Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?

On 04 June 2012 16:24:56 Chris Rees wrote:
> On 3 June 2012 21:55, O. Hartmann <ohartman_at_zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > On 06/03/12 15:29, Erich wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 03 June 2012 PM 5:14:10 Adam Strohl wrote:
> >>> On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote:
> >>>> What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD?
> >>>>
> >>>> I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix?
> >>>
> >>> I feel like I'm missing something.  Why would you ever want to go back
> >>> to an old version of the ports tree?  You're ignoring tons of security
> >>> issues!
> >
> > ... I think the PNG update isn't a security issue. And for not being a
> > security issue, it triggered an inadequate  mess!
> >
> >>>
> >>> And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that
> >>> is the solution.
> >
> > Look at the comment of the maintainer of LibreOffice ...
> >>>
> >>> I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying
> >>> "need" for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective).
> >>
> >> yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree. Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it.
> >
> > ... I spent now two complete days watching my boxes updating their
> > ports. Several ports do not compile anymore (inkscape, libreoffice,
> > libxul, to name some of the very hurting ones!).
> >
> >>
> >> Do you have a machine that is fast enough to upgrade all your ports and still finish what your client needs Monday morning?
> >
> > Even my fastest box, a brand new 6 core Sandy-Bridge-E, wasn't capable
> > of compiling all the ports in due time. Several ports requested
> > attendance, several, as mentioned, didn't compile out of the blue.
> >
> >>
> >> The ports tree is not broken as such. Only the installation gets broken in some sense. Have a version number there would allow people to go back to the last known working ports tree, install the software - or whatever has to be done - with a working system.
> >>
> >> Of course, the next step will be an upgrade. But only after the work which brings in the money is done.
> >>
> >> You do not face this problem on Windows. You can run a 10 year old 'kernel' and still install modern software.
> >>
> >> Erich
> >
> > I like having a very modern system with the most recent software. But in
> > some cases, like these days with the PNG, FreeBSD's ports becomes again
> > a problem. There is no convenient way to downgrade or allow the
> > user/admin managing how to deal with the load of updates.
> 
> You can't have both.  As has been repeatedly explained to you, you
> should not expect an easy life with the very latest of software.
> 
but FreeBSD only offer bleeding edge.

This is why I suggest to have version numbers on the ports tree.

Erich