I should have used better and clearer wording, so apologies. What I meant was, strategic thinking on FreeBSD has to follow (not precede, in my view) the goals

I should have used better and clearer wording, so apologies. What I meant was, strategic thinking on FreeBSD has to follow (not precede, in my view) the goals of the project. Which is what I was trying to say above, but poorly. -- FreeBSD dev summit in 2018 made an effort to define the goals https://wiki.freebsd.org/DevSummit/201809/13goals https://wiki.freebsd.org/DevSummit/201809/13goals A piece of that the author of the article is describing, is in the goals too (virtualization tooling). But other points do not seem to have equivalents in the 13goals. -- I have a personal set of 'wants' for FreeBSD, but felt that without clearing understanding its goals, I should not be just throwing the 'wants' out there) --- In my projects, I prefer to support where possible all the BSDs (NetBSD, openBSD, dragonflyBSD) -- so I compile and test there, too, where possible. These projects leverage and follow FreeBSD porting efforts, so FreeBSD, perhaps acts as 'big brother', or may be 'leader' for the other BSDs packages... if may say so. If anything, I would prefer that FreeBSD recognizes that role, and somehow helps the portability of the packages to the other 3 to be at least 'in the sight' (for example by templating/allowing placeholders for the other ports config/make files) There are porting efforts I could contribute to (small code bases in C/C++/Erlang). But something like even a small contribution to a Java11 port (which is still not in any of the BSD) -- is well outside of my capabilities (both skill and time wise). Delay of having, for example, java 11 in FreeBSD -- is, I think, negatively affecting adoption of the other bsds. I guess, that's an example of my specific want.