This is negative because it just encourages the bad practice on the part of FreeBSD to release 2 or 3 or 4 stable point releases, based on the assumption that "anyone who wants anything should just use -current".
At some point there will be the (absurd) necessity to start bundling a "super current" release because there has to be a test platform, but at the same time everyone is using -current in production and you can't break it too badly.
Or I guess they can just break it badly one of these times and a lot of people get screwed.
There is a deep, deep cultural problem in FreeBSD that just doesn't ever go away and it can be summed up by saying: FreeBSD is an OS by, and for, FreeBSD developers.
Production: 10.3, 10.2, 10.1, 9.3
It's not like their management is clueless either. The project is sponsored by an advanced technology company (https://www.ixsystems.com/).
iX don't have ® all over the place on their own site, or FreeNAS so it must be a PC-BSD choice.
Huh? Did you type that correctly? It takes me to a site titled SAMAA TV, that has lots of Arabic on it. Something from Pakistan?
Edit: apparently the computer centric site is http://pcbsd.org/
Now they abandoned this desktop focus. So what is the selling point here?
In terms of packages and uppdates: The way a pkg update on FreeBSD goes is that you do pkg-update && pkg-upgrade, and it updates your packages in place. In PC-BSD, it makes a new clone of your current root environment, and does the upgrade there. It makes this the new boot environment, and at reboot, you boot into the updated system. This is much cleaner, and allows you to easily roll back in the rare event of something blowing up.
I hope TrueOS keeps this.
Ugh, The name reminds me of Tru64 from DEC in the 90s..
This is how it works in FreeBSD too. At least that's how I do it. beadm is not mandatory, nor is used "by default", but it is there, it's the only way I update.
So I see no advantage here.
So you have to reboot to apply the changes? Sounds familiar :)
So I wasn't the only one!
I've experimented with a PC-BSD desktop in the past. It was significantly easier to get going than setting up FreeBSD from scratch. While the FreeBSD documentation is excellent, there's a lot to do to make it a functional graphical desktop, and PC-BSD does all that stuff for you.
Underneath it's still FreeBSD, so I couldn't see any reason not to use it.
"Although it's a household name for so many"