Please do not force things on users that are not ready

codytherudeguy

I'm noticing that on Linux they are trying to force wayland and rust on everyone without realizing these things have terrible legacy hardware support or just don't function well at all causing performance bottlenecks

I know that going all in on wayland and rust is tempting as more modern hardware can benefit from this but i would hope you understand that not every ghostBSD user is using a five grand gaming desktop or gaming laptop
some of us use older computers that run better with no rust and using xlibre

It seems Linux has decided on focusing only on new hardware while abandoning older hardware something it used to excel at

My reason for bringing this up is mainly based on the stuff ubuntu and debian are doing
I'd hate to see ghostBSD end up the same way as those two as i really like ghostBSD

ericbsd

On that, there are things we force on users, like ZFS as the only file system we support and 4GB+ of RAM, but we recommend 8GB.

When it comes to rust, we are not interested in it. There is no plan to move to Waylland. That said, the Rust dependency is creeping into a lot of software. At the system level, it is not yet in FreeBSD, and hopefully it won't be.

codytherudeguy

ericbsd ZFS has not given me any issues i doubt it will destroy SSD quicker than any other partition format it might actually be good for preserving data if the SSD starts failing honestly

The ram requirement is not really an issue at least on the XFCE build as after i installed it i barely surpassed 3gb of ram doing a ton of tasks including web browsing (granted i did change some configs in my browser to better optimize it's hardware usage)

I'm not saying we need to get rid of rust and wayland entirely what i'm suggesting is a wait and see approach
cause right now they are nowhere near ready for average desktop usage unless you have some mid range hardware

I would hope the BSD developers have enough foresight to not adopt anything until it's so refined that even a lets say 6th gen intel setup works fine in such an environment

ericbsd

codytherudeguy I would hope the BSD developers have enough foresight to not adopt anything until it's so refined that even a lets say 6th gen intel setup works fine in such an environment

FreeBSD is slow to adopt new things or to add support for the latest hardware. So I do not force a switch to Rust. ALL BSD as his own way to do things. Even though we are based on FreeBSD, we have our own way of doing things.

Robin

Rust, it seems from all the stuff I see and read in tech blogs and such, seems to have some kind of religious fervor behind it. They should make a website called Rust-Jihad or something, and the motto, "Death to all who use any language but Rust!" But it breaks lots of stuff. In Debian now, it messes up APT which everyone depends on; Debian and all of her offspring and prodigy down ten generations.

Same thing to a lesser degree with systemd which we all witnessed, but now Wayland-Jihad is about to compete with Rust-Jihad for dominance, but their common enemy is XLibre, for daring to keep a perfectly reliable and proven display server alive and thriving. How dare they!

I hope and pray that the BSDs remain above this politically-motivated nonsense as they have so far. I'm seeing no interest in it on the BSD side at all, and I'm grateful for that!

vimanuelt

The 2024 U.S. government guidance to adopt memory-safe languages was well intentioned but easily misunderstood. It was a recommendation, not a ban on C or C++, yet funding priorities quickly shifted to favor projects written in Rust, Go, and similar languages. Many developers reacted by rebranding or rewriting code mainly to appear compliant rather than to improve safety in practice. The guidance also overlooked that disciplined practices such as static analysis, fuzzing, and compiler hardening can make existing languages just as secure. The result is that some projects chased funding at the expense of practicality and credibility.

The GhostBSD project is not pursuing U.S. government funding. I am not certain whether that is the case for the FreeBSD project or the FreeBSD Foundation, but GhostBSD has no control over their decisions. If this issue is a concern, it would be better to raise it directly with them.