On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 09:36:07AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > OK. On topic is: > > - question about software made by FreeBSD team which is FreeBSD base > system+ports subsystem. In ports subsystem i mean the set of scripts and > patches that allows you to compile other programs, BUT NOT THE PROGRAMS > itself. > > - questions about purely FreeBSD-specific and FreeBSD-dependend things of > ported programs. For example: > > --- > I start program X, configure it the same way as in linux, installed all > the same modules, but here it crashes/behave differently. For example: > --- here some output --- > Where is a problem > ---
So . . . it seems like you expect everyone that has a question about software that runs on multiple OSes (and not *just* FreeBSD) to run an extra system, running some other OS, just to determine whether there are differences in the way it fails on their FreeBSD systems and what would happen on the other OS. This way, they can offer specific examples of how it behaves differently on different OSes in order to meet your criteria for being a FreeBSD topic. The problem is people who are having trouble getting X to do something on FreeBSD and don't have a computer running a different OS on which to test it to compare, or don't have the time to dick around with another OS just to satisfy W. Puchar's criteria for on-topicness. What if their X problems *are* FreeBSD problems, just as you described above, but they can't specifically verify that they're FreeBSD-related problems because they don't have the time or resources to test on different OSes to nail down the points of departure between different OSes? Are they just SOL in your estimation? Should we tell them FOAD because FreeBSD is the only OS they use? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Quoth H. L. Mencken: "In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
Description: PGP signature