Ports system quality

[Michel Talon]

>Chad Perrin said:
>
>On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:17:12AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> FreeBSD needs to get better in this area, but I seriously doubt it
>> will
>> ever be as easy and painless as something like ubuntu.
>
>For a great many use cases, Ubuntu is one of the most painful "desktop"
>user experiences I have ever encountered.  Please, *please* do not
>emulate Ubuntu.

Any discussion on such subjects should begin by switching off the reality
distortion field. For *my own experience* Ubuntu works perfectly OK, in
particular all the hardware on my laptop works, suspend works, i have
zero problem keeping the "ports" updated, etc. It is the completely no
fuss solution. Wether FreeBSD needs to go in a direction or another is a
different subject, but *please* be objective in your descriptions.

By the way:
>it installs software and runs
>servers the user will never have any occasion to use, with no obvious
>way
>to deactivate them; and it essentially enforces the use of huge
>collections of software by way of hopelessly intertangled dependencies.

is a sentence you can easily apply to any modern system. And most users
could not care less that there is *bloat* on their hard disk. Anyways
you can find a functional and installable desktop Ubuntu system
on a simple CDROM, show me the same for FreeBSD and i will happily
conclude it is less bloated. And for the same price you have on said
CDROM a live system and an installer which is not a joke like FreeBSD
one. Wonder why one system has more users than the other ...


-- 

Michel TALON