Username or EmailPassword
why do people continue to put freebsd in some "hardcore" camp of people who hate installers, want to build everything from sources, generally do things the hard way...?
freebsd has an installer that is simple, practically dumbie-proof, and does a considerable amount of hand-holding. it has a frontend to do post-installation work without getting your hands dirty too (sysinstall).
package and ports are clearly defined and once again added by default by the hand-holding installer if you want.
oh by the way i am describing the installer circa 1997. i am sure it has only improved. i went to freebsd from windows BECAUSE of the hand-holding install, which at the time was more solid than any linux installer. its no anaconda to be sure, but it is not frightening or challenging in any way.
ports is basically idiot-proof, and breakage in ports is no worse than rpm breakage on avg. the freebsd site is simple and easy to use. ports are kept up to date.
really folks, painting this as some "elite" system is absurd. it sounds like arch is much much harder to deal with and frankly i have to wonder what is the point of just making a linux that from all appearances is just harder to deal with.