Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote Phillip N. thusly... Im not really reading this threads.. But.. has this something to do with this? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2007-April/039802.html O' don't scare me. Yet Again. Naughty boy. It was quite near the end I thought about that day of April. For a while, I did get my knickers in a knot. - Parv -- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
On Dec 13, 2007, at 02:32 , David Southwell wrote: I suspect antagonistic responsesfrom some people are more about wounded pride (i.e - astonishment why should anyone propose to improve on the procedures, systems and engineering to which they contributed in the past!) You suspect wrong. Sorry. Indeed, I already said as much about the current system, and it's scalability. Sp please either make contributions that are intended to help the current process rather than boring everyone with negativity Since this is a WIP, how about taking it to a specific mailing list that is not related to how things currently operate. I read ports@ for one reason, and one reason only, to keep abreast of potential issues with the *current* system. It's not hard to set up a mailing list. Hell, I'll even host it myself if that's what it takes, but as things stand, ports@ (or, indeed, any other exising mailing list) is not the right place to be discussing concepts that are, fluid. -aDe ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 13, 2007, at 02:32 , David Southwell wrote: I suspect antagonistic responsesfrom some people are more about wounded pride (i.e - astonishment why should anyone propose to improve on the procedures, systems and engineering to which they contributed in the past!) You suspect wrong. Sorry. Indeed, I already said as much about the current system, and it's scalability. Sp please either make contributions that are intended to help the current process rather than boring everyone with negativity Since this is a WIP, how about taking it to a specific mailing list that is not related to how things currently operate. I read ports@ for one reason, and one reason only, to keep abreast of potential issues with the *current* system. It's not hard to set up a mailing list. Hell, I'll even host it myself if that's what it takes, but as things stand, ports@ (or, indeed, any other exising mailing list) is not the right place to be discussing concepts that are, fluid. Why cannot ports@ be a broad commons? It is not as if David and Aryeh are posting oodles of spam! Definitely their postings are totally pertinent to Porting software to FreeBSD (http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo). And what is all this talk of them polluting the list? Far more noise has been generated complaining about them. I understand that you might have a private definition of ports@ that it should only discuss the current system. But if this is all you come to this group for, just press the delete key when it is not something you are personally interested in. Now if someone starts talking about their vacation plans, or even FreeBSD kernel issues, then by all means complain about list pollution - I'll join with you! Stephen ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
Stephen Montgomery-Smith writes: I understand that you might have a private definition of ports@ that it should only discuss the current system. But if this is all you come to this group for, just press the delete key when it is not something you are personally interested in. I have no such restriction, I think complaints are on-topic. I wish those trying to build a better mousetrap prompt and complete success. And I congratulate them for putting code on paper. On the other hand ... once the discussion has moved from Something oughta be done. to We've started a project. - especially one that will generate enough light (never mind heat) on its own, it's time to take it elsewhere (within the larger FreeBSD environment). Wiki, special mailing list, private mailing list, whatever works. If I'm interested in the project, I gain by having all the bits in one place and not having to filter against the generic java/OpenOffice/fill in the blank won't compile/is slow/ate my poodle traffic. If I'm not interested in the project, well, we can all fill in the details. A monthly or bi-weekly announcement would not be out of line. Robert Huff ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 13, 2007, at 02:32 , David Southwell wrote: I suspect antagonistic responsesfrom some people are more about wounded pride (i.e - astonishment why should anyone propose to improve on the procedures, systems and engineering to which they contributed in the past!) You suspect wrong. Sorry. Indeed, I already said as much about the current system, and it's scalability. Sp please either make contributions that are intended to help the current process rather than boring everyone with negativity Since this is a WIP, how about taking it to a specific mailing list that is not related to how things currently operate. I read ports@ for one reason, and one reason only, to keep abreast of potential issues with the *current* system. It's not hard to set up a mailing list. Hell, I'll even host it myself if that's what it takes, but as things stand, ports@ (or, indeed, any other exising mailing list) is not the right place to be discussing concepts that are, fluid. As soon we get to the point where user input is less important (design, implementation and testing) it will move to it's own virtual discussion space, but as long as user input is a critical component of the work it will stay on [EMAIL PROTECTED] as several people have said this is the most appropriate place in the existing structure to do this. