Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?

On 06/06/12 16:15, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 6 June 2012 14:48, Erich Dollansky <erich_at_alogreentechnologies.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 06 June 2012 9:21:22 Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
>>>
>>> Overall I see it as packages are flat stable at the cost of being out of
>>> date, and ports are current but not guaranteed to compile without
>>> intervention. The Maintainers do give a very good shot to make them stable
>>> but sometimes one person cannot maintain millions of lines of code and not
>>> make a glitch occasionally, or make it out on time when a dependency
>>> changes.
>>
>> isn't the date of the packages the date of the last release of the branch? Aren't the chances high then to get a working ports tree?
>>
>> You can follow the discussion about this subject for at least 10 years back. The result is always the same.
>>
>> In parallel is the discussion why so little people are using FreeBSD.
>>
>> Do you understand what I want to say?
> 
> I do understand it, but you don't seem to understand that we *do*
> understand what you're saying.
> 
> - Tagged ports trees contain out of date software.

This is the implicite nature of a tag and - I presume - intended.

> 
> - Security fixes cannot be backported to tagged trees- we *do* *not*
> *have* *resources* for this.

The "user" has the choice: either stay with an outdated port's tree OR
with a uptodate port's tree, but the risk of non working ports.

> 
> - Occasionally you may see minor issues when following the latest
> branch of ports.  This is the price you pay for being up to date, with
> the very latest of software.

Those "minor" issues are, having the recent mess in front of my eyes, a
simple "negative exaggeration". What is that "price worth", if the
system is faulting and rendered useless or partially useless?


> 
> Chris