Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:40:06 +0700
From:      Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com>
To:        Fabian Keil <freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de>
Cc:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
Subject:   Re: 7+ days of dogfood
Message-ID:  <20130211184006.0c7f9943@X220.ovitrap.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130211114811.09e56b55@fabiankeil.de>
References:  <20130210000723.GA73630@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20130211114811.09e56b55@fabiankeil.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:48:11 +0100
Fabian Keil <freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de> wrote:

> Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> > My conclusion:  on at least my not-so-new laptop, FreeBSD-10 can
> > be used in a desktop environment if one takes some care during the
> > installation.
> 
> I'm using CURRENT on my also-no-so-new laptop since FreeBSD 7
> (I think) and came to the same conclusion.
> 
I did this during 6.x time but got stuck then with 6.x and never went
back until last May/June.

> It's unfortunate that the builworld time roughly trippled since
> 2010 but I guess that's progress and a more powerful system
> should fix it. I certainly welcome clang in general, though.
> 
Trippled? Are you sure? I have the feeling it is much worse than this.
Was it in 2009 when I could compile world in a few minutes on my quad
core. The same machine takes now hours despite having more memory.

I run currently my desktop and my notebook on 10. If I stick with my
policy, I would stay with 10 until 12 would be available.

On the other side, it feels so outdated not to have something like
the most current version.

Erich



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130211184006.0c7f9943>