Username or EmailPassword
Just to make it clear: I don't have a problem with the way PC-BSD is developed. It just proves how good FreeBSD's architecture is: for instance, switching from 6.1 to 6.2 takes a few hours' work, and you can have an update ready in no time. Similarly, when KDE 3.5.5 was released to ports, it took only a few days to upgrade PC-BSD to use it. My gripe is with your statement that "PC-BSD is first to use latest KDE and various technologies that is never used on FreeBSD." Again, HALd is a good example: it has been supported on FreeBSD for some time now, but KDE support only arrived with 3.5.5. Until then, PC-BSD used a homegrown system to detect attached media, and switched to HALd only after it became available with KDE when the port was upgraded - and then you began bitching about the "HALd disaster"... you and others like this user: http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16907&comment_id=200540
You did nothing to avoid that disaster by helping the KDE@freebsd team to solve them - which again, is not a problem in itself. I don't expect you to do that - unless you make claims about the tremendous contributions you provide to the FreeBSD project.