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYX43zIOMjAek4JIRAteMAJ9Lg2Adh9HIHj6LCeamz7y1amNZ7QCghVO0 2t00d2ZmcL743jGj8/ybjvg= =4/wj -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Huff wrote: Stephen Montgomery-Smith writes: I understand that you might have a private definition of ports@ that it should only discuss the current system. But if this is all you come to this group for, just press the delete key when it is not something you are personally interested in. I have no such restriction, I think complaints are on-topic. I wish those trying to build a better mousetrap prompt and complete success. And I congratulate them for putting code on paper. On the other hand ... once the discussion has moved from Something oughta be done. to We've started a project. - especially one that will generate enough light (never mind heat) on its own, it's time to take it elsewhere (within the larger FreeBSD environment). Wiki, special mailing list, private mailing list, whatever works. If I'm interested in the project, I gain by having all the bits in one place and not having to filter against the generic java/OpenOffice/fill in the blank won't compile/is slow/ate my poodle traffic. If I'm not interested in the project, well, we can all fill in the details. A monthly or bi-weekly announcement would not be out of line. 1. See my reply to Ade 2. We are not at We have started a project stage yet... that will not occur until there is a reasonable grasp on the scope and top level requirements 3. As soon as 2 is satisfied I will happily move to a private space -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYX8GzIOMjAek4JIRAjKhAJ9PSgUAfELej7M/1xIGcfX+FDD9wgCfQPvL pHLDmDKJkbH4w3i9pttggho= =rGMy -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 13, 2007, at 02:32 , David Southwell wrote: I suspect antagonistic responsesfrom some people are more about wounded pride (i.e - astonishment why should anyone propose to improve on the procedures, systems and engineering to which they contributed in the past!) You suspect wrong. Sorry. Indeed, I already said as much about the current system, and it's scalability. Sp please either make contributions that are intended to help the current process rather than boring everyone with negativity Since this is a WIP, how about taking it to a specific mailing list that is not related to how things currently operate. I read ports@ for one reason, and one reason only, to keep abreast of potential issues with the *current* system. It's not hard to set up a mailing list. Hell, I'll even host it myself if that's what it takes, but as things stand, ports@ (or, indeed, any other exising mailing list) is not the right place to be discussing concepts that are, fluid. As soon we get to the point where user input is less important (design, implementation and testing) it will move to it's own virtual discussion space, but as long as user input is a critical component of the work it will stay on [EMAIL PROTECTED] as several people have said this is the most appropriate place in the existing structure to do this. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYX43zIOMjAek4JIRAteMAJ9Lg2Adh9HIHj6LCeamz7y1amNZ7QCghVO0 2t00d2ZmcL743jGj8/ybjvg= =4/wj -END PGP SIGNATURE- I'm more than happy to take the comments in kind and implement them in my work with pkg_install. I honestly see no problem with commenting / brainstorming as long as it's productive. I'm done with finals and have no major obligations to deal with outside my '9 to 5' (more like 4:30 to 11:30) with BestBuy, so the true coding starts now.. Cheers, -Garrett ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: [admin note: cut down on ridiculous crossposting] On Dec 11, 2007, at 21:37 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Number of responses: roughly 30 I just wanted to pick up on this particular number. Your survey went to (at least) freebsd-ports, freebsd-current, freebsd-stable, and freebsd-questions. Judging by the original cc's on this message, it would appear that freebsd-chat and freebsd-hackers were also somehow involved, but not being subscribed to those lists, I wouldn't know. The orginal survey was posted to all the cc'ed groups and while I didn't track it the responses seemed to be evenly spread across all of them. Now, would you care to guess at the number of subscribers on those lists? Hint, total number is in the thousands. Let's, for the sake of argument, call it 3,000. (It is, of course, much higher) But, given this finger-in-the-air readership number, by your own admission, you have hit exactly 1% of a self-selected group (by virtue of being subscribed to the lists in question). Let's not even mention the bazillions (technical term) of FreeBSD consumers that don't subscribe to any list. And from this, you extrapolate new concepts which conveniently involve others doing the heavy lifting. First of all excuse my language but I have about had it with certain people... where the *HELL* do you get the idea that I am attempting to get other people to do the heavy lifting or have you not learned a