Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?

[Mark Andrews]

In message <4FCD23FE.20906 at zedat.fu-berlin.de>, "O. Hartmann" writes:
> Well, and repeatedly (no offense!) I will point out in this case, that I
> was FORCED having the latest software by the ports system!
> That it a difference in having running FreeBSD CURRENT on my own risk,
> or FreeBSD-STABLE due to new hardware and new drivers only supported by
> those and having a regular port update, which blows up the system
> because of the newest software!

You were not forced to use the latest.  You can quite easily use
years old ports trees if you want to.  I just installed a port using
a tree from October 2011.  I could have upgraded the ports tree to the
latest and greatest but I choose not to.

> I take the burden of having not an easy life, but this, what is expected
> from so many "users" of FreeBSD, is simply beyond ...

There are also binary packages available.

> > Either stick to releases, or put up with lots of compiling etc-- you
> > should not complain because of self-inflicted problems.
> 
> As I repeatedly have to point out in this case - the issue is not with
> STABLE and CURRENT, it is also with RELEASE. And as it has been pointed
> out herein so many times: FreeBSD ports lack in a version tagging.

Version tagging is just a convient way to get a snapshot at a
particular point in time unless you create branches that are them
made stable by doing a release engineering process on the branch.
This would require rules like "don't make a change unless it is to
fix something that is broken".  It would also require a lot of man
power.

If you are willing to pay salaries for people to do this then I'm
sure there are people who would do the job.

The ports system has to ability to set the ports tree to any point
in time in its existance.  You can then build all the indexes as
they were at that point in time.

> How would you suggest avoiding the problems we face with the ports by
> being sticky on RELEASE, if the problem is spread over all branches?
> 
> > Please remember that we do compile packages for release, or if more up
> > to date packages are required you can use the stable package sets
> > which are rarely over five days or so.
> 
> If it is about the binary packages - then you're right. Stick with
> RELEASE and binary packages - if available (the mentioned office
> packages are often much delayed).
> In such a case one is better with a binary spread version of an OS and
> this would exactly hit the subject of the thread: Why NOT using ...
> blablabla
> 
> >
> > Chris
> 
> At the end, I'd like to see more care about the way ports get updated.
> There is no way to avoid messes like described at this very moment. And
> it is a kind of unedifying .

And I'd like to be able to world hunger and to see FTL travel.

One doesn't have to live at the bleeding edge with ports if one
doesn't want to even when compiling.  One can live a day, a week,
a month behind the bleeding edge and allow other to hit problems
and report them.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org