# Technology Roadmap



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 18, 2021)

Technology Roadmap | FreeBSD Foundation
					

Much like any other organization navigating the future during very uncertain times, the FreeBSD Foundation team spent the last year increasingly focused on how best to support its mission and goal - how best to support the FreeBSD Project. We held strategy sessions with the Foundation Board and...




					freebsdfoundation.org
				




Enjoy.


----------



## kpedersen (Sep 18, 2021)

Oh interesting.

They are having another crack at a new installer.

So sysinstall had a much longer lifespan than bsdinstall. Perhaps that did ultimately mean it was objectively better?

I really hope they go towards a simpler OpenBSD style installer for their next attempt.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Sep 18, 2021)

bsdinstall is OK, there are worse installers. I think the current iteration of Linux distribution installers are particularly bad, especially Anaconda used by Fedora, which crashes most times I use it but waits until after it starts partitioning my disks to do so... I have used OpenBSD and it is very plain but very functional. As long as your hardware works if you accept the default it is a two minute job. I think bsdinstall is a little more flexible in that regard, but certainly there is room for improvement


----------



## kpedersen (Sep 19, 2021)

Comparing them from what I remember (I use both fairly often but installers are often not so memorable , I feel that bsdinstall only really offers something considerably more when it comes to UFS vs ZFS in the disk setup stages.

OpenBSD doesn't really have this option so just thrusts you into `disklabel -E`. However for all other parts of the installer, I really don't see how the TUI dialogs improve it. Perhaps it gives an illusion that it is "easier"?

Though yeah, unlike the mentioned Anaconda, at least it doesn't churn up an X11 or (ugh) Wayland session just to install to disk. Anaconda in text only installs is also weird and feels broken.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Sep 19, 2021)

Yes you would think it would be intimidating but when it works it is just a matter of  pressing enter like 7 times haha. A monkey could install OpenBSD.

Does the writer really like Focus Area 3 or it was it meant to be small font like the others 

It's nice to see a clear direction of where the project is going. I for one am quite happy with it.


----------



## a6h (Sep 20, 2021)

kpedersen said:


> OpenBSD doesn't really have this option so just thrusts you into `disklabel -E`. However for all other parts of the installer, I really don't see how the TUI dialogs improve it. Perhaps it gives an illusion that it is "easier"?



I like the idea of TUI front-end, during the FreeBSD installation, and that's just because I was an avid NC 5.0 user. NC5 was great F2, F3 ...!

But I prefer the way OpenBSD is doing this, i.e. separate partitions and small "/", install script, "install.site" and "upgrade.site".
I've heard from some Arch users whimpering, that OpenBSD way of installation is too much.

Using the "fdisk -e" and "disklabel -E" has its own merit though. If you don't know what you are doing, you'll end up with wrong partitioning scheme, and filling-up you're "/". That's a good reminder that you need to RTFM.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 25, 2021)

kpedersen said:


> … The installer is actually so basic (which is a good thing) …



For a significant proportion of end users: too basic.

From the Roadmap:






I never saw the proof of concept, but I conceptualise an installer that offers greater ease of use:

during installation
for the installed product
– so, for (1), <https://forums.FreeBSD.org/threads/what-is-your-favorite-text-editor.64315/post-533132>


----------



## kpedersen (Sep 25, 2021)

grahamperrin  Were you using FreeBSD before we had bsdinstall? I don't suppose you recall the original official installer called sysinstall. This one was more complex, it provided a number of package bases (including when X11 was a base set package) and allowed you to drill into individual packages.

That was deemed "too needlessly complex" so bsdinstall was made. The arguments given was that a known base was a good idea and any customizations should be made via build scripts.

So basically innovation has stalled and we are simply going to go around in a circle now forever. Perhaps they should simply revert sysinstall back and give an option between the two? No need to make anything new; we already had this 10 years ago.









I personally hope it never goes back to this. Deterministic installs are much easier to diagnose issues. As I recall, most people just specified an absolute minimal base install, ignored the other menus and then installed additions later on after first boot. This is basically what the bsdinstall workflow is.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 25, 2021)

kpedersen said:


> … Were you using FreeBSD before we had bsdinstall? …



I don't know.

