flowtable usable or not

[H]

O. Hartmann wrote:
> Maybe the logic behind the dependency system need a refurbish? I feel
> lost when trying to look into the vast number of of *.mk files and
> having to figure out myself how they get involved when building some
> essential ports. Each "tweak" seems to go into those files undocumented
> and the logical hierarchy isn't obvious, since many dependencies are
> hidden in GNOME/KDE related files.
it is kind of hard discussing logic here, certainly we are coming to the
end of the natural thermodynamics chain, expansion=>chaos=>order which
also is a logic, letting the things in hand of natural orders is no
good, too slow in first place, too many victims in second

so eventually we use algebra and separate stuff, so what do we have?

Base System
Ports
Packages

so now comes a logic question before anything else

target is what?

more users

how?

the base system is pretty good, stable and secure,  but this is not
enough, to get more users we need other stuff on the table


>> > Even if lots of you do not like it to hear, fact is that we must look
>> > around and see how others do it. Windows, whatever it is, it is easy to
>> > install for everybody.
> Well, this is right. But do not forget that even those fancy and easy to
> use installation framework hide a lot of the underlying system's
> hierarchy and logic. Look at all the Linux systems, trying to get on par
> with Windows. How long did they raped Linux to get it that way looking?

of course, but we do not fear work

at the end they looked for the target's needs and understood that that
is the only point what matters for success


>> > If it was my decision, it should be go to ports=no_no, packages=YES
> In such a case, there would be no reason anymore to use FreeBSD! I want
> to use the system as fast as possible on desktop, so binary packages
> should be all right. But on servers, I'd like to squeeze out the last
> nanosecond I can grab by using dedicated compiler options. So I wnt to
> have the choise! My freedom, my responsibility and also the freedom to
slow slow with the young horses ...
that is not what I said or meant

first my saying is for/from user perspective, repeating, cd into the
drive, install, boot, ready to go, without fiddling around - that  is
one and perhaps the only straight possibility to reach and get more users

you are not a common user, of course ports will stay alive for whom
likes, needs or want it

> decide for my own how much "brain" I want to invest into understanding
> my OS - or even not. At this very point, I "can", up to a certain point,
> decide how much time I want to spend on understanding. Others "can not",
> by natural selection, they need to be stuck with binaries. or they

exactly

>> > 
>> > I mean, as long as the packages are not complete and ready, no new port
>> > version should be released or announced
> Why not? How should the "free" open source community then ever help to
> debug? I guess what you think about is to have a more strict
> "RELEASE/STABLE/CURRENT/ based policy also for the ports system? I would
> agree.

again recalling, user perspective

and no, complete is the keyword

before announcing an available upgrade, all necessary packages should be
ready so that the common user do not get caught in some compiling process


>> > 
>> > So who dares,understand and can or like adventures, compiles from ports
> It is not simple as that. The "logic" starts at the compiler's point.
> GCC 4.2.1 isn't an option in many cases, CLANG unsuitable (openMP).
well, right or wrong, that is then issue for whom likes to compile, we
do not speak about it because that is what we have, but that is not good
for the users, still less for getting more users

> On the other hand, who should provide all the binary coverage? As you
> could see, the user domain of FreeBSD is shrinking. And even my
the maintainer/packager

today we are with some kind of mess because there are no rules

today nobody cares because the actual FreeBSD horde is completely or
almost composed of developers or insiders or programmers or lovers, so
why making packages? No one requires them

developers have other interests as users have

>> > 
>> > Such a decision would help FreeBSD in all means and would help the users
>> > as well, in any case it will create more users
> Yes, well said, but a bit false. World has changed since the last 50
> years, politically. Monolithic capitalism with a herd of dumb, mean
> animals only want to "touch and use". Monolithic socialism creates mean

don't be so harsh on people because it is the constructor who builds
your house but he wants to read email and surf the net ... for that he
certainly do not need to learn to compile or read Makefiles, but of
course, he tells his wife how stupid this nerd is which do not know the
name of the wood he uses :) so let skip this part


>> > 
>> > Why somebody should chose FreeBSD as his daily desktop, oh man, only
>> > some die-hard-guys like you and me, but you know, that is not hours of
>> > work, that is days, weeks and constant setbacks for whatever reasons ...
>> > that is not for anybody. And you are right, no traffic on the specific
>> > lists, why? because the three on the list, two can help themselves (you
>> > and me) and the other is the moderator ... :) not even the port
>> > maintainer/packager is on that list ...  :)
>> > 
> Well, these days dying on FreeBSD is much quicker than years before - in
> my special case.

in any case :)

> Linux is faster in (our) network. Linux response faster in (our) NFSv4
> (environment). Linux has a better scalability (NUMA awareness seems to
> be better on our 2-socket servers). Linux adopt faster new architectures

well, if or not, it's another case, developer level case

> due to a better maintaining of the necessary compiler(s). And I'm going
> to face another development that will let FreeBSD die faster in certain
> scientific areas (were the BSD has been born!). This is mainly due to
> the lack of the support of modern GPGPU stuff. I'm forced to replace
> several FreeBSD servers now by Suse Linux machines. Reason: GPGPU. We
> can use OpenCL/CUDA on the TESLA boards we obtained, we can use
> OpenCL/CUDA on the desktop boxes equipted with expensive and fast GPU
> hardware (and we do this very intensive now). We modell, simulate and
> optimize on GPGPU code developed by scientists in our depeartment, based
> on OpenCL.
> Since we are also dependend on funding from the government (we have to
> present so called "PR products" which include scientifically prepared
> and rendered products of solar system objects like Mars or the Saturnian
> icy moons), we need to build up a "render cluster", which we do with a
> well known open source rendering software which has now GPGPU support.
> Even on "out of the box server Linux" this can not be performed "out of
> the box" and need "die hard" people. But they do not die hard on FBSD
> anymore.
>
yooo, certainly you say it all, all this communication devices (space
ships) are difficult to build and have some dependencies still more
difficult, but nobody cares but the building staff and it's sponsor and
some other crazy people

the normal guy do not even assist anymore the launch and change to the
MMA channel

and he buys a firework-rocket, lit a match and blows it into the sky ...
he do not care and do not need to know how it works, he only needs it to
work, and now, when it fails, he does what? takes another one ...


-- 
H


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20120303/9049058e/signature.pgp