single f***'ing thing from the last 30 years of software engineering (i.e. involve the user from the very beginning)... I said right in the f***'ing disclaimer that this is not an attempt to get permission from anyone to do anything and/or any type of project plan as of yet it is *ONLY* an attempt to define the problem so that a good (instead of one I think is good) solution can be designed and no to what ever fantasy land you live in I am not asking anyone to do anything I am not able and willing to do (I am going to send you a private reply after this to show why for my own personal well being this is a very bad idea) I'm done being nice with you. Get a grip. Show some code. Heck, show some *prototypes* of code. But don't hide behind I don't want my views to color things when it is patently obvious to anyone at or above the sentient level of a single celled organism that you really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I only said that during the survey while I still want to gather more data to pin down the exact requirements the general outline of the solutions seems to be shaping up to be: * 100% backwards compatibility * Avoid the issues raised in Miller97 (see previous posts for URL) * Allow for mult-layered dependancies (i.e. base dependancies on port name only not on version number *BUT* allow specific versions to be listed as depends) * Depending on the results of the scope survey extend this to all *BSD's if possible to make it so if anyone ports something then everyone gets it also * A few other minor tweaks that really aren't large enough for a general discussion of the issue Now a question for you if the goal is truly improve the system not what I think it means to improve it how the hell am I supposed to do this with out some information gathering. The cast-off line at this point would be to point you in the direction of random Linux distro. Only, in this case, I wouldn't wish that on my penguin-orientated friends. Hint: I have used linux for perhaps a total of a week and hated every minute of it I would rather use NT, but I have used FreeBSD since '95 and except for jerks like you have really enjoyed it. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHX6wezIOMjAek4JIRAoD5AJ9Mzcp5S+JScnqPadNeMPZG1hUPggCcCuaD x1u10QapYNgg5/uOuhyZh5Y= =W0ri -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
On Dec 12, 2007, at 01:38 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: First of all excuse my language but I have about had it with certain people... Presumably that would be me. where the *HELL* do you get the idea that I am attempting to get other people to do the heavy lifting or have you not learned a single f***'ing thing from the last 30 years of software engineering (i.e. involve the user from the very beginning).. And you've involved, at best, 1% of the user base. More likely 0.01%. Do we need to talk statistics again? I said right in the f***'ing disclaimer that this is not an attempt to get permission from anyone to do anything and/or any type of project plan as of yet it is *ONLY* an attempt to define the problem so that a good (instead of one I think is good) solution can be designed I have yet to see any coherent definition that a problem even exists. That's not to say the current situation is perfect, it certainly isn't. Those of us that have dealt with the ports tree for any length of time are well aware of its shortcomings. We're also well aware that making anything but baby-step changes along a larger path is destined to failure. Now, if y'all have concrete and plausible solutions for actual problems, we're all ears. But in the meantime, it's just another re- run of this sucks, it can be done better, without any concrete *proof* of the latter. We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling limits of the current system, and most of us are completely amazed it even still works. If y'all want to make a difference, concepts and ideas we have plenty of. Code talks. -aDe ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 04:38:39AM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: I have used FreeBSD since '95 and except for jerks like you have really enjoyed it. Are you quite sure it would be there to enjoy if not for jerks like us? :) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
--On Wednesday, December 12, 2007 04:38:39 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..while I still want to gather more data to pin down the exact requirements Don't you get it? You're not GATHERING DATA. You're eliciting responses from a TINY percentage of the people who use FreeBSD and ports and *extrapolating* from that tiny sample that 1) something is wrong with ports and 2) something actually needs to be done about it. You haven't even BEGUN to gather data. Yet you're already moving on to your second phase! Furthermore, you take it upon yourself to insult the very people who actually *do* write the code and make this thing work while polluting this list (and several others as well) with stuff that *very few* (very few is defined as less than 1% of the readership which represents perhaps 1% of the total users of FreeBSD) people care about. And you wonder why others' patience grows short? Have you even noticed that the sharpest criticism of your ideas has all come from people with @freebsd.org in their email address? Do you know what it takes to get one of those? Please, please, spare us all the pain. Go write some code. Submit a PR. Then argue the validity of your code on the developer's list. You're already in my killfile. I'm about to put you in /dev/null. -- Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