I do recall experimenting with FreeBSD, long ago, on an iMac G5, I found things unreasonably difficult. Generally unusable. The difficulties were not with the installer. The FreeBSD Handbook was way too dense, walls of text. I don't doubt that the texts made sense to people who were _already familiar_ with FreeBSD, however to me: the walls were barriers to understanding problems and so, I simply abandoned FreeBSD. Abandoned for years.

My eventual switch from Mac OS X was to PC-BSD.



kpedersen said:


> Deterministic installs are much easier to diagnose issues.



I can't imagine a preference for ee making diagnosis difficult.


----------



## kpedersen (Sep 25, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> I can't imagine a preference for ee making diagnosis difficult.


Haha, no. ee is tiny like (n)vi so certainly no problem in base. What I do think would be frustrating is if *sometimes* it is installed, *sometimes* (n)vi is missing, etc. Just because some guy decided one way or the other when he installed FreeBSD. This is the part that should be deterministic. A proper concept of a base install rather than an ever changing random selection of packages.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 26, 2021)

kpedersen said:


> … if *sometimes* it is installed, *sometimes* (n)vi is missing, …



I'm not aware of any suggestion to remove vi from base.

Problems with _accidental/unexpected_ appearance of vi were acknowledged more than twenty years ago. We should do better.

Avoid putting end users in accident-prone situations. A single minor enhancement to an installer should achieve this. We _can_ do better.

A single enhancement. Neither random, nor ever-changing. Please, let's not conflate the issue.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Sep 26, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> I don't know.
> 
> I do recall experimenting with FreeBSD, long ago, on an iMac G5, I found things unreasonably difficult. Generally unusable. The difficulties were not with the installer. The FreeBSD Handbook was way too dense, walls of text. I don't doubt that the texts made sense to people who were _already familiar_ with FreeBSD, however to me: the walls were barriers to understanding problems and so, I simply abandoned FreeBSD. Abandoned for years.
> 
> ...


Yeah the Handbook is incredibly detailed. Perhaps too detailed for a new user! I do think it would be good to have a 'guide for new people' just focusing on the basics coming from other operating systems*. As for the default editor the installer already asks for a default shell (sh, csh, tcsh). It would just be a case of adding an additional prompt asking which editor to use (vi, ee)? Of all the difficulties FreeBSD is facing I would think that would be the least of the issues!

In my opinion,

The keyboard layout seems clunky, on OpenBSD you type ? and it gives you a list of keymaps with a number for each one, there is no need for long scrolling and you can always drop into a shell to test the input.

I find the rest of the installer pretty easy to use? So long as one follows the default it is difficult to mess it up, the issue is when something goes wrong. I had a complaint about something to do with GEOM a while back when trying to install a few years ago out of curiosity.

However considering 'dialog' is GNU licensed, it might be an idea to drop it entirely and just use an installer that works with shell? The dialog interface is not particularly helpful really, it would still be needed by ports so could be pulled in then.

I'm not really a fan of removing things for the sake of it. A base system should be small yes, but functional, and whether that has one or three editors seems a little bit irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A better question is, do they work?

I'm generally of the opinion that the shell is not a dirty thing and that there is not really any need for dialog or graphical interfaces, if installation is simple it will be easy to do with or without the shell, as it is on OpenBSD.

* Considering this idea further you could perhaps have a section for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, the latter would have less focus on the shell than the others since there would be assumed prior knowledge, the former two could focus on getting a functional desktop system, the latter on the subtle differences, and then the Handbook could be used for the authoritative exposition of detail on cool things like Jails.


----------



## kpedersen (Sep 26, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> I'm not aware of any suggestion to remove vi from base.


No me neither.

However if users are able to rice about with base during installation, they will make a mess and start removing things that will later confuse them.

