TrueOS Desktop is your friend. PC-BSD, now called TrueOS, has for years now been the place to go if one cannot hack getting X up and running onesself, as one has to do with FreeBSD. PC-BSD/TrueOS Desktop has X and GUI login pre-configured out of the box.
> rc.d is like Linux init from 5 years ago.
Linux init from 5 years ago was upstart in quite a few places. (Debian is not the entire world.) init is not rc. upstart is nothing at all like Mewburn rc. And Mewburn rc has significant differences to van Smoorenburg rc, from not having any notion of runlevels (which the BSD world never adopted from the AT&T System 5 world) to a different division of work between the individual scripts and the common script libraries.
Dynamic network configuration is handled through devd rules.
> You can't enable full disk encryption for UFS with the installer
... although the FreeBSD/PC-BSD/TrueOS world is rapidly heading to all-ZFS as the norm. The PC-BSD 10.2 installer creates an all-ZFS system.
TrueOS Desktop is your friend. PC-BSD, now called TrueOS, has for years now been the place to go if one cannot hack getting X up and running onesself, as one has to do with FreeBSD. PC-BSD/TrueOS Desktop has X and GUI login pre-configured out of the box.
> rc.d is like Linux init from 5 years ago.
Linux init from 5 years ago was upstart in quite a few places. (Debian is not the entire world.) init is not rc. upstart is nothing at all like Mewburn rc. And Mewburn rc has significant differences to van Smoorenburg rc, from not having any notion of runlevels (which the BSD world never adopted from the AT&T System 5 world) to a different division of work between the individual scripts and the common script libraries.
Dynamic network configuration is handled through devd rules.
> You can't enable full disk encryption for UFS with the installer
... although the FreeBSD/PC-BSD/TrueOS world is rapidly heading to all-ZFS as the norm. The PC-BSD 10.2 installer creates an all-ZFS system.