From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 20 12:53:54 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9687D16A41F for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:53:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) Received: from msrv.matik.com.br (msrv.matik.com.br [200.152.83.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7F443D55 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:53:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) Received: from anb (anb.matik.com.br [200.152.83.34]) by msrv.matik.com.br (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBKCrrVk031604 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:53:53 -0200 (BRST) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) From: JoaoBR To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:53:49 -0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 References: <43A7A3F7.7060500@mail.ru> <20051220110315.GA66112@melkor.kh405.net> <43A7F875.4010903@mail.ru> In-Reply-To: <43A7F875.4010903@mail.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512201053.49465.joao@matik.com.br> X-Filter-Version: 1.11a (msrv.matik.com.br) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.86.2, clamav-milter version 0.86 on msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: ports security branch X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:53:54 -0000 On Tuesday 20 December 2005 10:26, rihad wrote: > > FreeBSD's "latest and greatest" attitude is very relevant for desktop > users and such. I think it would be even better to make > security-conscious server admins' lives even better. Put up a box, > forget about it, do a major upgrade in a year. Oversimplifying here... > _______________________________________________ I would not agree with you, even if the ports are getting better and better= =20 they are still a all-in-one-package and often not suitable for any adm=20 especially the security-conscious one.=20 A webserver or a router need some software only and well compiled and=20 configured it is better than having a large ports-tree on the machine and=20 then when upgrading some shit happens and some config is deleted like it us= ed=20 to be with mailman, spamassassin and others. The risk is too big. The ports collection is nice and easy for most users like it is but since y= ou=20 already compared to linux, I tell you that aptget or yum really seems to b= e=20 better until you get in nasty troubles after compiling a new kernel and som= e=20 packages do not work anymore. Then you go to love portupgrade again and the= =20 =46reeBSD system is clearly better because the ports do not depend on kerne= l=20 versions. Also you can portupgrade only some ports without running into too much=20 dependency troubles. Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br