FreeBSD has just pkg (https://wiki.freebsd.org/pkg).
Except for the new pkg covering base with freebsd recently.
Who is jordan hubbard and why is it signification to the creation of __the new__ pkg.
History
pkg_info, pkg_create and pkg_add were used for registration of local packages and provision of remote packages.
pkgng provided a new generation (ng) of commands.
pkgng became known as pkg.https://nixdoc.net/man-pages/FreeBSD/pkg_add.1.html
AUTHORS
Jordan Hubbardhttps://man.openbsd.org/pkg_add
AUTHORS
Jordan Hubbard
Initial design.
Marc Espie
Complete rewrite. ~~Sure retards.~~Why is freebsd's __new__ pkg shit.
Not so much recently. https://www.freebsdnews.com/2016/03/18/httpslists-freebsd-orgpipermailfreebsd-pkgbase2016-march000032-html/ I'm getting old and dying where 6 years ago was a month ago.
Illumos with guix or any other bsd that isn't copebsd and complies with prefix. That isn't freebsd due to dissolving base with pkg. Is better and doesn't lose sanity completely by removing pkg*.
Will copebsd ever make a package manager instead of throwing things in from the three bsd soup as filler for fanboys.
There are many applications one might want to use on an OpenBSD system. To make this software easier to install and manage, it is ported to OpenBSD and packaged. The aim of the package system is to keep track of which software gets installed, so that it may be easily updated or removed. In minutes, a large number of packages can be fetched and installed, with everything put in the right place.
The ports collection does not go through the same thorough security audit that is performed on the OpenBSD base system. Although we strive to keep the quality of the packages high, we just do not have enough resources to ensure the same level of robustness and security.
The OpenBSD ports team considers packages to be the goal of their porting work, not the ports themselves. In general, you are advised to use packages over building an application from ports.On every system using ports you can see some similar disclaimer where the ports team is a separate entity from the operating systems team. The difference here is copebsd claims they can not make the same intention with ports as the operating system. If you consider making your own ports it will become obvious the base system is not designed with ports in mind. The name ports declares where it's applied.
Copebsd is not made for end users or sysadmins. It's for theo and his developers. Caving into fanboys and making a faq or adding ports doesn't change the faq makes fun of the end users intelligence and ports are a addiction fix for fanboys.
The only benefit of CopeBSD I can observe is they still care about inventing the wheels and some of their new wheels are nicer than the traditional ones (e.g. doas vs sudo).
What you missed is distributing copebsdware incorrectly severely cripples it. It's more likely the local correctly patched sudo package has less potential exploits than opendoas made without copebsds yacc and getopt. This is why copebsd forces it's ports to be used and makes using another package manager on copebsd harmful. It's fragile and always coping to the end user need for external programs since some of theo's developers are corrupt and use him and who he interacts with as lolcows :^).