a clear distinction from the base-system to "apps" and the system should ALWAYS boot to a state where you can interact with it and so should FreeBSD.

There is not a single system (no OS and no living being) in this world wheres there is a function to destroy itself would not be called a error (the worst possible one)

But hey lets tell Linus (from Linus tech-tips, a Linux beginner) it's your fault because you forgot to read 100 lines, what a wannabe elitist think, there are ZERO point's, that a system should be able to make itself not booting anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4L8Oci_2Bs

I took it to mean, a relatively short period of time after funding became available. Bear in mind, it's a report from the Foundation.