Better to not give them the choice in all fairness. Makes it easier for beginners *and* those helping them.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 26, 2021)

Thanks, I might try the installer for OpenBSD in a virtual machine.



mrbeastie0x19 said:


> … a supplementary 'guide for new people' just focusing on the basics coming from other operating systems. …



The FreeBSD Project | For People New to Both FreeBSD and UNIX®

undated
probably 1997
"… vi … sometimes you will inadvertently issue a command that will do something you do not expect. … when it gives you trouble …" – more than twenty-four years ago.
The FreeBSD Project | FreeBSD Quickstart Guide for Linux® Users

© 2008
<https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/dn5nv/-/> | <https://old.reddit.com/r/BSD/comments/dn43b/-/> (2010)



kpedersen said:


> … they will make a mess. …



How can a personal preference for ee make a mess?


----------



## kpedersen (Sep 26, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> How can a personal preference for ee make a mess?


ee is in base. What if a beginner unselects both ee and vi during installation (because both are "old fashioned") and then something like `visudo` or `git commit` fails because they broke base?

This is more what I was getting at. This concept of a "make your own OS" during the install is not ideal. I can foresee problems with it.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 26, 2021)

kpedersen said:


> … unselects both ee and vi during installation …



That's entirely different from the choice that I suggested.

Echoing <https://forums.FreeBSD.org/threads/64315/post-533212>:

To avoid confusion

I'd like the installer to ask the person installing whether the installed system should default to:

ee (easy editor); or
vi.

Radio buttons – _either, or_. Impossible to deselect both items. Allow the user to choose a default.

*No* suggestion to remove vi from base.

*No* suggestion to allow installation without vi.


----------



## kpedersen (Sep 26, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> I'd like the installer to ask the person installing whether the installed system should default to:
> 
> ee (easy editor); or
> vi.


A whole question just for this (trivial) list of editors? Seems this is almost certainly a per user choice too. You can see in the default profile scripts the EDITOR variable is set.

I think Debian tried by symlinking a "sensible-editor" program but that was pretty weird.

The question is, would `visudo` or `git` even respect your choice? Every port like this would need to be modified. It is probably also a reason why Microsoft Windows installer doesn't give you the choice between `notepad` and `edit` during the installer.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 26, 2021)

kpedersen said:


> visudo or git even respect your choice?



visudo certainly does. 



> Every port like this would need to be modified. … Microsoft Windows …



Please, let's not conflate the issue.


----------



## kpedersen (Sep 26, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> visudo certainly does.


No it doesn't. It just uses the EDITOR variable. Not some globally set editor preference. The closest you can probably get is setting the default dot.profile skel file.



grahamperrin said:


> Please, let's not conflate the issue.


Don't see it as conflating the issue, see it as prior research. No OS installer currently asks for preferred editor. You don't want to scare off users asking them pointless questions. You might need to have a look around and try some more installers out to see what works and what doesn't (certainly the OpenBSD one is a good example).

For example, what some other platforms do is ask you what editor you want to use on first invocation. It does get a bit weird for semi-interactive scripts but does give _each user_ the option.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 26, 2021)

kpedersen said:


> pointless



That's not an incentive to correct you.


----------



## kpedersen (Sep 26, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> That's not an incentive to correct you.


You going to ask them what pager they prefer to use next? 

I suppose default shell would be a candidate too. Interestingly OpenBSD asks this on first invocation of the interactive `useradd` command.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 26, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> Please, let's not conflate the issue.





grahamperrin said:


> Please, let's not conflate the issue.





kpedersen said:


> You going to ask them what pager they prefer to use next?



No. 

Please, let's not conflate the issue.


----------



## kpedersen (Sep 26, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> Please, let's not conflate the issue.


OK, Well I'm going to leave it here then because just focusing on an editor selection during installation is a little bit too trivial and narrow to even be considered when there are *far* more difficulties that a beginner will encounter along their travels.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 27, 2021)

Cthulhux said:


> … how many editors …





grahamperrin said:


> I'm aware of only three in base:
> 
> the two above, for which the installer might offer a choice
> ed(1).





Cthulhux said:


> … package installation … support …



If a person chooses to install a package – *separate from (after installation of) base* – there'll be:

a maintainer, or no maintainer
ideally, a home page with an explicit route to support.
For example,

`pkg rquery '%m %w' geany`

– and FreshPorts is our friend, e.g. <https://www.freshports.org/devel/geany/>.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Sep 28, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> I never saw the proof of concept



Found: 





– FreeBSD Experiment Rethinks The OS Install | Hackaday (2021-08-10)


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Sep 30, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> Found:
> 
> View attachment 11491
> 
> – FreeBSD Experiment Rethinks The OS Install | Hackaday (2021-08-10)


Sounds like an absolute nightmare. 

