Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:53:49 -0200 From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports security branch Message-ID: <200512201053.49465.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <43A7F875.4010903@mail.ru> References: <43A7A3F7.7060500@mail.ru> <20051220110315.GA66112@melkor.kh405.net> <43A7F875.4010903@mail.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 10:26, rihad wrote: > > FreeBSD's "latest and greatest" attitude is very relevant for desktop > users and such. I think it would be even better to make > security-conscious server admins' lives even better. Put up a box, > forget about it, do a major upgrade in a year. Oversimplifying here... > _______________________________________________ I would not agree with you, even if the ports are getting better and better they are still a all-in-one-package and often not suitable for any adm especially the security-conscious one. A webserver or a router need some software only and well compiled and configured it is better than having a large ports-tree on the machine and then when upgrading some shit happens and some config is deleted like it used to be with mailman, spamassassin and others. The risk is too big. The ports collection is nice and easy for most users like it is but since you already compared to linux, I tell you that aptget or yum really seems to be better until you get in nasty troubles after compiling a new kernel and some packages do not work anymore. Then you go to love portupgrade again and the FreeBSD system is clearly better because the ports do not depend on kernel versions. Also you can portupgrade only some ports without running into too much dependency troubles. Joćo A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200512201053.49465.joao>