Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:19:19 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Erich <erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>, Chris Nehren <apeiron+freebsd-stable@isuckatdomains.net> Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD? Message-ID: <20120604051919.GC32597@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <7199276.kar7U8DLF4@x220.ovitrap.com> References: <C480320C-0CD9-4B61-8AFB-37085C820AB7@FreeBSD.org> <2156532.vx6SHRoqL8@x220.ovitrap.com> <4FCBE2E2.6080109@FreeBSD.org> <7199276.kar7U8DLF4@x220.ovitrap.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 07:49:02AM +0700, Erich wrote: > can you still install the ports tree and its applications on a FreeBSD 4.4? No. When 4.11 finally went EOL on 01/31/2007 we removed all the compatiblity code, because by that time supporting both was increasing the maintenance burden on our port maintainers (probably in the range of 25%-50%). This was due to how much that the src and ports infrastructure had changed between 4.X and 5.X: different patches had to be kept for each branch, for instance. (This has been much less the case since then; 5.X had some very disruptive changes.) FWIW, according to my research, 4.4 was released 09/19/2001 and probably went EOL sometime in 2003: http://people.freebsd.org/~linimon/schedule/milestones.html The current status is that we support 8.x and 9.x well. Ports support for 7.x is starting to fade over time as new upstream releases rely on newer APIs. 6.x went EOL 11/30/2010 and we no longer claim to support it in ports. > I only see many XP machines at the client side running the latest > Office applications. Not to disagree that this is possible, but my own experience (with Quicken) is that I was finally forced to move off 2K/XP to be able to continue running their software the way I expect to run it. Without doing any research to back up my claims, I think 2K is from the same timeframe as 4.4. Please don't take any of the above as criticism. It's clear that our model of "everyone must run the current ports tree" failed long ago. We have some things in progress (pkgng; conversion to SVN, which allows much cheaper tagging/branching) that are key pieces of being able to fix this; others are coming. In the meantime, your criticisms about this facet are absolutely on-target. However, for anyone who expects to be able to run current applications on a 10-year-old OS release, there is no realistic choice other than an OS from a commercial company where there is a revenue stream to support a paid support staff dedicated to that task and that task only. FreeBSD does not have that now and is extremely unlikely to have that in the future. For anyone who has that criterion, we're the wrong choice. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120604051919.GC32597>