- Requires a network (currently I can extract sets on another machine without a network interface).
- Requires remote authentication (otherwise a malicious attacker could target my machines address and format my drives).
- Requires 4gb ram to boot (does that sound like a bad use of resources to anyone else?)
- Looks difficult to configure, what happens when I need to drop into a shell because the installer is not flexible enough?
- If for some reason it fails (which it will) I still need to drop into a shell, except now I have more barriers to do so.

A far better installer would be a simple shell with two options: Novice and Expert. Novice will default all settings so new users just have to press enter, type in a keymap and fill in a username and password and they're up and running within minutes with sane defaults. Expert would allow manual partitioning, messing around with security hardening etc. When the project switches to pkgbase optionally there could be a prompt to install third party software, providing a simple dialog interface to browse the ports tree and select any packages of interest, or to skip that and stick with the base system.

That installer prototype is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion!


----------



## chrbr (Sep 30, 2021)

About the installer prototype: the page says:

```
That means you can put the install disc for FreeBSD into a headless machine on your network, 
and use the browser on your laptop or even smartphone to access the installer. 
The Graybeards will point out that savvy users have always been able to access 
the text installer from another computer over SSH, but even the most staunch 
Luddite has to admit that simply opening a browser on whatever device you have 
handy and pointing it to the target machine’s IP address is a big usability improvement.
```
Is that serious? Sure, all newcomers have headless machines around and the only issue with the FreeBSD installation is that currently there is no access to the installer by a browser. I am too stupid for this world.
EDIT: I am not a native English speaker. May be I misunderstand everything. But I do not think so.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 2, 2021)

<https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/82216/#post-533608> jbodenmann you didn't ask about the Thunderbolt _4_ ports (I didn't expect you to), but this is worth noting:



> … early stages of evaluating work on Thunderbolt _3_ / USB 4 support. …



For what it's worth: a few days ago, I booted an HP EliteBook from FreeBSD 14.0-CURRENT for a few hours (to test its camera) and if I recall correctly, could not use a Microsoft mouse with the USB ports in an HP Thunderbolt 3 Dock. 

(Not a particularly useful observation, because the ports seem to be intermittently not driven with Windows, and it seems that neither HP Support Assistant nor HP Image Assistant automatically provides what's required. Addressing this is on my to-do list for Monday.)


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 3, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 said:


> Requires 4gb ram to boot (does that sound like a bad use of resources to anyone else?)



The wish to require less is shared by: 

the developer of helloSystem, on which that particular experiment was based at the time
the developer of Airyx
the author of the article
me and various other people, including developers whose names are not immediately apparent.
Respectively (1–3): 









						Live mode boot slow, needs 4GB+ RAM · Issue #4 · helloSystem/ISO
					

Currently we need at least 4 GB of RAM for the Live system when the booted sytem in theory only needs <1. This is because everything gets copied into RAM at boot time. I would like to remove the...




					github.com
				












						Release 0.3.0pre · ravynsoft/ravynos
					

Remove debug line




					github.com
				




"the experimental installer ISO won’t even boot unless it detected at least 4 GB of RAM onboard."


Also, for reference: 









						System requirements: memory/RAM · Issue #4 · ghostbsd/ghostbsd.org
					

https://www.ghostbsd.org/download describes: 4 GB of RAM – as a minimum. Alongside the minimium requirements, it may be helpful to describe what's recommended for booting from the .iso; and to ...




					github.com
				






> … not so much is required for installed systems (without the .iso). …


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 3, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> False.
> 
> Please: where did you get the misinformation? Or did you test, and encounter a failure?
> 
> View attachment 11552


From the article you linked 
"Once the user has booted into the live OS, they simply need to point the browser to the loopback address at any time to access the installer’s GUI." 

There is an option to do this locally then? Ok fair enough I guess it can be done, but the subsequent paragraph mentions network installs so that was the source of confusion.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 3, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> The wish to require less is shared by:
> 
> the developer of helloSystem, on which that particular experiment was based at the time
> the developer of Airyx
> ...


