> On 19.04.2016 г., at 5:01, Roger Marquis <marq...@roble.com> wrote: > > Honestly, some of us are wondering what exactly is > behind some of these concerns regarding base packages. >
Not taking a side on this discussion, yet… but the first thing that occurred to me is that such way of packaging is traditional for the Linux “distributions”. I could imagine people worrying at subconscious level that FreeBSD is going the Linux way… and that if they wanted such a model, they would be using Linux instead. Today, people have more choice in packaging — but if FreeBSD goes the Linux way, someone else will fill the void — so no worries in general. I can see the support nightmare that a packaged base would bring, but as always — this is not enough to judge it. The benefits might be worth it in the long run. I was a long time user of BSD/OS and then switched to FreeBSD when that OS was killed. In BSD/OS everything was monolithic. It was rock stable. Very dependable and very easy to support. My first few years with FreeBSD were spent to get used that the OS was not just one piece, but you could end up with different installs.. A bit more support efforts. Not that I am complaining :) As long as packaged base is not mandatory, it is fine by me. Daniel _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"