Without reading much of the documentation to gain reasonable production
usage, you're trying to mend the OpenBSD site to say it is lacking
something that you thought worth having according to your current
limited to Linux experience.
Never occurred to you it may be intentional?
The pushing of binary patches notion is not appropriate.
For a project that provides binary base OS and binary packages for ports
on multiple architectures, and signed distribution of base and
packages, before anyone else adopted these impressive achievements, you
think in your own universe (and your advisor's) this group is resource
constrained and incapable of providing binary patches to current and
stable?
Is this a joke, perhaps a terribly unclever attempt at trolling? Lack of
resources is about the only good reason there is for not providing
binary updates. The wonderful signed binary package infrastructure is
not terribly useful if by the time it is released, you have to build
ports from CVS to not have security vulnerabilities anyway!
Clearly I am not the only one who thinks this is not intentional,
given the existance of m:tier, which as discussed is even run by
OpenBSD maintainers.
Read the docs, don't be lazy and overly assuming. You're polluting the
Internet with incorrect information which is a disservice to both
newcomers from Linux and to the OpenBSD community.
Given that the topic is about people moving from Linux to OpenBSD, and
how it is normal in the Linux world to have binary updates... what here
is incorrect, or a disservice? I've been using OpenBSD for most of a
decade and I think this is a fine addition given the context of what
someone from the Linux world expects.
You're actually trying to scare people off, because you can't handle
the lean and effective process of managing OpenBSD, justifying
this with the unconfirmed fact you were advised by somebody.
...
pgptrMillxnPy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
