Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:56:54 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig?= <bkoenig@cs.tu-berlin.de> To: FreeBSD Prospect <mailings.freebsd@o0l0o.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Ports vs. Gentoo Portage (a matter of concept) Message-ID: <43E88B06.7010909@cs.tu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <200602071149.31772.mailings.freebsd@o0l0o.org> References: <200602071149.31772.mailings.freebsd@o0l0o.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
FreeBSD Prospect schrieb: > [...] Now I am wondering, how this is even possible considering the > following: > > - Portage divides all software into three states: hardmasked, masked > unstable/testing (~arch) and stable (arch). > > - In ports there is no such difference, which means the lastest software is > just available using the usual port management features, without the need to > fiddle around with unmasking something, to be able to install it. In most > cases (even the usual desktop stuff, like Gnome & KDE) software in ports is > more up-to-date than in portage. > > That means, to be able to compare Gentoo Linux with FreeBSD, you would have to > run a pure unstable (~arch) Gentoo system, which is generally not > recommended, and especially not for a production system. > > So how is it possible, that FreeBSD is considered to be more suited as a > production environment, if it runs the latest software-versions, which are > considered unstable/testing in Gentoo? > > [...] I think this has something to do with the responsibility of the operating system. Typical Linux-based systems, including Gentoo, attach importance to the package manager and the software that they provide. FreeBSD is mainly a kernel and a set of well maintained userland tools and services. Everything beyond this is more a kind of meeting the system administrator halfway. This requires from the administrator that he know what he is doing, that he visit websites routinely and read news and security bulletins regularyly instead of blindly updating software. I don't want to say that I disfavour the way of Gentoo, because it can support the administrator significantly. I just want to say, that the FreeBSD ports are much older and therefore they don't take those aspects in account. If you ask why it's not there then the answer would be that nobody implemented it. The answer to the question why it is considered as suitable for production environment depends on the kind of this environment. Look at Debian; why is this distribution a good choice for production environments although they provide software that you can find in a museum? Because most production environments requires stability for the purpose of changelessness. You don't want the latest and "best" software, but rather thoughtfulness. The way of Debian is to let the package maintainers think about the available software; the way of FreeBSD is to let the administrator think about it. Björn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43E88B06.7010909>