Im not really reading this threads.. But.. has this something to do with this? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2007-April/039802.html :P -- Phillip N. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 12, 2007, at 01:38 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: First of all excuse my language but I have about had it with certain people... Presumably that would be me. While your the main one your not the only one. where the *HELL* do you get the idea that I am attempting to get other people to do the heavy lifting or have you not learned a single f***'ing thing from the last 30 years of software engineering (i.e. involve the user from the very beginning).. And you've involved, at best, 1% of the user base. More likely 0.01%. Do we need to talk statistics again? Did you read the disclaimer where I specifically state that no mathematical/scientific validity should be placed on the results. Translation for the literal minded: I have made no claims that these results are in any way representative of the community as a whole only that they are representative of the people who elected to respond (which is clearly not a random sample and thus could not be considered to statistically valid no matter the sample size [unless the sample size is proven to be the same as the population which is impossible due to no existing user census of FreeBSD]) I said right in the f***'ing disclaimer that this is not an attempt to get permission from anyone to do anything and/or any type of project plan as of yet it is *ONLY* an attempt to define the problem so that a good (instead of one I think is good) solution can be designed I have yet to see any coherent definition that a problem even exists. That's not to say the current situation is perfect, it certainly isn't. Those of us that have dealt with the ports tree for any length of time are well aware of its shortcomings. We're also well aware that making anything but baby-step changes along a larger path is destined to failure. 1. One of the goals of the survey was to determine if any further work was warrented and clearly it is. 2. Using fairly standard software architicure methods enumerating what problems are being solved in detail is usually done after the need for the project is established and the second was the only goal of the survey. The next steps are: a. Decide on the scope of the project b. Gather detailed requirements c. Produce a very light weight design (with assumption it is just to structure the thought process and not to be the final implimented design) d. Begin implementation and testing (at the same time instead of in sequence) e. Iterate over c d until something is testable by the larger user community f. After substantial field testing decide what role, if any, FreeBSD will have in the final implementation of the project Now, if y'all have concrete and plausible solutions for actual problems, we're all ears. But in the meantime, it's just another re-run of this sucks, it can be done better, without any concrete *proof* of the latter. How exactly do you purpose to do that with out a complete understanding of the issues involved first and since personal experience always varies and illuminates different subsystems it is critical to gather data beyond ones own experience to understand the issues We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling limits of the current system, and most of us are completely amazed it even still works. If you know that and feel that I am doomed to failure then let me fail... but on the other hand if I succeed then the community will be enriched... the only thing you're doing in this thread is attempting to kill the effort before any results can possibelly be shown. If y'all want to make a difference, concepts and ideas we have plenty of. Code talks. And bad code is worse then no code at all. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYDkDzIOMjAek4JIRAvWHAJ0RJ6sNaioZEPDWIa0h3BhACvJyywCbBOh1 +jSqdFv0RpDO+vzBCdIzxBI= =cJa7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Paul Schmehl wrote: --On Wednesday, December 12, 2007 04:38:39 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..while I still want to gather more data to pin down the exact requirements Don't you get it? You're not GATHERING DATA. You're eliciting responses from a TINY percentage of the people who use FreeBSD and ports and *extrapolating* from that tiny sample that 1) something is wrong with ports and 2) something actually needs to be done about it. You haven't even BEGUN to gather data. Yet you're already moving on to your second phase! Furthermore, you take it upon yourself to insult the very people who actually *do* write the code and make this thing work while polluting this list (and several others as well) with stuff that *very few* (very few is defined as less than 1% of the readership which represents perhaps 1% of the total users of FreeBSD) people care about. And you wonder why others' patience grows short? Have you even noticed that the sharpest criticism of your ideas has all come from people with @freebsd.org in their email address? Do you know what it takes to get one of