Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 16:20:49 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Brett Taylor <brett@peloton.physics.montana.edu> Cc: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>, Adam Turoff <aturoff@isinet.com>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd vs. linux and NT chart Message-ID: <4.1.19990302161355.00ad66b0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903021551210.19678-100000@peloton.physics.m ontana.edu> References: <4.1.19990302154522.03fb3730@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 04:10 PM 3/2/99 -0700, Brett Taylor wrote: >By your reasoning we should also be still trying to support the 2.2.6 >ports tree (2.2.6 came out in Mar 98). It's long since gone and I haven't >heard you complaining about that. You could at least be consistent in >your rants. It appears that you're the one who's denying the basic need for consistent support. Yes, 2.2.6 is less than a year old, so there SHOULD be a ports tree for it. There's nothing more frustrating than running /stand/sysinstall to grab a port and discovering that the ports for your version are gone only a few months after you installed. And you know why so few people use those "upgrade kits?" It's because they're buried in an obscure portion of the Web site with precious few pointers to them. The software should take the user to the right place and/or install them as a dependency. As for the switch to ELF: yes, it makes maintaining ports a little trickier, but if we want to keep loyal users it is inappropriate to make this THEIR problem just because they are (wisely) being conservative about upgrading to a very different version. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19990302161355.00ad66b0>