> That's a solved problem (except for the most exotic devices) in Windows and Ubuntu. Mac OS, obviously, doesn't even have that problem. The problem is solved

> That's a solved problem (except for the most exotic devices) in Windows and Ubuntu. Mac OS, obviously, doesn't even have that problem. The problem is solved by simply installing the drivers and modules for everything. > That's exactly what one expects from a desktop system. That the system just works out what you have and install whatever is needed to make it work. That's what you expect, that has nothing to do with whether the system is “desktop” or not. The fact that many desktop-only systems exist that are worthless for servers or phones that do not follow this philosophy makes it clear that this is not what everyone expects, especially when many of these drivers are proprietary, and many users have ideological objections to having them on their system altogether. > You would be personally annoyed, but other people would be personally annoyed about not having a graphical interface ready after the install for their desktop system. On top of that, even when they try to install the graphical interface for that system, nothing works unless they understand (albeit not deeply) the inner workings of said system. And they can use the systems they want. I am merely pointing out that how FreeBSD does this is well thought out, and has it's reasons with respect to what it's users expect. > I'm not saying you're wrong about not wanting that, but most people expect their desktop system to just work, not require googling around why xfce4 won't start. Remember, we are talking here about desktop computers, where the end goal is to run a browser, a video game, an IDE, a video editor, etc. I would be surprised if those were the end goals of most FreeBSD desktop users. NetworkManager does solve some of the problems for desktop users who don't want to understand any more of the system than absolutely necessary. Starting it as soon as possible will just help people. N.M. has a reputation of being most undesirable software among many that not only very often leads to loss of internet, but also takes control of one's configuration and alters it without warning. — many avoid it as though it be the plague. > I know that's not FreeBSD's goal nor am I saying that it ought be. I'm just stating the fact that it is not an easy to use system for the uninitiated and it will require at least a little bit of browsing the internet and trying things for all but the most experienced FreeBSD users, if they choose to adopt it as their desktop system. What would any of that have to do with desktops? I daresay that desktops are probably more likely to be manned by “initiated” users than laptop and phones are. I fail to see what “desktop” has to do with “initiated”? are you suggesting that “initiated” users should rather use a phone or laptop? It is a desktop system for what you call the “initiated”; these two are completely orthogonal axes.