Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:59:49 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD? Message-ID: <4FCFB6B5.9080905@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-cqT=ZgL28%2BYw=%2BCnRoxSBgqM%2BkLODJqMppLFhtjZv_Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAGFTUwM1a%2B4CkOcVxjo_G3k4ae6Pa=KwC3mTvRi5P=Urc7kXew@mail.gmail.com> <4FCEFCBE.4050401@digsys.bg> <BAY165-ds88A5C1753E8C22158814DCA0D0@phx.gbl> <3668749.rHy9RI2eRn@x220.ovitrap.com> <CADLo83-cqT=ZgL28%2BYw=%2BCnRoxSBgqM%2BkLODJqMppLFhtjZv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig78469E5B2F0E9307D9EEF11D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 06/06/12 16:15, Chris Rees wrote: > On 6 June 2012 14:48, Erich Dollansky <erich@alogreentechnologies.com> = wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 06 June 2012 9:21:22 Sean Cavanaugh wrote: >>> >>> Overall I see it as packages are flat stable at the cost of being out= of >>> date, and ports are current but not guaranteed to compile without >>> intervention. The Maintainers do give a very good shot to make them s= table >>> but sometimes one person cannot maintain millions of lines of code an= d not >>> make a glitch occasionally, or make it out on time when a dependency >>> changes. >> >> isn't the date of the packages the date of the last release of the bra= nch? Aren't the chances high then to get a working ports tree? >> >> You can follow the discussion about this subject for at least 10 years= back. The result is always the same. >> >> In parallel is the discussion why so little people are using FreeBSD. >> >> Do you understand what I want to say? >=20 > I do understand it, but you don't seem to understand that we *do* > understand what you're saying. >=20 > - Tagged ports trees contain out of date software. This is the implicite nature of a tag and - I presume - intended. >=20 > - Security fixes cannot be backported to tagged trees- we *do* *not* > *have* *resources* for this. The "user" has the choice: either stay with an outdated port's tree OR with a uptodate port's tree, but the risk of non working ports. >=20 > - Occasionally you may see minor issues when following the latest > branch of ports. This is the price you pay for being up to date, with > the very latest of software. Those "minor" issues are, having the recent mess in front of my eyes, a simple "negative exaggeration". What is that "price worth", if the system is faulting and rendered useless or partially useless? >=20 > Chris --------------enig78469E5B2F0E9307D9EEF11D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPz7a9AAoJEOgBcD7A/5N87voH/Ry+PqeHsFOkC73QCQlA1anM kMHdHmnDqWKg5DnVgJcJm5f9eNzldKFThdKQxl3daPVWJeh0bHE1r7zpms75SY85 +gEgdgl80p5RQZnwHxiIv5DCAeYpG/f5+QxleCQvX1CqT+Bf1G9Qn8m4ygV2KNrz Jpg7YtUPqEGMvarvTUJEAKUEoBoz8EXct93CiHKzsmZXFIPB4TR5RECKjZDOb350 zoJRv2ZtdHWgxQshH1qz014/jiTqC6SgwNUzk4uJDR+9HkGOrxViACaX7EGbLn5f J+Ih34i6P9i/7z2WjLEwzcf/enQi+W6/esxUGarPwxGl9QTBv6QmtYkPYi+jkk4= =HEVP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig78469E5B2F0E9307D9EEF11D--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FCFB6B5.9080905>