From owner-freebsd-advocacy Wed Mar 3 9:44: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from hp9000.chc-chimes.com (hp9000.chc-chimes.com [206.67.97.84]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F197F1549E for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:42:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from billf@chc-chimes.com) Received: from localhost by hp9000.chc-chimes.com with SMTP (1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA230272923; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:42:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:42:03 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Fumerola To: Brett Glass Cc: dannyman , freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd vs. linux and NT chart In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990302183847.00a22f00@localhost> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > True. But since the newest versions of the ports are all in ELF format, > what you'll get will be old. What you will get is ports that were stable at that time, which seems to be your goal. You say "... I don't need the bleeding edge, current blah blah", then you say "... what you'll get will be old". Make up your mind. > Again, there ought to be a way to get the most up-to-date ports for any > RELEASE version that's up to a year old. There also ought to be a paid staff of 2000 people maintaining said ports. We don't always get what we want, but the ports system as it stands now is the best compromise. - bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message