Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 01:32:20 -0800 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, current <current@freebsd.org>, Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>, stable@freebsd.org, K?vesd?n G?bor <gabor.kovesdan@t-hosting.hu> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006] Message-ID: <20060105093220.GJ1358@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <200512231126.51500.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> References: <43A266E5.3080103@samsco.org> <43A4B91D.8040304@samsco.org> <20051222211730.GK39174@svcolo.com> <200512231126.51500.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:47, Jo Rhett wrote: > > But FreeBSD Update suffers from all of the same limitations that I've been > > describing because of lack of integration with the Core OS. > > > > 1. modified kernels are foobar > > ..yet are practically mandatory on production systems > > > > 2. modified sources are foobar > > ..yet many common production situations require source compilation > > options On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 11:26:44AM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > How do you expect these two to be handled in a binary upgrade? > I can't see how it's possible.. Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine. Most of the open source OSes do it just fine. Debian had probably the easiest to use system, and they've risen, owned the world and fallen all while FreeBSD has been debating this issue. > I don't think integrating it with the core OS (whatever that means) will > magically fix this. If you knew what it meant, you would understand why it would help. > Not having run jails I am not very qualified to comment Exactly. Sorry, not trying to be rude but if you have never felt the pain don't try and say it doesn't exist. -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060105093220.GJ1358>