ports security branch

[JoaoBR]

On Tuesday 20 December 2005 10:26, rihad wrote:

>
> FreeBSD's "latest and greatest" attitude is very relevant for desktop
> users and such. I think it would be even better to make
> security-conscious server admins' lives even better. Put up a box,
> forget about it, do a major upgrade in a year. Oversimplifying here...
> _______________________________________________

I would not agree with you, even if the ports are getting better and better 
they are still a all-in-one-package and often not suitable for any adm 
especially the security-conscious one. 

A webserver or a router need some software only and well compiled and 
configured it is better than having a large ports-tree on the machine and 
then when upgrading some shit happens and some config is deleted like it used 
to be with mailman, spamassassin and others. The risk is too big.

The ports collection is nice and easy for most users like it is but since you 
already compared to linux, I tell you that aptget  or yum really seems to be 
better until you get in nasty troubles after compiling a new kernel and some 
packages do not work anymore. Then you go to love portupgrade again and the 
FreeBSD system is clearly better because the ports do not depend on kernel 
versions.

Also you can portupgrade only some ports without running into too much 
dependency troubles.

João








A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura.
Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik  https://datacenter.matik.com.br