Install of pkg fuse-ntfs fails because of undefined symbol in pkg!?!

scratch65535 at scratch65535 at
Sun Feb 19 21:31:39 UTC 2017

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:44:10 -0800, "C Hutchinson"
<portmaster at> wrote:

>> I trained as a clinical psychologist, not in computer science or
>> ee.   We learned that adults are notoriously resistant to change
>This is a very astute observation. One I recognized as an absolute;
>some two and a half decades ago, myself. Well done!

Beat y'to it -- my doc training was >4 decades ago.  Neener
neener!  :-)

>> (not that we hadn't noticed that ourselves, most of us, but it
>> was nice to have it confirmed "officially").  
>> But change is possible, even for adults.  The key to change is to
>> realise, at the gut level, that change *is* possible, that things
>> need *not* always be as they are now.   That life really truly
>> can be better. 
>> That's really hard for most adults to believe.  The prospect of
>> change is terrifying because it threatens us with loss of
>> control.  
>The largest fail in recent history, in this regard was pkg(8).
>Not that pkg itself is bad, per se; but in the way it was
>"presented". Or rather "dropped" like a bomb. Without having
>been "vetted" prior, by those that would now be /required/ to use
>it -- not an option.

That's another side-effect of moving too fast:  the certainty
that sacrificing accountability and buy-in is not only necessary,
but justified.  The stakeholder community becomes a threat to the
success of the program rather than a necessary part of it.  

(It's interesting, also horrible, that the same dynamic operates
in other domains too.  See, e.g., Mayer, M. "They Thought They
Were Free".)

>The "magic bullet" is when the "change" is perceived as being a
>change they "wanted", or "asked for".
>FreeBSD has seen *many* requests for change(s) over the years.
>Most of which are dismissed, ignored, or outright rejected.
>Even tho many were variations of the same.
>Solution? /Listen/ to those requests. Perform a pattern match
>to discover similarities in requests, and propose what could
>be perceived "feasible" implementations of those requests. Then
>implement them, and you'll gain a enthusiastic following.


The problem with implementing any such solution is that the
majority of technical people --I think I can extrapolate from
those I've met and worked with in my 40+ industry years-- are
focused on tech issues as an end in themselves.  

The idea that the users of their products are mostly not
technical and have very different yet fully legitimate --more
legitimate than their own, really-- desires and needs for the
systems being built is just not very important compared to
solving the hard technical problems they contend with every day.
And so they don't want to know.

>> But that doesn't mean we're currently doing the right things to
>> regain share from Linux and save FreeBSD.
>This is NOT, nor has never has been a "Linux vs BSD" thing. Linux
>is not UNIX. Ahem... Let me rephrase that;
>This is NOT a Linux vs BSD thing, anymore than a Windows vs BSD
>This is an "Operating System of choice" thing. If your OS provides
>what a majority of what people need, and want; you're successful,
>and popular. It's as simple as that.

Sure.  But in practice it is Linux vs BSD because those are now
effectively the only 2 Unixoid games in town.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list