those? Please, please, spare us all the pain. Go write some code. Submit a PR. Then argue the validity of your code on the developer's list. Although I was one who was initially critical of Aryeh, I must admit that I am becoming puzzled as to why his initiative is attracting such hostility. I can understand people being dismissive of his efforts, but not the hostility. Aryeh has made it extremely clear what his goals are, and at worst all it will be is a failed project, and at best it might really contribute. People are saying again and again that they want to see the code, but he has said that he plans to do the heavy lifting by himself, and it should be obvious that he has taken on a very ambitious plan and code won't be seen for quite a while. Next, I don't get all this talk about the need for his data to satisfy some kind of significance test. Even professional polsters find this task extremely difficult and expensive. Obviously all Aryeh is trying to do is to get some anecdotal evidence. And in his situation I would say that (a) it is by far the best he can hope for, and (b) certainly has potential to be extremely useful. Come on guys, get off his back. You might disagree with him, but his comments are most certainly relevant to this mailing list. Kill the message, but don't kill the messenger. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 *PLEASE ONLY REPLY TO ME OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Omigod!! For Gods sake, could you PLEASE not have folks reply to the list! We have been sufficiently bombarded with this already. If you must have the replies public, then send them to freebsd-chat, but plesae stop polluting the list (as you are clearly asking people to do above). A few disclaimers: Neither I or anyone else is asking for FreeBSD to incorparate any modifications to the current base system and/or ports collection. If and when any code is developed from this process it will be committed using normal commit and review processes. The following summary of results is based on my eyeballing of answers and should not be interpreted as being any sort of mathematically and/or scientifically valid in any manner. Number of responses: roughly 30 Summary of results: 1. Most respondents stated that both the underlaying OS and the ports collection are equally important. When a preference was shown it was for the underlaying OS in most cases. 2. On average people tend to interact with the port system once or twice a week 3. The single best aspect of the ports system according to respondents is dependency tracking when installing new ports 4. The single worst aspect of the ports system according to respondents is dependency tracking when updating or deleting existing ports 5. Most respondents would not change there answers tothe survey if they where new to FreeBSD 6. Almost all respondents would use a new system if it fixed their personal worst aspect of the current system 7. About 50% of respondents would use a new system if it broke the best aspect of the ports system but fixed the worst aspect 8. Length of FreeBSD usage: rough avr. of 8 years with roughly 3 year std. dev. 9. Prefered install method: ports 10. Usage roughly evenly spread among desktop, development and servers 11. Subsystem ratings (rough avr's): UI: 6 Constancy: 9 Dependancy tracking: 7 Record keeping: 9 Granularity: 9 12. Most users are either sysadmins and/or developers Orginial Survey: As has been hashed out in -ports@ over the last few days there is at least a need to examine weither or not the current ports system should remain as is or potentially be re-engineered in the future (estimates if and when needed vary from ASAP to 10-15 years). I have volunteered to undertake a feasibility/pilot project to examine what changes (if any) are needed in the system (for the purposes of this thread I will not venture any of my own suggestions). I have the following broad questions for people: 1. What is more important to your personal use of FreeBSD (the ports system, the underlaying OS, some other aspect)? 2. How frequently do you interact with the ports systems and what is the most common interaction you have with it? 3. What is the single best aspect of the current system? 4. What is the single worst aspect of the current system? 5. If you where a new FreeBSD user how would your answers above change? If you where brand new to UNIX how whould they change? 6. Assuming that there was no additional work on your behalf would you use a new system if it corrected your answer to number 4? 7. Same as question 6 but for your answer on question 3? 8. How long have you used FreeBSD and/or UNIX in general? 9. That is your primary use(s) for your FreeBSD machine(s) (name upto 3)? 10. Assuming there is no functional difference what is your preferred installation method for 3rd party software? 11. On a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being the best) please rate the importance of the following aspects of the ports system? a. User Interface b. Consistency of behaviors and interactions c. Accuracy in dependant port installations d. Internal record keeping e. Granularity's of the port management system 12. Please rate your personal technical skill level? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHX3MyzIOMjAek4JIRAqqjAJ9YlNJW9Uqa21yK+sm1IST+KmO7QACfeum+ 9rhuEkdKX6BKkFZr6WGmbDU= =jhg0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
