Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?

[Dave Hayes]

Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> writes:
> On 04.06.12 22:32, Dave Hayes wrote:
>> That's a fair position. Perhaps it would not be too much trouble to add
>> this one idea to optionsng: a "more info" field on each option knob
>> which may be filled in by a port maintainer.
> The pkg-descr file in the port already contains link to the software's 
> origin. The various options the software has are or should be described 
> there. We definitely don't want the ports cluttered with extraneous and 
> sometimes out of date (and thus misleading) information.

I'm describing more of a use case here, not attempting to specify an
implementation. If a user invokes 'make', a window is presented to them
with various options. It's probably very common that this is met with an
initial reaction of "what the hell do these do?", even from the most
seasoned of admins (presuming they are unfamiliar with the software they
have been asked to install). I claim it would be an improvement to have
that information at the fingertips of the make invoker.

I believe this is the first time I've seen more documentation labeled as
"extraneous". :) I had thought to suggest an implementation by having a
simple pkg-option-desr file which describes the options and implications
in each port. Are you suggesting that such a file would be unwelcome? 

I have built many ports for many years. IIRC I've seen the option
descriptions you mention in pkg-descr maybe 0.1% of the time. (That's my
sense, not a measured objective number.) Usually I have to go digging
through the Makefile, then the source to find these answers.

> In all case, compiling from source is not for those having no clue
> what they do. ... you need to make informed decisions on options
> yourself. If this is beyond you (and not you personally), 
...
> Since it is very likely that you interpret this as yet another elitist 
> comment, 

Actually, I hadn't thought of this conceptual linkage until you suggested
it here. :)

Still, you are quite correct. The likelihood of anyone interpreting your
position as 'elitist' from these comments is high. I will, of course,
not interpret them that way. 

> If this is beyond you (and not you personally), then by all means use
> pre-packaged software in binary form.

Heh. Even this idea is beyond most normal users, who should likely use
PC-BSD or Ubuntu. In responding in this thread, I was thinking of the
reasonably clued system admin level users when I said "users". As an SA,
in many situations, you aren't able to have fun digging for information.
It's much easier to have the answers right here in front of you.

I know if I ever committed a port, I would quite likely spend the extra
five minutes to put option documentation in a number of places, even if
this angered some of the more anal of the community. 

> elsewhere" or "apparently, you don't want the number of FreeBSD users to 
> grow". Then you waste everyone's time -- that could be spent on 
> answering other people's "stupid" questions.

I see. Personally, I believe this way:

It is the responsibility of the responder to determine whether their
response is a waste of time or not. 

Blaming anyone else other than you (the generic 'you', not you
personally) for the inappropriate use of your time should only really
happen in an employment or indentured servitude relationship; certainly
not on a mailing list. :)

Given that the "FreeBSD wants more users" idea is repeatedly brought up
on lists (at least this is my impression), I would presume that the
subject of 'more users' is somewhat relevant to some people; one look at
the subject of this thread should be enough to demonstrate relevance.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org 
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<

Implementation: (n.) The fruitless struggle by the talented
and underpaid to fulfill promises made by the rich and
ignorant