Re: Binary updates (was Re: It's not Rust, it's FreeBSD (and LLVM))

Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> wrote:

> Those of us who build from source and build ports, whether manually or 
> through our own poudriere, are the minority. Just visit the FreeBSD forums. 
> I attend OpenHack here. People who do use FreeBSD use freebsd-update and 
> binary packages. (I use freebsd-update and binary packages on some VMs at 
> $JOB, while maintaining my own network at home as any developer does.)
>
> And that's a marketing feature of FreeBSD. Most users don't want he hassle 
> of building and installing an O/S.

Sure, I realise that. And I'm not knocking binary installs - indeed
installing from a 2.2.6-release CD was how I got into FreeBSD, and I stuck
to that method for a while.

In fact, at the time, I had an intranet site at ICL (where I worked at the
time) titled something like "Install your own unix operating system in just
40 minutes"), where I raved about how easy and quick it was!

> Out in the real world people use binary updates and binary packages. We 
> developers are an anomaly these days.
>
> Just because a few of us build from source doesn't mean the rest of the 
> world does.

I know, but many of the comments here have implied just about no-one builds
from source. I just wanted to readdress that balance.

Hell, one comment said if I compile from source, I must be a committer, but
I've yet to find that commit bit :-)

I don't mind that there's a focus on binary distributions; I don't mind if
source building gets a bit trickier; I just hope source building remains a
viable route for those of us who aren't part of the FreeBSD organisation.
We may be a minority, but there are still a number of us here!

Cheers, Jamie