From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 31 02:37:24 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D09106564A for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:37:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ggroth@gregs-garage.com) Received: from mail.gregs-garage.com (mail.gregs-garage.com [64.105.8.34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02658FC0A for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:37:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.150] ([192.168.0.150]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.gregs-garage.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0V2FQsC062753 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:15:26 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ggroth@gregs-garage.com) Message-ID: <4F274D88.5050300@gregs-garage.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:10:16 -0600 From: Greg Groth User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20120130215826.140fa9df@mpw> <20120130222828.GA1814@hemlock.hydra> <20120131001321.GA38503@limerick.barragry.com> In-Reply-To: <20120131001321.GA38503@limerick.barragry.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HELO_MISC_IP, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on mail.gregs-garage.com Subject: Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:37:24 -0000 On 1/30/2012 6:13 PM, freebsd-lists-erik@erikosterholm.org wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 03:28:28PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: >> You talk a lot about how easy it is to maintain a binary package system. >> I would like you to convince me that it is easy, keeping in mind that it >> should remain compatible with the ports system. I am willing to be >> convinced. >> >> -- >> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] > > Oh come on, guys. David is the same person who said that FreeBSD was > poorly documented. > > http://osdir.com/ml/freebsd-questions/2011-12/msg00684.html > > I really hate throwing around the 'T' word, but I'm starting to > wonder. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt a bit longer. > > David, it's increasingly clear that FreeBSD is not going to fit your > needs. If, for some reason, you are interested in the FreeBSD kernel, > but binary packages, consider GNU/kFreeBSD. I'm finding this conversation very amusing. After playing with I don't know how many Linux distributions since the mid-90's, and running into the same problem of things breaking after updating binary packages, I moved to FreeBSD around 5.0 for my web server. Since that time, I've forced to do one reinstall due to a hardware failure, somewhere around 7.0. I am now running 8.2. After going through I can't remember how many upgrades and updates, I've only had a couple of minor issues over the years (most were resolved after reading Updating after the fact ;-) ). I'll give up the time savings of binary packages vs. the dependability of compiling stuff myself any day. Greg Groth