On 4/13/10 12:09 AM, Lucas Holt wrote:
On 4/10/2010 3:18 PM, k...@pcbsd.org wrote
<snip>
However for my more hard-core friends, nothing stopping you from
running your own ports down
the road, more power to ya! For doing something like embedded work or
a server this makes total
sense and I think it is a huge positive for FreeBSD, no reason to
trash that or break it in any way.
For the other 99.9% of society who want something "that just works"
for day-to-day computing,
something like PBI is very attractive. It would be great to have an OS
that offers best of both worlds.
--
Kris Moore
There are only two possibilities with any package system. Either give
the user self packaged binaries containing all shared libraries or make
them update everything. Both have positives and negatives. We've been
working on a new package system in MidnightBSD for some time. When we
weighed this issue, it was decided that letting users have old binaries
sitting around was a bad idea. It encourages a user to sit on a package
for a year and not install security updates. The larger package size
also deters users from downloading updates in parts of the world which
have slow Internet connections. Remember the GDI+ update to windows
awhile back? There were many applications that had to be updated and
Microsoft had to release a scanner to search the drive for uses. There
side isn't always rosy.
Obviously, there are also advantages to the larger PBI packages for
users. PC-BSD is certainly easy to use.
At the end of the day, I think creating packages more frequently during
releases and pushing updates like many linux distros do makes more sense
in terms of security. FreeBSD has ten times the number of ports to build
than we do so obviously it's a problem to build packages that frequently.
I don't want to butt in any more on this because it's not my place, but
I just felt it was important to bring another perspective.
It may be thaat part of the answer is to do both.
For me I want to have PBIs for the actual tools I use on the machine..
things like wine, openoffice, gimp, etc. I don't care if these are
'bleeding edge'. I just want them to work, and to keep working no
matter what I do in my development environment.
On the other had for stuff I'm working on, I want ot be able to get
the newest libraries etc and keep them up to date. This means I run
the dependency problem but I'm willing to upgrade everything and if it
breaks occasionally, I'll fix it. regardless of whether my development
environment is current;y broke or not, the tools I actually use on the
machine will not be affected.
So for me I see a reason tehat we should use BOTH schemes.
Lucas
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
