If I wasn't clear, I think that's fair! And certainly appreciate your blog entry. I think if anything my quibble is with our/some's obsession with "minimalism". Like, in one sense, it's less complicated to live in the woods, in another, it's tremendously difficult for some. Yet I'm not certain we should glorify it. It's just a different way of living.

For example, OpenBSD won't adopt ZFS. Won't adopt Rust within the OS. Won't use hyperthreading. All aren't even up for debate. They have their reasons, but also I do enjoy my creature comforts. Because at a certain level of additional ease does have its benefits?

It feels like the other side of the Simple Made Easy talk by Rich Hickey[0]. Yes, we shouldn't aggravate complexity, but also we need not make things unnecessarily hard on ourselves either for the sake of "simplicity" or "minimalism". It's a balance for the rest of us. I think the goal should be to strive for both easy and simple, and an OpenBSD desktop falls short re: easy for me.

[0]: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy/

> Won't use hyperthreading.

That's a switch.

> Won't adopt Rust within the OS.

It's in packages. Get it.

> OpenBSD won't adopt ZFS

Hammer2 would be preferable.

> That's a switch.

That's fair. I supposed what I was getting at is: OpenBSD seems... mono-maniacal(?), and that's one reason it remains niche.

> It's in packages. Get it.

Yeah, but won't adopt inside the base OS.

> Hammer2 would be preferable.

"...from a licensing standpoint..." Otherwise, ZFS is still obviously the state of the art. Most of us shrug and say "Whatever?" re: the licensing noise and run the stuff that works?

ZFS has two flaws: the license and that it's too intrusive.