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]

2009/2/8 Alex Goncharov <alex-goncharov%comcast.net@localhost>:
> ,--- You/Dima (Sun, 8 Feb 2009 07:41:11 +0300) ----*
> | On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 09:57:13PM -0500, Alex Goncharov wrote:
> | > | NetBSD is really designed for people, moved to NetBSD by their wise
> | > | looking for really working things, proved for simplicity. If you
> | > | can't understand some deeply technical things - don't even try and
> | > | use FreeBSD or Linux.
> | >
> | >    What are the most important advantages of NetBSD over FreeBSD?
> |
> | It is nice, but when your work is an administration of several
> | server boxes via ssh - you are coming to hell with Free or Linux,
> | you will blaim any developer included KDE instead of really simple
> | and nice utilities. FreeBSD usually have them not in best state, and
> | Linux usually don't have them at all.
> Interesting...
> | People looking for nice installer have questions how Gnome or KDE
> | working on their platform, but I look for stable IPSEC package. You
> | know - NetBSD have it and always in great working condition, but
> | FreeBSD had problems choosing kame or racoon, making it slow. They
> | rewrited ports architecture several times, their start-script system
> | was awful and keeps to be ugly, their ata driver was rewritten 5
> | times and is not a great thing today, their source-code tree is a
> | mess. But they always had desktop system in default
> | installation. Most people appreciate this, but in 90% of my server
> | installations I never install or use X server. I am not against
> | FreeBSD at all and used it as a desktop some period of time, it is
> | just not for those, who use heavy trucks.
> Interesting...
> | 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.
> | 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
> be found in the freebsd-ports%freebsd.org@localhost archives, in the threads:
>    Xorg strange behavior
>    Xorg disaster
>    Xorg upgrade desaster
>    Unhappy Xorg upgrade
> 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.
> So, guys, listen to a beaten man's advice: don't you joke with X.
> Don't let the cute Gnome in your house.  And to hell with HAL. Or else
> it's getting like Linux.  (I am biased here.)

And how is NetBSD better than Free here?

pkgsrc upgrades suck badly. It is said that the right way is to

1) create a chroot to build new packages

2) build them

3) back up the old ones

4) try installing the new ones

but you do not read this in the pkgsrc guide, and it requires large
amount of disk space.

If they followed this procedure on FreeBSD they would not get into any
problems either.



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index