Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?

Mark Andrews marka at isc.org
Sun Jun 3 23:30:24 UTC 2012


In message <2156532.vx6SHRoqL8 at x220.ovitrap.com>, Erich writes:
> Hi,
> 
> On 03 June 2012 AM 9:15:14 Chris Rees wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2012 5:26 AM, "Erich" <erichfreebsdlist at ovitrap.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 02 June 2012 PM 2:56:01 Chris Nehren wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 14:11:06 -0400 , Paul Mather wrote:
> > > > > I'm not sure what the solution is for the end user.  I know I get
> > > > > somewhat leery of updating my ports if I see a large number of change
> s
> > > > > coming via portsnap (like the 4000+ that accompanied the recent libpn
> g
> > > > > upgrade) and there is nothing new in UPDATING (which, happily wasn't
> > > > > the case with the libpng upgrade).  Usually, I wait a while for the
> > > > > dust to clear and an UPDATING entry potentially to appear.
> > > >
> > > > If you're concerned about things breaking, don't follow the bleeding
> > > > edge. This seems to be common sense.
> > >
> > > is there a second version of the ports tree available?
> > >
> > > What is the response of the list if you want to install a new package
> > with you old ports tree?
> > >
> > 
> > The response is "Don't ask for support if you do that", I'm afraid.
> > 
> > No major OS I can think of allows you to mix and match like that (though I
> > could be wrong).
> 
> it is new to me that Microsoft asks for a Windows update when a new Office ve
> rsion appears at the scene.

No.  It just silently does the OS update by installing new sets of
libraries if required.

When we install our software on a Windows machine we update the OS
by installing the lastest C runtime libraries.  We use Microsoft's
installer but we do it.  We also ship a private copy of the OpenSSL
and libxml libraries we use.

> Microsoft also does not ask to update all other applications before the lates
> t Office can be installed.

And you don't have to do that for FreeBSD if you don't want to.
For each application you have you can put all the dependancies in
its own tree.  Apple does this for MacOS.

The ports system defaults are to use a common build/runtime tree
but at the cost of a little more disk space each major application
could have its own build/runtime tree.  This is a tradeoff.  Most
of the time having a shared set of libraries is a win, but just
occasionally, it is a big pain.

I've got a system where the X server is running a completely different
set of libraries compared to the X applications.  I just couldn't
get the new server to work.  I just took all the old server package
and all its dependencies and installed it in a new location.  This
has a bit more that what is actually requires as I don't need all
the header files but it works.

For tools that are critical I would suggest building a seperate
build / runtime tree.  Disk space is relatively cheap.  One thing
that could help is splitting library packages into runtime / buildtime
sub packages.  That way you can reduce the foot print for a runtime
install.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list