Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

I have consistently ignored all emails in this thread because the
use of the word "demand" in the Subject.

Whenever people use words like "demand" or "somebody should" in
FreeBSD contexts, it indicates cluelessness to me.

Cluelessness about how the project works and cluenessness about
how things happen in the project and a touch of insensibility
to the developers how seldom are paid to listen to such drivel.

The precense if "binary updates" in the subject also indicated to
me that we had to do with people who didn't really know what they
were talking about nor indeed the implications of attempting to do
what they demanded.

Now that I've read the tread anyway I can to my chagrin see that I
was right.

In my opinion, and I readily admit that since I only have 20+ years
of experience managing UNIX computers I may be totally wrong, binary
updates is not what we really want.

It's what people are used to, but it is not what they want.

It would be much better to invest time in developing a configuration
management system that allows the system administrators of FreeBSD
installations to do their job more effectively than to spend time
giving them the tool they know inwards and outwards is not an
effective way to do their job.

The assignment is simple, and with creative thinking maybe the solution is
also:

	Bring to system administration what source code version
	control brought to programming.

Merry Xmas,

Poul-Henning

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.