From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 18 17:37:34 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12E01065694 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:37:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hk@alogis.com) Received: from alogis.com (firewall.solit-ag.de [212.184.102.1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D618FC24 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:37:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alogis.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alogis.com (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id nAIHNWj6014339; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:23:32 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from hk@alogis.com) Received: (from hk@localhost) by alogis.com (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id nAIHNWQZ014338; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:23:32 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from hk) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:23:32 +0100 From: Holger Kipp To: Dan Naumov Message-ID: <20091118172332.GA8542@intserv.int1.b.intern> References: <20091118135340.522fa36a@ernst.jennejohn.org> <4B04020C.3080000@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:40:45 +0000 Cc: freebsd-current , "O. Hartmann" Subject: Re: request: LOADER_ZFS_SUPPORT X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:37:34 -0000 On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 04:25:09PM +0200, Dan Naumov wrote: > 2009/11/18 O. Hartmann : > > Gary Jennejohn wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:44:12 +0200 > >> Dan Naumov wrote: > >> > >>>> WHy not just build from source? > >>> > >>> Because expecting users to build from source to install or update > >>> their systems in the year 2009 is an outdated concept, this is why we > >>> have freebsd-update in the first place. > >>> > >> > >> This is such a load of BS I could fertilize 100 acres with it. > >> > >> In this day of inexpensive computers with fast mulit-core CPUs and > >> gigabytes of memory this argument is completely lame. > >> > >> Fifteen years ago I would have agreed, because it took days to build > >> world and the kernel.  Been there, done that. > >> > >> --- > >> Gary Jennejohn > > > > Been there, did it, too. > > > > Fools, conceptually compromised by Microsofts closed-binary-strategy, often > > complain about 'why compiling, it is an outdated concept ...'. It is, simply > > in my opinion, a helpless selfdefense: they do not understand much about > > operating systems (me, too) and never try to understand the concept behind > > (me not). But today, having sophisticated binary update facilities, it seems > > to speed up a worse development: many companies save the computer-scientist > > to maintain their stuff - because they have a bunch of cheap fools > > 'fertilizing the acres of foolsness' and pretending being the master of the > > puppets by hitting an 'update-key' and everythings works magically ... > > This is unreasonable elitism. Having to jump through hoops, manually Ah no. If someone needs a precompiled system with everything, he can go and use Windows or Linux. I prefer using *BSD _because_ I can compile everything from scratch. And the build-system usually works much better than many 'pre-compiled' binary systems on the market. > adjust Makefiles and spend time compiling just to apply a system > update does NOT make you a "guru". It makes you waste time that could > be better spent elsewhere. Usually adjusting Makefiles is not necessary, because the defaults are fine for most users. If you _need_ to adjust Makefiles, then a precompiled solution is definitely not suited to your needs. Trust me on that ;-) Regards, Holger