I'm only using the information you provided (the article), if there's anything wrong with it do let us know. And expressing a desire to use less resources isn't quite reassuring enough to replace bsdinstall is it? Results need to happen.

*one of the developers in a link you gave seems to suggest he has no interest in supporting machines with lower resources, now it's the 21st century so I'm mostly OK with that, but it doesn't bode well for FreeBSD as a platform for small embedded devices like routers...


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 3, 2021)

Sorry! My bad. Not thinking straight. Force of habit, I dived into the older GUI that's not web-based. I deleted my post.



mrbeastie0x19 said:


> point the browser to the loopback address



Re: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopback#Virtual_loopback_interface> I hope to find that _localhost_ works, for the proof-of-concept installer, with no network hardware present. I'll retest, please watch this space.



mrbeastie0x19 said:


> Results need to happen.



Point (2) is probably the result that we want.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 3, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> I hope to find that _localhost_ works, for the proof-of-concept installer, with no network hardware present. I'll retest,



It does work for most preparations, however (from the article):



> … the manual network configuration panel currently only works with WiFi interfaces, as that’s all he personally has to test with. …



Conceptually, what's missing is an `http://localhost/` (installer front page) option to *Skip* networking. Instead, with hello-0.6.0_gitfe7bf19-FreeBSD-13.0-amd64.iso:




in the absence of compatible wireless hardware, the *Connect* button is non-effective, and (front page) installation of FreeBSD can not begin.
Hints:

the _Install FreeBSD_ icon pictured above is *not* related to the _Install FreeBSD _web page (the proof-of-concept that featured in the article) – it's an helloSystem application
to have something visible – not blackness – during the very long silence at boot time (an issue with helloSystem), `unset boot_mute` as pictured below.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 3, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 said:


> doesn't bode well for FreeBSD as a platform for small embedded devices like routers.



GhostBSD was never intended for such devices.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 3, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> It does work for most preparations, however (from the article):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting thanks for looking at that, yes if there is a loop back address that can be accessed without a 'real network' as such that is a little better, I suppose the base system could do with some kind of http daemon anyway so using it for an installer wouldn't be too bad, however I do worry still about the resource usages and my experience with graphical installers is often quite bad (Ubuntus is actually pretty good though)



grahamperrin said:


> GhostBSD was never intended for such devices.


Sure but the road map mentions a new installer on the way possibly for FreeBSD. I'm just hoping this is not the kind of road taken given the additional overhead it'd put on non desktop setups, which being realistic account for the larger number of FreeBSD installations in terms of practical usage these days.

It all depends on how it ends up looking though, because outsourcing the installer to another machine doing a headless install to another device might actually be a smarter approach for a smaller system.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 3, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 said:


> … the additional overhead it'd put on non desktop setups, …



I'm not aware of any plan to deprecate bsdinstall(8). Expect it to be available alongside a web-based installer, and so on.

*Airyx*, the system mentioned above, boots fine with 1,024 MB memory, which should be more than enough for a web browser to handle a web-based installer.


----------



## kpedersen (Oct 3, 2021)

I guess this web server based installer is meant to compliment bsdinstall. Possibly intended for the younger generation who have never experienced the elegance or simplicity of installing via serial/RS-232 and only know ethernet (personally I would rather only put a new server on the network *after* finishing all configuration).

That said, the ethernet solution does feel "big, clever and enterprisy" (Solaris and AIX use(d) similar I believe).


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 15, 2021)

Bumping this because I have something relevant to say and the thread is still relevant. (It is the current roadmap).

With respect to the installer I would like to see an initramfs, similar to the openbsd ramdisk kernel, if you take a look it allows you to produce an installer image that's about 5mb in size... Obviously the sets are then fetched from the net (which they probably should be to make sure you are up to date anyway). I still think this is very impressive.


----------



## mer (Oct 15, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 
That is the way a good number of Linux distributions do things.  An issue is networking:  what is needed to get on the network so we can install packages.  If you have a wifi connection, you need the right stuff to get that going, but if you need a package, now that needs to be in the initramfs.  Next guy has different hardware so you add another package.  Pick a point where you stop and someone is going to complain.
Now done properly an initramfs could be told to point at a local device like USB drive for packages instead of Internet, but you still need to present that choice.

