From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 3 10:08:55 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9771065675 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:08:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adams-freebsd@ateamsystems.com) Received: from fss.sandiego.ateamservers.com (fss.sandiego.ateamservers.com [69.55.229.149]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664838FC18 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:08:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.15.220] (unknown [118.175.84.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fss.sandiego.ateamservers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC4EBB9F22; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 06:08:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FCB37AC.6030308@ateamsystems.com> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:08:44 +0700 From: Adam Strohl Organization: A-Team Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <20120602052228.GA6624@lonesome.com> <20120603030931.GA11225@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20120603030931.GA11225@lonesome.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Fritz Wuehler Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:08:55 -0000 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