Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:40:06 +0700 From: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> To: Fabian Keil <freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: 7+ days of dogfood Message-ID: <20130211184006.0c7f9943@X220.ovitrap.com> In-Reply-To: <20130211114811.09e56b55@fabiankeil.de> References: <20130210000723.GA73630@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20130211114811.09e56b55@fabiankeil.de>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Hi, On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:48:11 +0100 Fabian Keil <freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de> wrote: > Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > > > My conclusion: on at least my not-so-new laptop, FreeBSD-10 can > > be used in a desktop environment if one takes some care during the > > installation. > > I'm using CURRENT on my also-no-so-new laptop since FreeBSD 7 > (I think) and came to the same conclusion. > I did this during 6.x time but got stuck then with 6.x and never went back until last May/June. > It's unfortunate that the builworld time roughly trippled since > 2010 but I guess that's progress and a more powerful system > should fix it. I certainly welcome clang in general, though. > Trippled? Are you sure? I have the feeling it is much worse than this. Was it in 2009 when I could compile world in a few minutes on my quad core. The same machine takes now hours despite having more memory. I run currently my desktop and my notebook on 10. If I stick with my policy, I would stay with 10 until 12 would be available. On the other side, it feels so outdated not to have something like the most current version. Erichhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130211184006.0c7f9943>