Port-i386 archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: NetBSD vs. FreeBSD [Was: Desktop NetBSD needs your help]

On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 12:22:50AM -0500, Alex Goncharov wrote:

Just to finish my replic,

> | Also, when you need something built from ports - you have to
> | consider nobody keep thinking of ports lightening.
> That seems to be true... Especially where X is concerned.

As I am not engaged to see any icon on desktop I have nice working icewm on 
modular Xorg, built from pkgsrc. Earlier I used native X11, but they simply are 
too old, I hope it will be fixed prior to 5.0.

By the way I found X applications in pkgsrc compiling nice and having enough 
options to disable unneeded features, which can take deep dependecies. Also I 
have several instances of different X applications, built well on old 
Solaris/sparc for example. This is pretty nice, when you cannot change the 
architecture, but need to enchance on it.

Envolving pkgsrc to other systems is a pretty good thing. In some cases Linux 
need this (wow, with all that software they offers!), but for Solaris its a 
real cure. Since vendor is too slow to move in case you need DNS server updated 
ASAP - you have the only way to have software up-to-date using pkgsrc.

> | Under user pressure and some developers work they have to hunt for
> | more ports, instead of their quality. Try to compile some simple
> | mixer application and get hundreds megabytes as a dependencies. This
> | is really not a problem for desktop users.
> Unfortunately it *is* a problem for desktop users.
> Two weeks ago the "FreeBSD X people" put in the new X (xorg-server
> plus libraries).  Many (> 10) people's systems where totally
> incapacitated as a result, without any rollback path.  In the current
> economic environment that's quite a troubling thing.  The details can

Heh. Never thought FreeBSD can be vulnerable too. We got twenty Arch linuses 
caught on this. By the way cure is pretty tough, since Linux boot is complex, 
'user-friendly' and costs much to repair on any problem in package 

I knew several destructive updates, like Xen 3.3.0, which worked only in 
NetBSD, but Linux users had to do tough rollback. I wonder what I did today, 
having ten overloaded virtualization servers on that platform :)

> Troubling and costly -- I am now spending hours and hours working out
> my personal strategy (build / rollback infrastructure) to protect me
> from anything of this nature in the future. This is on top of almost
> two days that I tried to make the new X work, only to roll back in
> despair. Roll back painfully.

My alpha is now compiling recent Xorg. It is pretty heavy task for old 133 
alpha. Earlier I didn't understand (and mostly had same points of criticism to 
NetBSD as many people today does), that 'compiled here' means native.

I am not afraid to let Gnome come in my house, since I need some Gnome 
applications, like gimp for instance. I just have a belief and it comes. Comes 
pretty clear and working well. If I notice a problem I would report it, try to 
fix and always know that pointing to lightness and usability would be 
definitely supported by developers.

I remember an interview with five FreeBSD developers, only four approved an 
idea to make some kernel tweaks for Java, fifth were harshly against. It would 
make my flesh creep, if I would know NetBSD will do this.

By the way - most people, objecting to NetBSD's technological simplicity just 
forget, that this system is designed to become one for 54 architectures and 
most of them are pretty technological by themselves. Besides, principals like 
'economy everywhere' make it live on very slow platforms, also saving my 
servers' memory too.

Sincerelly yours

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index