Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 12:22:26 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which OS for notebook Message-ID: <20101006182226.GD75552@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20101006164240.GA15467@lpthe.jussieu.fr> References: <20101006164240.GA15467@lpthe.jussieu.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--iVCmgExH7+hIHJ1A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 04:42:40PM +0000, Michel Talon wrote:
>=20
> I mean that the concept of maintaining a full set of binary packages=20
> which has been verified by the distribution maintainers and remain
> usable for an extended period of time, combined with an effective
> binary upgrader (apt-get, aptitude), is light years ahead, for ease of
> use and convenience, to a rolling release style "bazar" like FreeBSD
> ports, combined with tools like portupgrade, which sort of work only=20
> when you spend all your time running them daily, after having sacrificed
> a young virgin to the gods. I concede that the FreeBSD way allows to have=
=20
> very up to date ports, and to be in control of compilation options and
> so on. Personnally i don't have much use for these benefits.
I don't have the kinds of problems you imply. Portupgrade works great,
even if I don't touch it for a week or so, at least for me. There are
benefits to a rolling release process, too:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=3D4150
--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
--iVCmgExH7+hIHJ1A
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAkysvmIACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKX5RACdGkczRaw3chCf3PXVq1XracWm
+MUAmgP1KVR9uPfoNL/IfMv0rD+HPIAH
=Bqe1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--iVCmgExH7+hIHJ1A--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101006182226.GD75552>