As for the old sysinstall discussions, yes, I certainly was around using it and agree with the arguments against it.  Some of the things weren't bad, if you looked at "meta-things".  Install X?  Workstation?  Server?  One can envision a simple server vs workstation install, with workstation ask about preferred DE, do you want compiler, but there have been and always will be arguments around this.

To me, it's very simple:
Default install.  Decide on that, figure it out, lock it down.
Make it painfully obvious and easy for "what next" beyond the default install.  Now I've always found this trivial and easy to understand but I realize not everyone does.  Better documentation, better "stuff" would help.

I'm really tired of the "default editor" argument:  vi and ee are both installed by default, so there really should be no argument.  If you want something more hand-holding the only thing making sense to me is:
When the installer asks about "adding a user",  ask for default editor preference for that user only, then set EDITOR correctly in the shell init files.
Doing anything other than that is forcing the setting on all the users which is the wrong thing to do.

The current "dfault editor discussion" seems to be:
50% of the people want ee as default, the rest want vi as the default.
Since vi has been the default for "just about forever", we should switch the default to ee so the "other" 50% have to do something to get vi as default.  It's only fair because the 50% that want ee as default have been doing something and they shouldn't have to.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 15, 2021)

True UNIX admins know the real editor is not vi, not ee, but ed /s. I don't see any strong reason for any of them in honesty, they're all fairly bog standard text editors that can edit text but have a very unfriendly ui (from the modern perspective) yet they do one thing and do it well. Pick one, or three, doesn't bother me, they take absolutely no space really.

Looking at the ram disk kernel as I said above the openbsd image supports networking even on the 5mb image, not sure what magic it does but it just fetches the base sets after. By comparison the freebsd memstick img is hundreds of mbs, and that's about on par with most linux distros like Debian. For the life of me I can't work out why the openbsd way isn't being taken by more systems.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 30, 2021)

mer said:


> … When the installer asks about "adding a user", …



That doesn't cover the root user. 



mer said:


> Doing anything other than that is forcing the setting on all the users …



It's not so binary. 









						Ask whether the default system-wide editor should be ee or vi · Issue #3 · yangzhong-freebsd/lua-httpd
					

Implementation Something like this: Which command-line editor should be the system-wide default? ee (easy editor) vi I don't know This system-wide default will apply to sh. Per-user defaults fo...




					github.com


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Nov 18, 2021)

Who can argue with improved support for Wi-Fi in 2022?

People: if you like _any_ of what's mapped, see the Foundation's *plea for donations*.​Thanks.​


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Dec 11, 2021)

November 2021 FreeBSD Vendor Summit: FreeBSD Foundation Technology Roadmap



> Join the Foundation's own Ed Maste as he reviews the Foundation's Technology Roadmap. Plus, updates on the RAID-Z Expansion from Matt Ahrens, and syzkaller project from Mark Johnston.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Feb 20, 2022)

grahamperrin said:


> I'll add something to the roadmap discussion.



Via What’s Ahead for FreeBSD and the Foundation in 2022 | FreeBSD Foundation

With added emphasis:



> … Expect exciting additions and improvements in the main branch including *improved laptop support* with better *wireless* and *graphics* drivers, a long-awaited *pkgbase* update method, *Thunderbolt 3 and USB 4* support, more *security mitigations*, and *bhyve* hypervisor improvements. …



FOSDEM 2022 - YouTube – five FreeBSD recordings.


----------



## eternal_noob (Feb 20, 2022)

grahamperrin said:


> Expect exciting additions


Would be nice if that would mean sound for Tier 1 platforms (aarch64).


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Feb 20, 2022)

Re: <https://freebsdfoundation.org/blog/freebsd-foundation-2022-call-for-proposals/> I guess that there'll be publicity in March about which proposals will be funded.



eternal_noob said:


> sound for Tier 1 platforms (aarch64).



_Raspberry Pi 400 sound over HDMI_ appeared under <https://wiki.freebsd.org/2021FoundationCFI#Other>, does anyone know whether a proposal was made?


----------

