On ZFS becoming the only available FS

[kraileth]

Not sure if you know, but firefox by itself take about 8GB of ram on my most common use and i386 have limits of 3GB, yes you can have firefox running or another browser, but it is making the system sluggish.

Sure, I had an i386 system running with GhostBSD. It certainly wasn't going to win any race. Even updating the sqlite package database took awfully long. But it did work if you're ready to bear it. I've posted here on the forums using Firefox on 11.1-BETA1 with MATE. But let's drop this subject now; the topic has been decided on, official i386 GhostBSD is history.

There was a conversation about maybe dropping UFS, there is no decision made and actually, UFS is probably a must-have, but the day I see no use to it I will drop it currently I run under ZFS only.

Let me assure you that it is currently needed. I don't know about other people, but at least I have to use it - as long as MBR+ZFS doesn't work, that is. It's not that I love UFS and wish to stick with it forever.

D'ont invest time at the wrong place I work with Kris Moore and we will rewrite pc-sysinstall in GO in the future, and for now, I have invest lot of time in pc-sysinstall code to make it work my way that, I willl not drop it and most of my issue with pc-sysinstall is that I did not use it as it is intended. GELI aperanltly work for ZFS, but iXsystems is paying people to add support for ZSF encryption in FreeBSD, which will be better than GELI and it basically one of the reasons why I am looking to drop UFS.

Uhh... Why Golang of all possible languages? If I remember correctly that was the original plan for Iocage as well, it didn't work out and Brandon Schneider ended up re-writing it again - in Python. I'm in need of an installer at work, too, so I do have to investigate this field anyway. However it does of course make perfect sense to look at the re-write of pc-sysinstall when it's done. Maybe it will fit the requirements (which are yet to be defined). ZFS encryption is another thing that I'm looking forward of playing with.

TrueOS is a desktop and server distro of FreeBSD too and I don't see conflicting expectations. Sure TrueOS is becoming more like fork than a distro, but still that right now they are a distro. GhostBSD is changing and FreeBSD won't change. TrueOS right now is the most popular BSD on distro watch, because they took a risk that did not want to take and not that I work with them I see what they are trying to accomplish, to a point that it will be more than an advantage to use TrueOS make the BSD of GhostBSD than FreeBSD itself iXsystems have hired Kernel developers and they are adding functionality to FreeBSD for FreeNAS/TrueNAS but at one point me and Joe want to see TrueOS Core be the replacement of FreeBSD for GhostBSD and FreeNAS/TrueNAS.

The trouble with TrueOS is that they changed so much that it made quite some people run off. I'm not opposed of a more modern GTK+ based FreeBSD distro. A year ago we discussed optionally supporting OpenRC and I'm still very much in favor of going down that road. Same thing with tracking -STABLE instead of -RELEASE and things like that. Also SysAdm is simply genius and I would love to have a GTK+ interface for it. And of course supporting BEs in the future is a must. You don't have to convince me of things like that, I'm completely on this side. I just ask myself if the community thinks the same way or if it is more conservative. My gut instinct says that there's quite a few people around who like gbsd because it's much more close to FreeBSD. Perhaps we should make an announcement for a future roadmap and poll the community? At least it would be beneficial to know what it thinks.

For your info, ASX was against abandoning i386 until he realizes it is a dead weight and a problem for the project. Another thing is that tinkerers can go and install FreeBSD and make what they want with it. Yes me working for iXsystems will have a direct impact on GhostBSD, but GhostBSD will still remain independent of iXsystems unless I something happens that I can't refuse. I will admit that I was afraid of dropping i386, but it is done and we are not going back to i386.

Dead weight is probably the right term for it and I understand that it got in the way. I would like to unofficially offer an i386 image with Xfce on my own webspace for people who want to play with it. Still I wanted to ask you first - even if there's a big sign saying "There's no official support, this is just the private eccentricity of one GhostBSD project member. If you use this, you're mostly on your own." I would assume that people might drop a thread or two on the forums. Now if you say that you don't care, that's fine and I'll go ahead. If you don't want that to happen I will either explicitly have to tell them to not get on the forums or to leave it be completely. What is your stance on this?

Also, I am looking to support arm64 in the future and the drop of i386 can only make sense.

That will be very welcome. For one I think that GhostBSD could make an excellent thin-client OS and this will also help compensate for the loss of the i386 platform as testing an OS on multiple platforms might always expose bugs early that might have gone unnoticed otherwise.

[ASX]

I just ask myself if the community thinks the same way or if it is more conservative. My gut instinct says that there's quite a few people around who like gbsd because it's much more close to FreeBSD. Perhaps we should make an announcement for a future roadmap and poll the community? At least it would be beneficial to know what it thinks.

The problem is "I" don't like FreeBSD anymore, since several months ago.

Yeah, FreeBSD is conservative (too much IMO) and probably GhostBSD users also like "static" things, but unfortuately if we follow them the project is going to die, passively following FreeBSD own failures.

I have explained to ericbsd that the current ports management is a failure, I shortly recap it here for the benefit of those who do not attend the IRC channel:

"Ports" are considered "third party" and "community managed", just go to the fbsd forum to complain about a port and that is the answer they will give you.

But that is lie, because the "community" is not free to contribute their software and their fixes, they must pass the "exam" of the frebsd devs, that ultimately may happen fast, slow, or not happen at all.

I have already witnessed some contribution ignored for months; that's plainly wrong, and is also one of the reason that led me to think to abandon GhostBSD, but the reality is i'm angry at the upstream mismanagement.

Maintaininng 20 compiler version is also crazy ... you will never find this level of idiocy in any Linux, just to say.

And I will stop here, otherwise I would become boring.

However, talking/chatting with ericbsd we evaluated alternatives, andthere can be some that will keep me in, but I will let ericbsd talk about the future.

About the poll, I have inquired people a few times, about i386 support and about repo assortments just to mention the firsts that come to my mind, and they are not responsive at all ... (or may be we have no users at all, don't know).

But then, we are the ones that "do the work", and I doubt we could go against our own ideas, I certainly cannot.
therefore, in my view, the poll should be restricted here, in the developers team discussion section.

[ericbsd]

Dead weight is probably the right term for it and I understand that it got in the way. I would like to unofficially offer an i386 image with Xfce on my own webspace for people who want to play with it. Still, I wanted to ask you first - even if there's a big sign saying "There's no official support, this is just the private eccentricity of one GhostBSD project member. If you use this, you're mostly on your own." I would assume that people might drop a thread or two on the forums. Now if you say that you don't care, that's fine and I'll go ahead. If you don't want that to happen I will either explicitly have to tell them to not get on the forums or to leave it be complete. What is your stance on this?

Like a said every one free to fork and the name will need to be changed to something else than GhostBSD.