From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 2 22:15:51 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DAA106566B for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 22:15:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com) Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7758FC13 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 22:15:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 3so826751qwe.7 for ; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:15:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Lt5IxyS8Yi6cSAa0aNmVyRM1OdzSbhUc8ODjPKd0mjE=; b=TrYOSVjZIP3ob36/D8VRfRdrlWix16YNCgIceSN5RXZIXJW7n90SDsHtkFvuPJdMVA 3DReMmaZSSIW39OX6u807QzX53BpNQnpqdAFg2OJ9Ps9oSb0454SH5OtO7oRMsZnGSKW XxcSrQ7G4/ZIkAzw7g/YEusxUiO+NompZBqQ0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=W4oa7QWQGUgyemE+Kj1EAvmFLrQN2fV/zLWt1uZuNSjmLLk95xuRaULjgUyEwyqLEz dVIelCLrQTBcSC6QL7rjElA2wZhlTst46ER4AA8wDDbshfbJ+D7SJwvtsJ5J7smpt4dm aYrYSPsbQfNGf3QX9H7EgMMb7lSquUKsEfuIE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.82.14 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:49:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100402021715.669838e0.stas@FreeBSD.org> <11597.1270200291@critter.freebsd.dk> <20100402101454.GA62089@icarus.home.lan> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 15:49:54 -0600 Received: by 10.229.215.11 with SMTP id hc11mr4410504qcb.45.1270244994361; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 14:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: From: Adam Vande More To: Freddie Cash Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Results of BIND RFC X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 22:15:51 -0000 On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Freddie Cash wrote: > Maybe I'm just a lowly sysadmin and ex-port maintainer, but ... > > No, no, no, definitely no, no, and no!! > > The greatest thing about FreeBSD is that there is a clear separation > between > the "base OS" and everything else (ports, local installs, etc). You get a > nice, clearly defined, base to build on. You get a stable base that > changes > infrequently, that you can add software to on whatever schedule you want. > > The worst thing about Linux distros is the lack of this clear separation > between the base and third-party apps. If you want to install an updated > version of Apache, you either have to update the whole damned distro, go > searching for some unsupported backports repos, or compile everything by > hand defeating the whole point of binary packages. > > Making the tools do deal with the base could be interesting, but please, > please, please don't shove everything into the pkg_tools and turning > FreeBSD > into "just a random collection of packages that kind of work together". > IOW, don't go down the distro path. > > Keep the base OS separate from third-party apps. Keep the tools to deal > with them separate. > True word, brother! If we wanted to run linux there are options for it. debs suck, rpms really suck. Those types of systems are sometimes faster to get up and rolling as long as you want vanilla apps, but they are a major PITA for many types of customizations which are a breeze with the ports tree. You'd be killing of one of the more elegant approaches in FreeBSD. Sure there are problem with it, but IMO adopting more severe problems isn't a good answer. Maybe that was a 4/1 too though. If so, good work. -- Adam Vande More