4 ms·

My knowlege of FreeBSD is limited, but from what I understand this still does not resolve the issue. While they have seperated the base OS, they have not resol

My knowlege of FreeBSD is limited, but from what I understand this still does not resolve the issue. While they have seperated the base OS, they have not resolve the issues of applications that can be mission critical, thus warrant to be frozen like the base os is. Things like apache, mysql, etc etc etc. If you treat them like user apps then they will be updated when maybe I did not want them to be, but if you treat them like base os then you have the problem the author outlines. Fruther my understanding is the ports system only supports the lastest version of FreeBSD, meaning if you want to use ports you always have to update to the latest version when released. I have CentOS and RHEL Servers running version 5, if it were FreeBSD I would not be able to use this 2 release old version of FreeBSD and ports, I would have to upgrade.

kchoudhu 11y ago
>> Things like apache, mysql, etc etc etc. That's well beyond the remit of the OS developers who are only responsible for FreeBSD, but the ports team has happily provided us with `pkg lock` to prevent edits to ports once they are installed. >> my understanding is the ports system only supports the lastest version of FreeBSD I believe the the ports tree will be compiled for a given branch until the underlying branch is EOL. FreeBSD 8, for example, had binary packages built from 2009(?) until the branch was EOL'd last year. That's six years of support for 3rd party software, after which you can maintain/build your own pkg repository. I understand the desire for longer environment lifecycles in FreeBSD (I hate the continuous upgrade cycle myself), but without a company stepping up and providing long term commercial support, I'm not seeing how a volunteer project as small as FreeBSD can do more for longer.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  >>That's well beyond the remit of the OS developers who are only responsible for FreeBSD, That is exactly the point the author is making by declaring that "packages are not secure". they are not maintained by the OS, but are distributed as "official" thus giving some users the illusion they are supported or "in the remit" of the OS Developers

kchoudhu 11y ago

>> Things like apache, mysql, etc etc etc. That's well beyond the remit of the OS developers who are only responsible for FreeBSD, but the ports team has happily provided us with `pkg lock` to prevent edits to ports once they are installed. >> my understanding is the ports system only supports the lastest version of FreeBSD I believe the the ports tree will be compiled for a given branch until the underlying branch is EOL. FreeBSD 8, for example, had binary packages built from 2009(?) until the branch was EOL'd last year. That's six years of support for 3rd party software, after which you can maintain/build your own pkg repository. I understand the desire for longer environment lifecycles in FreeBSD (I hate the continuous upgrade cycle myself), but without a company stepping up and providing long term commercial support, I'm not seeing how a volunteer project as small as FreeBSD can do more for longer.

the_ancient 11y ago
>>That's well beyond the remit of the OS developers who are only responsible for FreeBSD, That is exactly the point the author is making by declaring that "packages are not secure". they are not maintained by the OS, but are distributed as "official" thus giving some users the illusion they are supported or "in the remit" of the OS Developers