Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:17:48 +0000 From: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> To: gary.jennejohn@freenet.de Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com> Subject: Re: request: LOADER_ZFS_SUPPORT Message-ID: <4B04020C.3080000@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <20091118135340.522fa36a@ernst.jennejohn.org> References: <cf9b1ee00911180344s6d69b362ie6dae681d74d5de2@mail.gmail.com> <20091118135340.522fa36a@ernst.jennejohn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 their systems in the year 2009 is an outdated concept, this is why we 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 Fools, conceptually compromised by Microsofts closed-binary-strategy, often complain about 'why compiling, it is an outdated concept ...'.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 ... Sorry being off-topic.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B04020C.3080000>