Install of pkg fuse-ntfs fails because of undefined symbol in pkg!?!
scratch65535 at att.net
scratch65535 at att.net
Sat Feb 11 13:35:34 UTC 2017
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:18:49 -0600, Mark Linimon
<linimon at lonesome.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 08:17:31AM -0500, scratch65535 at att.net wrote:
>> A good rule of thumb from industry in the case of major software
>> would be "forever", meaning until it's very unlikely that anyone
>> is still using it because of hardware obsolescence, etc.
>(Sigh.) And how many people do you think it takes to do such support?
A variable number. Level-of-support is a continuum, not a point.
Just don't purge the "obsolete" bits, if that's really all the
support that can be afforded. It'd be more support than is
>> Why is Linux able to so easily replace FreeBSD? The desktop is
>> gone. Servers are going. The new AMD chips are being tested
>> against Intel on Linux boxes, not FreeBSD boxes. FreeBSD is
>> being made obsolete.
>In other words, if we move fast enough to try to keep up with Linux
>changes, FreeBSD is obsolete. If we move more slowly than Linux, then
>FreeBSD is obsolete.
>I'm being serious. We get criticized either way.
And is the "keeping up with" working, Mark? Are we regaining
share from Linux? No. We're continuing to lose.
That strongly suggests that "keeping up" in the way we're doing
it is the wrong thing to do and should be stopped while we
analyse the problem in a better way, focussing on understanding
what Linux is doing that steadily gains them seats at our
It's the same competitive analysis anyone in the computer
industry --or any industry-- must do if they want to survive. But
as the roster of dead computer companies that were once dominant
in their space should tell us, too many people just can't bring
themselves to do what's needed.
>Also, for package sets, consider that size * each OS release * each
>architecture (ok, some architectures) = a lot of disk space. We
>simply have finite disk space.
A problem that can be solved with money isn't a problem, it's an
>IMHO, the days that we can expect ports maintainers and committers to
>keep e.g. a FreeBSD 4.11 viable for years are over. By the EOL of 4.11,
>we were asking volunteers to support *4* major OS releases. That was
Who's suggesting we go back to doing that?
>As for the OS releases, we're trying to keep up with new disk technologies,
>new ways of booting, new wireless techniques, graphics APIs that change
>rapidly, and on and on. The pace of these changes is outside our control.
>We can keep up or become irrelevant.
We're all but irrelevant right now and our situation continues to
deteriorate, so clearly what we're doing is not working. That's
the key take-home here: what we're doing is Not Working.
The late theoretical physicist and systems expert W. Edwards
Deming captured many situations, including FreeBSD's, in a
"It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory."
More information about the freebsd-ports