From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 6 06:45:18 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57728106568C; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 06:45:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3175C8FC15; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 06:45:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD42DC99C9; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 06:45:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:b5fa:1d16:369:7b49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4AF50216C33; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 06:45:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91634214DF23; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:45:03 +1000 (EST) To: Erich From: Mark Andrews References: <1541214.ZfRdXxb0Qe@x220.ovitrap.com> <20120605144247.6C1C121489D2@drugs.dv.isc.org> <1805884.WJzBQIFnSm@x220.ovitrap.com> In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:47:55 +0700." <1805884.WJzBQIFnSm@x220.ovitrap.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:45:03 +1000 Message-Id: <20120606064503.91634214DF23@drugs.dv.isc.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mx.pao1.isc.org Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Chris Rees , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Mark Linimon , "O. Hartmann" , Adam Strohl 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: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 06:45:18 -0000 In message <1805884.WJzBQIFnSm@x220.ovitrap.com>, Erich writes: > Hi, > > On 06 June 2012 0:42:47 Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > In message <1541214.ZfRdXxb0Qe@x220.ovitrap.com>, Erich writes: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 05 June 2012 1:09:50 Mark Linimon wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:00:45PM +0700, Erich wrote: > > > > > All of these, with the exception of HEAD (which is always a valid tag > ), > > > > > only apply to the src/ tree. The ports/, doc/, and www/ trees are not > > > > > branched. > > > > > > > > If you create a branch, you must create a tag for that branch. > > > > > > > > However, you can create a tag without creating a branch. That is what > > > > is done for the ports tree. > > > > > > > I found now the location where this information is missing for beginners. > > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports-using.htm > l > > > > > > I simply cannot believe that beginners would expect this information to f > ind > > > this in the section for updating the kernel. > > > > > > Erich > > > > Because, while you believe it is better to roll back to the release > > point it really isn't. The ports tree is rarely broken for long. > > When it is broken people will tell you to roll back to a good date > > and give you the date to use. I've had to roll back a couple of > > times in 11+ years of updating and never to a release point. > > > > What is there is good advice. Use a up-to-date ports tree. If it > > is broken wait a days or so and try again. If it is still broken > > report the problem using send-pr. > > you will find thousands of notes that people should not run bleeding > edge when it comes to the kernel. > > But people are forced to run bleeding edge on the ports. The kernel and ports are very different things. On the bleeding edge the kernel may not even boot and if it boots it may corrupt the entire disk requiring you to reinstall and recover from backups. Ports don't normally get added unless they build and run. Occasionally there are integration issues because one cannot test the billions if not trillions of possible port combinations. Remember almost every port is already "released" software that has already gone through alpha and beta testing. Those that arn't are clearly marked as such. > The documentation than even states that there is no fall back. > > You state it as being just normal to wait for a week or more until the > problem is solved. I cannot imagine that people who come to FreeBSD and > get trapped somehow will stick to it then. If you report a bug to Oracle or Microsoft you won't get a fix within a week. It just doesn't happen unless you are paying very big dollars and might not happen even then as it can take weeks to find the cause of a bug even with a team working 7x24 to find it. > They might will ask on this list just to learn that there is no help > available. Just wait. > > People who have to make decisions what operating system should be used on > their workplaces will not like this and stick with whatever they have. Yet there are plenty of places that do run FreeBSD. They understand the limitations and accept them. > I believe that this is a very good user repellent. Remember you don't have to use the ports system. You can install software without using ports. The ports system just saves you time. > Erich -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org