fbsd wrote:
*** again you are missing the point. Streaminglining would still
occurs
because only the most used ports would have packages not the whole
collection.
The work load would still be reduced. ****
In your opinion. Roughly what percentage would make it through to the
'most used list' do you think?
***** yes the port maintainer of phpmyadmin would create 4 packages,
One for php5/mysql4, php5/mysql5 php4/mysql4 php4/mysql5
This situation is very small when compared to the over all size of
the ports collection. The additional effort expended making
additional
versions of the package results in greater ease of package use by
the package installers *****
So the People who currently make no packages are now making four of
them, and people running mysql3 are expected to manage on their own, and
for some reason this reduces the workload?
***** such large GUI desktop packages would be part of the common
category for the reason you state. I am sure there are other GUI
desktop
packages like openoffice that would be included by default. *****
Have you considered PCBSD? They've worked long and hard covering exactly
this sort of thing, making BSD into a viable graphical desktop/server
environment, and done more than a great job of it.
For instance ... http://www.pbidir.com/packages.php?code=224
There is also the fact that you could fairly easily abuse this
system if
you wanted your software to be included in the 'most commonly used'
list, by just hammering the server.
**** read the post you are replying to closer.
This was all ready addressed in the previous post. *******
If you're referring to "Of course some precautions in counting the
hits to the special purpose FreeBSD website would have to be used
to drop attempts by people trying to manipulate the results in
favor of some particular port." then I fail to see how this addresses
the problem, other than calling for someone else to come up with an idea
to fix it.
Needless to say, any mechanism short of manual human intervention is
going to be unreliable and fairly easy to work around, given the desire
to do so.
**** This is absurd statement. On today's public internet no one in
their right mind turns off cookies because it causes errors when you
try to access commercial websites. All search engines use cookies.
Cookies contain no personal information that is why there is no USA
federal privacy laws about them. ************
Again, in your opinion. Also, not always my first port of call when
looking for great upholders of personal privacy, but that's not a
discussion suitable for this thread.
Some people disable cookies. Whether they are in their right mind or not
is their business, and the option remains in every browser to allow them
or not. In much the same way that people can choose to take, or ignore,
hints.
I can totally understand why you think this system would be better
for
you. I just hope you can understand why it wouldn't be better for
everyone, nor even for the majority of people.
***** Spadge, please refrain from trying to attack people voicing
their ideas on this public project mailing list. It only serves
to tarnish your own reputation on this list. Again please read
the OP if you need to understand the purpose of this thread
**********
I was refraining from attacking people. Also, I feel it is fair to say
that this thread's history starts somewhere before the start of the
thread. Naturally, you may disagree.
I fully expect to have approximately no reputation on this list to
tarnish or otherwise. I honestly don't think I have said anything even
remotely memorable yet.
--
Spadge
"Intoccabile"
www.fromley.com
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
