Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:08:44 +0700 From: Adam Strohl <adams-freebsd@ateamsystems.com> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201206.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ? Message-ID: <4FCB37AC.6030308@ateamsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <20120603030931.GA11225@lonesome.com> References: <20120602052228.GA6624@lonesome.com> <d98bb39c07e9853addd11855cdc63c22@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> <20120603030931.GA11225@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/3/2012 10:09, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 01:43:43AM +0200, Fritz Wuehler wrote: >> So there could be lots of overlap and just looking at the two numbers >> you posted doesn't really tell the whole story. > No, I agree that it doesn't. I was just trying to add an aside, and > point out that the task would not be trivial. > > Since I'm heavily invested in FreeBSD ports I think I need to step back= > and let other folks comment in this thread. I manage and support a little over 50 FreeBSD servers (VMWare, Xen and=20 native) and feel that the port system, on the whole, is excellent. Its=20 easily one of the best features about FreeBSD. Portaudit reports=20 issues and I can plan and upgrade them as needed. Portupgrade works=20 great 99% of the time and when it doesn't it has the good sense to roll=20 back what its done. If there is any question as to what it should do it = errors and tells me, which is exactly what I want it to do. I've been a FreeBSD user for about 18 years and supported it=20 professionally for about 10. In this thread I've read a few posts that=20 contain blanket statements like "ports are broken" and "never work", I'm = at a loss as to how to respond to this as it is completely counter to my = experience. I wish I could see what they were talking about and figure = out what happened so I could understand what caused them to make such a=20 statement. It's like they're talking about a different OS than the one=20 I know. I've written a simple script to run portaudit and pop up a dialog with=20 check boxes that then kicks off portupgrade for the selected ports which = have issues. 99% of the time its that simple. This is what I want in=20 a server environment. I do not want things auto-updating (a.k.a. auto=20 breaking) or making decisions about supporting libraries behind my back. = PHP is a good and common example why: an upgrade can and does break=20 web sites that ran fine before. Updates need to be managed in a=20 process which is outside the scope of the OS (because its a server not a = desktop). FreeBSD has all these great tools for managing the mechanical = action of updating and imposes minimal process which is perfect because=20 I have my own process. And if things get mucked up (which mostly isn't=20 the ports system fault when it does happen), its easy to back out and=20 re-do if needed. After reading this thread I am wondering if I should clean the update=20 dialog script up and submit to the ports tree. It seems like people=20 think the port update process is harder than it is because it lacks a=20 Windows Update like dialog which is essentially what this is akin to=20 (and there might be a port which does this already, too .. anyone?). =20 All the hard stuff has been done by the FreeBSD team, all I did was put=20 a bash/dialog script on it. I very rarely run into ports that don't build on supported versions of=20 FreeBSD (ie; ones that haven't reached EoL). I have a number of=20 customers with a few 6.2 boxes [which I can't wait to upgrade] and still = almost everything builds without tinkering. All of this is in the scope of servers though (web, DB, application,=20 etc) and not on the desktop. I haven't used a FreeBSD desktop since=20 probably 4.x, and while I don't begrudge the work people are doing for=20 the desktop experience it just doesn't apply to me nor is it why I love=20 FreeBSD. I won't say something like "you're running a server OS on=20 your desktop and expecting it to be like a Mac". What will say is: I'm=20 getting from this thread that a lot of the complaints people have seem=20 to be based around the desktop. My guess is that this is a super=20 minority of actual use (by server count). BUT: I feel like people are judging how fit an FreeBSD is for server=20 work by how easy/Mac/Windows/whatever like (as many Linux distros try to = emulate) it is to update. Not good ... but it makes sense from a=20 social/human perspective, and is probably another thing we should=20 consider in terms of advocacy. I'm interested in what people think about this, and yeah this should=20 probably be in the advocacy list but its not so thhblt :P
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FCB37AC.6030308>