Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?

[Nomen Nescio]

> Dear All ,
> 
> There is a thread
> 
> "Why Are You Using FreeBSD ?"
> 
> 
> I think another thread with the specified subject   '"Why Are You NOT Using
> FreeBSD ?" may be useful :
> 
> 
> If you are NOT using FreeBSD for any area or some areas , would you please
> list those areas with most important first to least important last ?

1. The X-org changeover a few years ago screwed up a FreeBSD installation I
had been using so badly I never trusted FreeBSD's rolling update ports
system again. That should have been a major FreeBSD release, but instead it
was done just in the ports with no version bump and no choice and no notice
unless you read the fine print.

2. Broken ports galore. Much of the stuff I wanted broke on AMD64 after
downloading tarballs for hours. Not good. Contacted package maintainer and
received answer: yeah, I know it doesn't work on AMD64. I still feel i386 is
the only safe FreeBSD platform and I have only one or two 32 bit boxes left
so FreeBSD doesn't really give me a warm fuzzy anymore. But it is still
ahead of NetBSD which got more and more unstable with every new major
version to the point I can't trust it. FreeBSD never crashed or did anything
bad for me except during the X-org episode.

3. gcc. I realize FreeBSD is moving to clang and that it can even be built
with clang. When clang is the default build, I will probably try it
again. Due to nearsighted/blind Linux developers, every OS besides Linux is
going to lag because of autotools and gcc crapola. It often makes compiling
apps a pain in the ass on FreeBSD when a port doesn't exist. I realize this
is not FreeBSD's fault and it is still an inhibitor to all the BSD for me.

4. I transitioned to mostly headless operation. FreeBSD is probably the best
overall desktop there is but I found other server OS better, specifically
Solaris. For my needs, YMMV. I use a Linux box for a desktop and I have
servers with different archs running headless with Solaris or OpenBSD and I
am looking at Dragonfly again in the near future, because pkgsrc is much
better than ports. Maybe FreeBSD should consider migrating to pkgsrc?

5. ZFS support on Solaris is current, on anything else, despite much
appreciated efforts, it is just not there. FreeBSD has the best ZFS support
outside of Solaris, but it's not enough right now and I don't think it will
ever catch up until Oracle releases the source. Not holding my breath on
that.

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: ports usable or not [was: flowtable usable or not]

[Nomen Nescio]

Thanks mcl. I am off on other things for now but I will file PRs next time
I come across something. In the past I have emailed the port maintainer and
the answer is usually "yeah I know". After a few of those I thought filing
PRs is a waste of time considering the maintainer doesn't seem to care.

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: flowtable usable or not

[Nomen Nescio]

> ... and here is the crux of the problem. The vast majority of our
> developers don't use FreeBSD as their regular workstation

 !!

Something is wrong with this picture! If not, why not?!
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: flowtable usable or not

[Nomen Nescio]

> my experiences of slow and nightmarishly error-ridden port updates

I have no intention to bash FreeBSD or ports but ports is certainly not
without problems. It's annoying but not a reason to use Ubuntu! Get a grip,
man! ;-)

> I know there are users who have operated without such problems

I think if you use the i386 architecture and the common ports you are less
likely to find something before somebody else finds it and it gets fixed. If
you use any other platform you are likely to find problems with ports and
this gets amplified if you use nonstandard (read stuff not everybody uses)
ports. I have found several ports broken for many releases in a row. Other
ports aren't supported on certain target architectures but the build
doesn't tell you that until after it has run for a couple of hours
downloading huge source tarballs and compiling them only to give you a
nastygram "Sorry this port is not available on AMD64" of something like
that. I understand not every port maintainer can test on every arch but come
on, for stuff that you know doesn't work can't you check at the beginning
and stop rather than put out a message when the build breaks?
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"