Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:32:12 +0200 From: Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com> To: Holger Kipp <hk@alogis.com> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Subject: Re: request: LOADER_ZFS_SUPPORT Message-ID: <cf9b1ee00911181132x5f448547lf58cf5a8c54aa4a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20091118172332.GA8542@intserv.int1.b.intern> References: <cf9b1ee00911180344s6d69b362ie6dae681d74d5de2@mail.gmail.com> <20091118135340.522fa36a@ernst.jennejohn.org> <4B04020C.3080000@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <cf9b1ee00911180625s47eeab19k45bfab8a9a580c5c@mail.gmail.com> <20091118172332.GA8542@intserv.int1.b.intern>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Holger Kipp <hk@alogis.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 04:25:09PM +0200, Dan Naumov wrote: >> 2009/11/18 O. Hartmann <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>: >> > Gary Jennejohn wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:44:12 +0200 >> >> Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com> 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 their systems in the year 2009 is an outdated concept, this is why w= e >> >>> 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. =A0Been 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 complain about 'why compiling, it is an outdated concept ...'.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 abo= ut >> > operating systems (me, too) and never try to understand the concept be= hind >> > (me not). But today, having sophisticated binary update facilities, it= seems >> > to speed up a worse development: many companies save the computer-scie= ntist >> > to maintain their stuff - because they have a bunch of cheap fools >> > 'fertilizing the acres of foolsness' and pretending being the master o= f 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. "Can" and "have to" are 2 very different things. >> 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 fi= ne > for most users. If you _need_ to adjust Makefiles, then a precompiled sol= ution > is definitely not suited to your needs. Trust me on that ;-) Or maybe the defaults are suboptimal? - Sincerely, Dan Naumov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cf9b1ee00911181132x5f448547lf58cf5a8c54aa4a>