Removing documentation

[Michelle Sullivan]

Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2/15/16 3:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>> John Marino wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This makes no sense.  Ports are not tied to base releases.
>>>>> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>>>>>
>>>> There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know.  The
>>>> issue was
>>>> with ports and by extension pkgng (and related -ngs).
>>>>
>>>
>>> ports are developed independently.  They do not follow release
>>> schedules.  Ports have to support all supported releases, that's the
>>> only connection.
>>>
>> Yeah, I'd agree with this... except...
>>
>> pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng...  that makes it base os
>> thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports..
>>
>> So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports system, because whilst
>> it maybe built and administered there, the tools it replaced were
>> removed from the base OS at the very beginning of 10.x...
>
> This is like milking a dead cow here. Even if you get something out of
> it you're not going to drink it.

One of the reasons that over the last few months I have been ignoring
most threads on here and IRC... just looking for something I need to
know about only.
>
> If you want to be using a 2014 OS in 2022, then a RHEL derived system
> is the product for you. Enjoy it. I don't believe that there is an
> upgrade path in RHEL, so you'll either have to retire hardware or nuke
> your systems to upgrade.

I don't, I'm forced to now.

>
> No one forced you to use 10.x before you were ready. 9 is still
> supported to this day. And as has been pointed out, pkg_ tools were in
> ports should you have wanted to continue to use them, and you could
> have kept them and frozen your ports tree, as has been pointed out.
I don't have a 10.x box.  I do still have 40+ 9.x boxes and a non-frozen
ports tree where i have backported many of the new changes to the old
pkg_* system ... just because in the immortal words "these changes
cannot work with pkg_* tools, we needed to change everything to move
forward." (or something very close to those words.)

>
> Could the pkg(8) roll out have been handled better? Yes!


> Red Hat, which is now your preferred product, 
No, it's the product I have to use because that is now company policy.

> is a for-profit company with over 8000 paid employees, many of whom
> are testing and testing and testing. They never update anything except
> at the point of a gun, and then only after extensive testing. On the
> plus side, it's stable. It never really changes. FreeBSD, on the other
> hand, is a comparatively small organization and an operating system
> that moves forward, though sometimes it's two steps forward and one
> back.. Some things need to be tested in the field to find out where
> and what needs to be changed/fixed/improved. That's the way it is. Was
> this an epic fail? That's a matter of opinion, though we all already
> know yours. The fact is that you had choices. You made those choices
> with your eyes open (if you didn't then shame on you!) 

I have very little choice because whilst my eyes were open, I missed one
message ... *ONE* message that said (paraphrasing), "as of the EOL date
the old tools will be broken"


> and things didn't go as smoothly as you'd have liked. As I said, it's
> time to move on. Your arguments are specious.
>
>
Your assumptions about me and my motives are very specious.  I have
already moved on professionally (as in, in my job) and I replied to this
thread only to let the original poster know there were not alone in
their thoughts or arguments.  Others, you included have persisted in
telling me how and why I'm wrong without realising that if I amd wrong
so are you, just as if I am right so are you because I am talking about
my experience, observations and opinion, which are mine and mine alone,
you will keep the argument going whilst ever you deny my observations
and opinions.

-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/