"If support for a new device can't be merged into older releases because it relies on ABI/API breaking changes, do you want to be told that you won't be able to use your shiny new hardware in a FreeBSD release for the next five years?"
Yes.
As a business user of FreeBSD, with shareholders and a board of directors, etc., we make very conservative hardware decisions and we try to amortize our investments over as long a period as is practically possible.
I've never thought this argument was that convincing, especially given the propensity to see FreeBSD as a server OS. The fancy things are never ready in the first release they go into anyway, so it's not like we gain much, from a practical standpoint.
Then maintain your own branch like other business users who want to have a stable branch for extended periods of time. And back port the drivers internally if you need them back ported. Literally nobody is preventing you from doing so. There are, however, people that donate extremely large sums of money to the FreeBSD foundation who do support their current release cycles.
First, my suggestions above were made originally in January of 2012, at which time I committed $50,000 to the FreeBSD project in return for adopting something like those suggestions.
So your "put your money where your mouth is" trump card was not quite what you thought it was. Thanks for playing.
Second, I reject the notion that nobody but core developers and big business has useful viewpoints as to the direction of the FreeBSD project (or any project, for that matter). You think you know what kind of resources you are talking about, above, when you speak of developing and maintaining a custom branch and backporting drivers, etc. Take that number and triple it and that's a starting point for the true amount of cost something like that would take in a real organization with real HR and QA and benefits and shareholders and a functioning board, etc. ...
... and that's out of the realm of even mid sized shops.
Yes.
As a business user of FreeBSD, with shareholders and a board of directors, etc., we make very conservative hardware decisions and we try to amortize our investments over as long a period as is practically possible.
I've never thought this argument was that convincing, especially given the propensity to see FreeBSD as a server OS. The fancy things are never ready in the first release they go into anyway, so it's not like we gain much, from a practical standpoint.