results of ports re-engineering survey

Aryeh M. Friedman aryeh.friedman at
Wed Dec 12 11:39:51 PST 2007

Hash: SHA1

Ade Lovett wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 01:38 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>> First of all excuse my language but I have about had it with
>> certain people...
> Presumably that would be me.

While your the main one your not the only one.
>> where the *HELL* do you get the idea that I am attempting to get
>> other people to do the heavy lifting or have you not learned a
>> single f***'ing thing from the last 30 years of software
>> engineering (i.e. involve the user from the very beginning)..
> And you've involved, at best, 1% of the user base.  More likely
> 0.01%.  Do we need to talk statistics again?

Did you read the disclaimer where I specifically state that no
mathematical/scientific validity should be placed on the results.
Translation for the literal minded: I have made no claims that these
results are in any way representative of the community as a whole only
that they are representative of the people who elected to respond
(which is clearly not a random sample and thus could not be considered
to statistically valid no matter the sample size [unless the sample
size is proven to be the same as the population which is impossible
due to no existing user census of FreeBSD])
>> I said right in the f***'ing disclaimer that this is not an
>> attempt to get permission from anyone to do anything and/or any
>> type of project plan as of yet it is *ONLY* an attempt to define
>> the problem so that a good (instead of one I "think" is good)
>> solution can be designed....
> I have yet to see any coherent definition that a problem even
> exists.  That's not to say the current situation is perfect, it
> certainly isn't.  Those of "us" that have dealt with the ports tree
>  for any length of time are well aware of its shortcomings.  We're
> also well aware that making anything but baby-step changes along a
> larger path is destined to failure.

1. One of the goals of the survey was to determine if any further work
was warrented and clearly it is.

2. Using fairly standard software architicure methods enumerating what
problems are being solved in detail is usually done after the need for
the project is established and the second was the only goal of the
survey.   The next steps are:

    a. Decide on the scope of the project
    b. Gather detailed requirements
    c. Produce a very light weight design (with assumption it is just
to structure the thought process and not to be the final implimented
    d. Begin implementation and testing (at the same time instead of
in sequence)
    e. Iterate over c & d until something is testable by the larger
user community
    f. After substantial field testing decide what role, if any,
FreeBSD will have in the final implementation of the project
> Now, if y'all have concrete and plausible solutions for actual
> problems, we're all ears.  But in the meantime, it's just another
> re-run of "this sucks, it can be done better", without any concrete
>  *proof* of the latter.

How exactly do you purpose to do that with out a complete
understanding of the issues involved first and since personal
experience always varies and illuminates different subsystems it is
critical to gather data beyond ones own experience to understand the
> We *know* it can be done better.  We *know* the scaling limits of
> the current system, and most of us are completely amazed it even
> still works.

If you know that and feel that I am doomed to failure then let me
fail... but on the other hand if I succeed then the community will be
enriched... the only thing you're doing in this thread is attempting
to kill the effort before any results can possibelly be shown.
> If y'all want to make a difference, concepts and ideas we have
> plenty of.  Code talks.
And bad code is worse then no code at all.
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list