Is the homepage clearly explaining what makes GhostBSD unique?

grahamperrin

vimanuelt It is likely that their tooling around ZFS remains in an experimental state,

I doubt it.

vimanuelt

grahamperrin
https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/zfs-with-encryption-install-doesnt-boot-after-install-from-current-ubuntu-25-04-iso/59756 :-(

grahamperrin

vimanuelt … it is accurate. We are referring to the default installation. …

You state "No" for FreeBSD, where the tools can be added.

vimanuelt

You state "Yes" for Ubuntu, where the tools can be added.

If all three columns (for the three systems) become either "Yes" or "No", then the Developer Tools row does not belong in a table that describes uniqueness.

vimanuelt

grahamperrin
That is true. Also, most users may not even care about developer tools.

vimanuelt

grahamperrin

vimanuelt I already linked to that; not reproducible.

vimanuelt

Then perhaps the experimental designation of ZFS in Ubuntu 25.04 is most likely the result of several interrelated considerations. First, interest among Ubuntu developers in maintaining full ZFS support appears to have waned as other priorities have taken precedence. Second, the current installer infrastructure is not optimized to accommodate ZFS’s specialised requirements. Third, because ZFS is not part of the mainline Linux kernel, Canonical must sustain an out of tree kernel module that requires constant updating to maintain compatibility with successive kernel releases. That obligation entails a significant and ongoing allocation of engineering resources. By labeling ZFS as experimental, Canonical preserves the freedom to scale back or withdraw support if the engineering effort fails to deliver an adequate return, without formally abandoning a feature valued by many users. Moreover, this approach limits reputational risk should Ubuntu fall behind FreeBSD in keeping pace with new ZFS developments.

grahamperrin

vimanuelt … installer infrastructure is not optimized to accommodate ZFS’s specialised requirements. …

What's suboptimal?

OpenZFS requirements

Please see https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Project%20and%20Community/FAQ.html#hardware-requirements and thereabouts.

vimanuelt

To reinforce the distinction between GhostBSD and FreeBSD, we could develop specialized configuration utilities for common tasks such as Bluetooth pairing, printer installation and configuration and wireless network setup. These utilities would streamline the user experience and emphasize GhostBSD’s focus on providing a complete desktop solution. It would bring us closer to parity with Ubuntu.

grahamperrin

vimanuelt … Canonical … If you wish to learn more about the specific issues, you may contact them directly. …

https://canonical.com/#get-in-touch is for direct contact, it's not appropriate in this case.

https://ubuntu.com/#support is more appropriate. Switch from Enterprise, to Resources. Eight options, some of which are appropriate:

{Screenshot: a support menu at an Ubuntu web page}

– plus discussions elsewhere, and Launchpad.

vimanuelt

Just ask. What do you have to lose? Reaching out to developers directly has always been the FOSS way. :-) That is how I met a lot of great people over the past 30 years or so.

grahamperrin

vimanuelt … Reaching out to developers …

I'm familiar with reach-out and reach-in.

(My profile was previously blank, except for the avatar. I added a few links.)

Postscript

Parts of this topic helped me to create a gist in GitHub. Linked from under https://www.reddit.com/comments/1kk6lif/comment/mrsgxd1/, where GhostBSD and NomadBSD were mentioned.

Thanks, everyone

grahamperrin

vimanuelt During installation, Canonical labels ZFS support in Ubuntu as experimental. … It is likely that their tooling around ZFS remains in an experimental state, which justifies the label.

Was your thought of tooling based on evidence – something that you had read, whilst investigating, maybe (link, please) – or speculation?

… learn …

A few days earlier: https://redd.it/1kdkwsx

vimanuelt

grahamperrin
Yes, based on direct observation. After installation, ZFS management is limited to command-line tools. This stands in contrast to Canonical’s usual practice of providing graphical utilities for system administration in Ubuntu.

grahamperrin

vimanuelt … command-line tools. …

How are the command-line tools experimental?

vimanuelt

ZFS may not feel experimental to some users, but Canonical continues to treat it that way. One clear example is the lack of graphical tools. While the command-line tools are available and work well, Canonical has not created any official graphical interface for managing ZFS. This has been the case for several years. It suggests that ZFS is not a main focus for them. Without a proper user interface, most users will find ZFS harder to use. This makes it clear that Canonical still considers ZFS an advanced or optional feature, not something meant for general users.

grahamperrin

vimanuelt

I found, and then tagged, four bugs for which a fix is not committed. For Ubuntu overall, not Desktop in particular.

Considering the scope of Ubuntu and the size of its user base: four is not a huge number.

The two that are confirmed, for Desktop, are low priority. Neither one affects Plasma on Ubuntu.

For the two that are not confirmed: each one affects one person.

vimanuelt

grahamperrin
I suppose that makes GhostBSD unique. 😉 (I am just trying to find a little humour in a somewhat unfortunate situation.)

If there happens to be a Ubuntu event in Tokyo this year and Mark Shuttleworth attends, I will personally speak with him and ask why ZFS is still listed as experimental. I have met him several times in the past, he is approachable and candid. If he knows the answer, I am confident he will share it directly.

grahamperrin

vimanuelt thanks.

In the meantime: I might take the complete absence of interest, in the primary discussion area, as an indication that Ubuntu Desktop users of root-on-ZFS are not finding any significant issue, other than the four bugs.

It's an advanced option, not necessarily for advanced users.

vimanuelt

Yes, for me, Ubuntu is rather like daytime television. It is occasionally worth a glance, rarely worth getting involved. Still, there is always something to be learned from watching others make a proper mess of things. :-)

« Previous Page Next Page »