all the problem of freebsd is that freebsd-team tries (mostly unsuccesfully)
to do EVERYTHING
freebsd team not just do freebsd, they doing freebsd5, freebsd6, freebsd7,
ports, etc ...
and nothing of this can work REALLY STABLE AND FUNCTIONAL
i don't like linux, but sometimes i have to choose it
i
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:50:23AM +0400, Alexey Karagodov wrote:
all the problem of freebsd is that freebsd-team tries (mostly unsuccesfully)
to do EVERYTHING
freebsd team not just do freebsd, they doing freebsd5, freebsd6, freebsd7,
ports, etc ...
and nothing of this can work REALLY STABLE
and sorry for my english! :)
2007/6/6, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:50:23AM +0400, Alexey Karagodov wrote:
all the problem of freebsd is that freebsd-team tries (mostly
unsuccesfully)
to do EVERYTHING
freebsd team not just do freebsd, they doing freebsd5,
John Walthall wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:10:06AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
As someone who has had to show many people how to use the FreeBSD
installer, I can confirm what Chris is referring to.
Here's some of the generic end-user complaints I've heard (and some
of which I have);
Actually, I don't see how RELENG_X branch will help. %-\
I would suggest this scheme:
branch . - as now, the recent versions
branch sec - versions bump strictly at 1-st of january and 1-st of july,
other updates fix only security issues.
That would be really great improvement to ports, but not
On Thu, 17 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Linimon) wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Craig Boston wrote:
The alternative would have been to commit what we had and _then_ found
out all the bugs in the upgrade process (note: you won't be able to just
blindly use portupgrade
On 19/05/07, Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Saturday, May 19, 2007 01:22:40 -0700 KAYVEN RIESE [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Linimon) wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:35:10PM -0500,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Saturday, May 19, 2007 01:22:40 -0700 KAYVEN RIESE [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Linimon) wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Craig Boston wrote:
The alternative would have been to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Saturday, May 19, 2007 22:01:26 +0100 Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the ports freeze I wonder in situations when a full freeze is
needed it is better to do so on a seperate testing branch so it allows
security commits etc. to carry
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:10:06AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
As someone who has had to show many people how to use the FreeBSD
installer, I can confirm what Chris is referring to.
Here's some of the generic end-user complaints I've heard (and some
of which I have);
[...]
And let's not
John Walthall wrote:
And let's not forget the infamous geometry bug! For me, at least sysinstall
has always, 100% of the time, incorrectly detected my disc geometry.
Same here. I ignored it every time and got no problems at all...
Sysinstall is adequate, nothing more, nothing less. I don't
On Thursday 17 May 2007 15:10:06 Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:51:07PM +0100, Gavin Atkinson wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 16:30 +0100, Chris wrote:
A more user friendly installer so datacentres stop been put off
FreeBSD.
Although work on a new installer is ongoing,
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Philipp Ost wrote:
The only other concern I have is the
I-don't-know-which-field-is-in-focus-bug. But I have to admit that I rarely
use sysinstall, so I don't bother that much...
Jeremy hit the nail on the head with that one. I do use it fairly often
and have gotten
I have mentioned this before about releasing a new major version of
FreeBSD at such short intervals. Now I am wondering what path the
FreeBSD community is taking in regards to server and desktop use.
Stuff I would love to see in FreeBSD 7.x (CURRENT) before 7.0 release
which looks like it isnt
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 04:30:50PM +0100, Chris wrote:
The recent ports freeze has also concerned me, this is the longest
ports freeze I have witnessed since I started using FreeBSD years ago
and its for a desktop element of the os, does it matter if servers
running FreeBSD have to remain on
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 16:30 +0100, Chris wrote:
Stuff I would love to see in FreeBSD 7.x (CURRENT) before 7.0 release
which looks like it isnt going to happen
[snip]
More hardware support - FreeBSD still has poor hardware support when
compared to other OS's, in particular vendors such as
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:30:50 +0100
From: Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have mentioned this before about releasing a new major version of
FreeBSD at such short intervals. Now I am wondering what path the
FreeBSD community is taking in regards to server and desktop
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:51:07PM +0100, Gavin Atkinson wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 16:30 +0100, Chris wrote:
A more user friendly installer so datacentres stop been put off FreeBSD.
Although work on a new installer is ongoing, nobody ever seems to be
clear what the problems are with the
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 10:24:15AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
The recent ports freeze has also concerned me, this is the longest
ports freeze I have witnessed since I started using FreeBSD years ago
and its for a desktop element of the os, does it matter if servers
running FreeBSD have to
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Craig Boston wrote:
Now this is totally bogus. The freeze before the 6.0 release was VERY
long and several have been longer than this one has been so far.
I think the complaint may be more a result of this being a deeper freeze
than normal.
That's
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
As someone who has had to show many people how to use the FreeBSD
installer, I can confirm what Chris is referring to.
Here's some of the generic end-user complaints I've heard (and some
of which I have);
[...]
As someone who only very rarely plays with the installer,
Chris wrote:
and its for a desktop element of the os, does it matter if servers
running FreeBSD have to remain on vulnerable versions of ports as a
result of this?
This looks like another call to have RELENG_x branches on ports, with
which I agree.
Ivan Voras wrote:
Chris wrote:
and its for a desktop element of the os, does it matter if servers
running FreeBSD have to remain on vulnerable versions of ports as a
result of this?
This looks like another call to have RELENG_x branches on ports, with
which I agree.
Hmm... Branching is
23 matches
Mail list logo
