> 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
