On 10/01/03 10:02 PM, SoloCDM sat at the `puter and typed: > <SNIP> > > Is there FreeBSD ISOs with all the packages included.
That would be a bit excessive > I'm tired of waiting for RPMs, when they are usually first made into > tarballs. Would a person prefer Slackware, RedHat (good installation > package, but they complicate matters with RPMS and don't conform to > the same directories as tarballs), or FreeBSD? Well, the RPS are made FROM the tarballs, aren't they? A lot of that software is written on/for Linux, but building RPMs is one extra step that a lot of developers just haven't bothered to learn. So they distribute the tarball, which is practically universally understood, and let someone else build the RPM. Of course this *doesn't* mean that FreeBSD always has first access to the new version in a port. Someone still has to write the port, which, frankly is a little more work than building an RPM. I've done both, but I haven't done the RPM since I moved to FreeBSD over 2 years ago. > I noticed a lot of ISPs use FreeBSD. Is it more widely accepted as > the best up-to-date in packages? In the past, FreeBSD has had a much better security reputation than Linux, and the VM manager has been much better. I was always inundated with crack attempts when I was with MediaOne, and as far as the VM, I've seen an indentical window manager config (same versions of XFree86, Fvwm2, etc, on identical machines) take three times as long on Linux as FreeBSD - though that was over 2 years ago, and I don't know how Linux has progressed since then. > Does FreeBSD conform to the directories that tarballs prefer? Not always. That's the point. RPMs don't have to either, but both depend on the software writer's install procedure. Most gnu and open source software is written with a configure tool that allows you to specify the install prefix. The port writer typically puts the software in a directory that won't lead to the proliferation of /usr/local/ subdirectories. But the package registry keeps close track of the locations of every file in the package. It keeps the cruft rating surprisingly low. When a port is upgraded (like with portupgrade) the system removes all the files belonging to the old system. Also, if you want to install a port, the system will automatically install or build all dependencies specified in the port. Last time I installed RedHat, it only told you what was missing - one - package - at - a - time, so you'd try the install, go find and install the RPM it complained about, then try the install again, go get the next RPM it complained about . . . and this is a recursive problem. I once had to do this more than 15 times between the original RPM I wanted (don't remember what it was) and the dependencies, and the dependencies' dependencies, . . . With the ports system, you go to the port you want installed, and it's simply $ make install clean which will install all dependencies you don't have installed, or you use portupgrade: $ portupgrade -RN apache2 and all the dependencies that need upgrading will also be upgraded. And 99% of the time, none of it requires any more effort than that. > -- > Note: When you reply to this message, please include the mailing > list address and my email address in To: and/or Cc: with > any proper combination Whups. Didn't see that before . . . I'll have to go back and get it . . . Lou -- Louis LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Funded Hobbyist, KeySlapper Extrordinaire :) http://www.keyslapper.org ԿԬ Eureka! -- Archimedes _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"