It's so arrogant to make a "welcoming" system for people based on FreeBSD. Arrogant because it assumes the system and its ecosystem of packages will never break and the user will never have to troubleshoot. Either that or they have amazing restore capabilities. Which is something I'd like to see in BTRFS on Linux now that it's being used in Fedora by default.
Because once they inevitably have to troubleshoot they'll discover a much smaller community with much fewer blogs and articles about it than Linux.
Disclaimer, I was a BSD fanboy from 2003 until about 2012.
> Arrogant because it assumes the system and its ecosystem of packages will never break and the user will never have to troubleshoot.
Everything breaks. FreeBSD, Linux, NT, Darwin; every OS breaks and requires troubleshooting. And yes, it can be nice to have more blogs to reference, but I think you're overestimating both how much it matters and how few blogs talk about FreeBSD.
> Either that or they have amazing restore capabilities.
My FreeBSD system's never failed me, and if one uses pkg quarterly (not ports) you have not more problems than you have in any other linux distro.
And speaking about btrfs...man that's some unwelcoming filesystem, i tested Kubic out some month ago, one of the node filled it's fs to 98%, i cleaned it up, rebooted and the result? Un-bootable OS...thanks btrfs.
Because once they inevitably have to troubleshoot they'll discover a much smaller community with much fewer blogs and articles about it than Linux.
Disclaimer, I was a BSD fanboy from 2003 until about 2012.