On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Freddie Cash <fjwcash_at_gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe I'm just a lowly sysadmin and ex-port maintainer, but ... > > No, no, no, definitely no, no, and no!! > > The greatest thing about FreeBSD is that there is a clear separation > between > the "base OS" and everything else (ports, local installs, etc). You get a > nice, clearly defined, base to build on. You get a stable base that > changes > infrequently, that you can add software to on whatever schedule you want. > > The worst thing about Linux distros is the lack of this clear separation > between the base and third-party apps. If you want to install an updated > version of Apache, you either have to update the whole damned distro, go > searching for some unsupported backports repos, or compile everything by > hand defeating the whole point of binary packages. > > Making the tools do deal with the base could be interesting, but please, > please, please don't shove everything into the pkg_tools and turning > FreeBSD > into "just a random collection of packages that kind of work together". > IOW, don't go down the distro path. > > Keep the base OS separate from third-party apps. Keep the tools to deal > with them separate. > True word, brother! If we wanted to run linux there are options for it. debs suck, rpms really suck. Those types of systems are sometimes faster to get up and rolling as long as you want vanilla apps, but they are a major PITA for many types of customizations which are a breeze with the ports tree. You'd be killing of one of the more elegant approaches in FreeBSD. Sure there are problem with it, but IMO adopting more severe problems isn't a good answer. Maybe that was a 4/1 too though. If so, good work. -- Adam Vande MoreReceived on Fri Apr 02 2010 - 19:49:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:02 UTC