Did anyone think of it back then?
BTW…Happy 4th of July Rod!
Did anyone think of it back then?
We had probably +24 names, but we whittled it down to about 4 or 5 before we finally decided. As for TrueOS becoming ‘CoreBSD’, I dont see that happening. For one it’s a bit too similar to CoreOS which is owned by Red Hat. Also iX already owns all the rights to TrueOS… and I dont think they really want to go through the hassle of legally registering a new name, when the existing one works fine.
“It’s cooler” rarely is a good reason to get Attorney’s involved.
Thanks for clarifying that! I see now why you chose to stay with that name. Attorneys are best avoided if possible!
I still think it would have made a better name.
I wouldn’t worry too much about people not being able to figure out the difference between True and Trident. I mean, I’m pathetically new to True/BSD, but even I am smart enough to figure that one out. Anyone who can’t figure out that much had better not even try using True/Trident.
I didn’t mean to sound grim or anything.
I’m waiting… patiently
It supports my speculation re iX losing interest in desktop, as they will no longer maintain desktop version of packages, for better or worse.
My main concern is that updates from CURRENT will have to go through CURRENT->TOS->Trident builds now. Where any additional link in the chain might add more delays for security updates. Will Trident keep both stable and unstable branches or 6 mo release cycle is all there is?
Frankly, I know little about it, so you’re most certainly right. Especially for a 1000 cores machine it could quite significant.
Personally, I’d have a backup machine(s), so a catastrophic failure (or reboot time) of one of them wouldn’t affect my web store, but I guess it depends on the size of deployment or importance of getting back online quickly and gazillion of other factors.
Sounds a bit like forking to me and more linuxy way of fixing things. However, as a dev myself I can understand the appeal. Anyways, it’s not addressed to Trident devs.
Sorry for the rant, which feels more like an off top to me now.
I’ve been thinking about the Project-Trident and the rest of the name soup and what it’s actually is.
A core OS is in my vocabulary the same as or lets say at least a part on the kernel and that’s in this case FreeBSD (like DOS used to be for Windows or even less). You can’t do much if you just install FreeBSD, you need to put something or top of it like PC-BSD, TrueOS or whatever. Then to get a graphical desktop you put a DE like Lumina, KDE, Gnome or whatever on top of that and voila, you got a user friendly OS.
Now, Trident means three of something. And there you got the three on the desktop version FreeBSD/TrueOS/Lumina. That’s why the server version will not be called Trident because it doesn’t have Lumina pre-installed.
If I understand this right the Project-Trident is a way to place the desktop version under one roof. I don’t know if Lumina still will be pre-installed, but I guess so or it wouldn’t be called Trident.
It kinda the same thing about the documentation.
at the present there are three handbooks SysAdm, TrueOS and Lumina, or four if you count in FreeBSD. That means that if you’re looking for something you first need to know which part of the OS it belongs to. Maybe there will be a Trident-handbook now that combines the knowledge it all these as so you can search one book instead of three.
Please correct me if I’m out in the blue here, I’m just a user of the graphical STABLE version and trying to get some understanding of this name soup in my own brain
Plenty of people do a lot with just FreeBSD installed.
No. You don’t put PC-BSD or TrueOS on top of FreeBSD… TrueOS and PC-BSD even more so are very customized versions of FreeBSD.
I’ve read through all the wall’s of text excusing/justifying/rationalising this sudden massive change.
Sorry folks, I don’t buy it. Trying to convince me this new idea is to emulate Linux distro logic? Shudder! No thanks. I’m trying to get away from fork mania thanks.
Let’s be blunt, ixsystems have pulled the plug on TrueOS desktop BSD.
A couple of dev’s will tinker with a base modified FreeBSD.
Everything else been pushed out for volunteers to pick up & develop… or not.
If I need a server I already have the excellent FreeBSD & FreeNAS.
TrueOS may someday become a really cool server in it’s own right but given the track record one could not be blamed for being leery of committing to it.
Project Trident may some day become a really cool desktop BSD.
But the plain truth is, it has all come to screeching halt with undetermined delay’s on progress & vague promises. I’ll be removing it from machines and using something else more… reliable.
Cheers & best wishes to the dev’s & community, it was interesting while it lasted…
Hey your machines, you do what you gotta do, but “…emulate Linux distro logic?” Sorry, but I think you’ve misunderstood what is being said.
No, you have not.
Making decisions based on misunderstandings is… bad.
The cool thing about open source projects is that as long as at least one person is still interested in the project, the project will never die.
Thank you Ichibiri
“TrueOS will become a downstream fork that will build on FreeBSD by integrating new software technologies like OpenRC and LibreSSL.”
Wondering if there was ever a request made to the FreeBSD core team to make these changes and, if so, Is there a link to the response? (I would assume the conversation went on for days.)
FreeBSD has the core BSD developers plus…, which is a vast group
TrueOS dependED upon FreeBSD but will now chart its own course with IXSystems leading based upon business decisions… (Not sure how many developers they have…) (How is IXSystems doing anyway? I see more ads regarding their storage system over the past year. Will they continue with FreeNAS or changes happening there as well?)
Trident will continue on it’s own and will depend upon TrueOS as a base? Not FreeBSD. What organisation is leading/supporting Trident? if any.