Wireless interface

[Chris Gordon]

> On Jan 26, 2019, at 1:50 PM, Carmel NY <carmel_ny at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 09:54:05 -0600, Rob Belics stated:
> 
>>> It is situations like this that make me love
>>> Microsoft. Connecting a wireless network should not require user
>>> intervention other than choosing the network and entering the
>>> password.  
>> 
>> FreeBSD is not a consumer operating system. It's not designed to hand
>> hold anyone. That is why Windows is such a huge monstrosity of an
>> install.
> 
> I just finished a fresh install of Windows 10. If you take the time
> involved in installing a basic MS Windows system vs. a basic FreeBSD
> system, Windows will usually win. A big plus is that Windows actually
> can get a wireless system up and running by itself, sans perhaps
> supplying the password. Does FreeBSD even support using the WPS Button
> on the Wi-Fi Router? Plus, you then have to install a GUI. Now, if you
> want to compare a FreeBSD system sans GUI, you have to compare it
> against a MS Server, not the regular Windows version design for home or
> office users.
> 
> This is not about "hand-holding"; it is about bring the OS into the
> modern age. My machine is supposed to be my slave, not the other way
> around.
> 
> Thanks for your comment anyway.

I think you hit the nail on the head of comparing FreeBSD more to Windows Server versions than the consumer desktop/laptop systems -- I’ll call these end user systems.  That is the better analog and what I think Rob was trying to convey.  Things that are valuable and desirable on a server may not be so on an end user system and vice versa.  These are two different sets optimizations which often conflict with each other.  For instance, a GUI is most often preferred on an end user system whereas it’s more of a liability on a server (remember that in 2008  the “Server Core” in Windows Server 2008 finally introduced a server sans GUI -- something UNIX has had since the 1970s... ;) ).

Now this isn’t to say you can’t use any of the particular operating systems for either end user or server functions, but in doing so you will need to compensate for the gap between the primary design purpose of the system and your use of the system.  Consider if you wanted to run a farm of servers with Windows 10 (not the Windows Server, but the consumer desktop version).  You could do it, but you’d probably be longing for design and implementation choices that are made for an operating system focused at being a server.  Doing the opposite results in some of the frustrations you’re having.  There are plenty of people that use FreeBSD as an end user system (and work continues to improve the experience), but they also understand that they must bridge the gaps between server design choices and what they want from an end user system.  

If you want to use FreeBSD as an end user system, I think the community welcomes you and is more than happy to help out.  Just understand that it may take a bit more work than something purpose built to be purely an end user system.  Conversely if you want to run a server (or many servers), I think you’d be pleasantly surprised at how well suited FreeBSD is for that purpose (and the community will also welcome you), especially when compared to trying to use an end user system for that function.

I hope that helps explain things a bit more. 

Chris