Re:FreeBSD – A lesson in poor defaults
by 0xcde4c3db on Friday July 05, 2019 @03:28PM
(#20365144)
My experience with FreeBSD is that the culture expects administrators to take on much more of a systems integrator role than most operating systems, somewhat like how Arch Linux or Gentoo compare to other Linux distributions. The overall experience is very different than either of those for a variety of reasons, but I think the similarities are there at a more abstract level.
Support for ZFS in FreeBSD installer, support for ZFS boot environments, etc, etc are surely the things that make you feel that ZFS was "bolted into" FreeBSD. Or, perhaps, you haven't used FreeBSD+ZFS as much.
It's funny that you say that because FreeBSD's ZFS support is the reason I use FreeBSD, and it's the number 1 thing I wish OpenBSD had.
I am not getting the part why ZFS felt bolt on? And worst offender?
I think we are missing some context here?
I was thinking about the command line tools. It's extremely clear that they came from Solaris and there has been no effort made to make them feel more like they belong in a BSD system.
By far the worst offender i ZFS. Having ZFS as an option on FreeBSD (or Linux) is wonderful, but it's extremely clear where ZFS has its origin. ZFS feels like it was just bolted into FreeBSD and no one has a plan for making it feel like it belongs.
OpenBSD has been incredible successful in building a base system that feels like everything belongs together and working in a similar fashoin