James, On 10/30/07, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All OSes have their good and bad points. Sometimes, even the mighty ubuntu > pushes out broken updates (such as the one a version or two back that broke > a significant percentage's X-configuration). And ubuntu has a bug tracker > for a reason, not just for kicks. > > Just like FreeBSD. > > If you want a smoother sailing way of going forwards, try installing the > older version of apache that's available in ports. Its install is the one > that's handbook documented. If you decide to go with ubuntu, I hope it goes > well for you. They have a friendly community that can help most problems. >
Thanks for the 'points'. I certainly get the fact that all OSes have bugs. That's not my concern. What's a bit confounding is why/how the "process" allows two very mainstream & released/stable versions of programs (Apache 22 & Berkeley DB 46) to not play nice together for so long. ( Reading the PR reference from above, it's been at least a solid month, if not longer ...). It's not liike my expectation was to get anything but the most popular, widely used, programs set up. To a Newby, it seems like a guessing game as to what works and what doesn't. Frustrating, if only after an extended 'sales job' on how the ports system makes such problems go away got me here in the 1st place. And, yes the Ubuntu crowd has been very responsive -- and I do have a fully functional server with up to date program version up and running (mostly) without any of problems of out of date Ports not being dealt with. That said, I've stumbled on the PF firewall. After the headache I was getting trying to learn & configure IPTables, it's seemingly straightforward to use. And, if I read correctly, NOT available in the Linux world, only on OpenBSD & FreeBSD. So, I've some choices to make. The PR author replied to an email I sent, and has given me some options to "workaround" the out of date Apache22 port instead of downgrading to an earlier/older version of Berkeley DB. But that's starting to get me into a system that isn't managed by a port-management system. Which is what I was hoping to avoid in the first place. All of this would cease to be a problem for me if that port were simply updated. But, that seems unlikely anytime soon without some intervention by someone with the right knowledge & clout. That's certainly not me. Regards, Jeff _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"