Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pkg 1.6.0 Is Coming Soon To FreeBSD

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by jake_lesser View Post

    Please provide the source.
    https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?vie...evision=397198

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by septianix View Post
      Unlike you I'm an actual FreeBSD user and I don't need to pathologically make up 'facts' out of my ass.
      I'm sorry but everyone knows the term "FreeBSD user" isn't to FreeBSD the same way "Linux user" is to Linux. A Linux user uses Linux on his or her bare metal (PC or Server) and has first hand experiences with using Linux. A "*BSD user" runs BSD on VMWare on it's MacBook Pros once in a while and has virtually no experience with actually using BSD because if it did, it would go the way of the residences of Jones-town.

      So it is you who should stop pathologically making up 'facts' out of your ass.
      Last edited by jake_lesser; 22 September 2015, 11:35 PM.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by jake_lesser View Post

        I'm sorry but everyone knows the term "FreeBSD user" isn't to FreeBSD the same way "Linux user" is to Linux. A Linux user uses Linux on his or her bare metal (PC or Server) and has first hand experiences with using Linux. A "*BSD user" runs BSD on VMWare on it's MacBook Pros once in a while and has virtually no experience with actually using BSD because if it did, it would go the way of the residences of Jones-town.

        So it is you who should stop pathologically making up 'facts' out of your ass.
        My main server at home (that I use from DNS to filesharing, torrenting, etc) is not a vm. So yeah, some of us do use BSD properly, native ZFS and jails are amongst my two favourite features and by trade I'm a senior Linux Sysadmin so not exactly a hobbyist.

        How does this affect your world view?

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
          Linux-compatibility.

          I wonder if any Linux distribution will adopt pkg, I guess not.

          Does it have any technical merits?

          How does it compare to .deb and .rpm?
          To apt and yum?
          I believe, there is no Improvement, or little. Pkg is a reimplementation of a, rather organically and historically grown than concisely engineered, approach, spawned from the slapdash linux movement. The .deb package manager (dpkg, with apt being a frontent of it) is a program written in some Perl, C++ and C while pkg is comletely written in C, and is both commandline tool and package manager. Like dpkg and apt-get in one binary, and without Perl pieces.

          The only good package managers i know are xbps and nix. Nix is a bit weird, however.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by jake_lesser View Post
            There's no need for any linux adopt pkgng because there is no technical merits.
            Right. Copying a broken concept of a broken system into another broken system and then porting it back to the first broken system, doesn't gives any advantage.

            Originally posted by jake_lesser View Post
            apt and yum are far ahead and are advancing far faster then pkgng or pkgin so Linux pkg man will always be ahead of BSD crap.
            And apt and yum still suck. Xbps and Nix, to give some examples, are far ahead (technically) yet underutilized.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by nasyt View Post
              And apt and yum still suck. Xbps and Nix, to give some examples, are far ahead (technically) yet underutilized.
              Let's disagree here. Apt is a good tool and does it job very well. Letting one to fetch (and install) both program and it source in uniform, generic ways.Together with compile or run time dependencies. While avoiding "DLL HELL" or security issues due to unmaintained, unpatched libs.

              Together with debian policies, apt turns into a really cool tool to keep production systems running, updated and free of known security issues. It can even go as far as one can enable automatic updates and then leave it for half year on its own (in case of Debian Stable or Ubuntu LTS). It would just work. No parts would fell apart, etc. Needless to say, it keeps system maintenance burden to a minimum, and it counts. Especially in large, production oriented installations, etc. These practices work well in production environments.

              These could be a bit worse for desktop, where one may want fresh software. That's why Ubuntu got 6 month release cycles for non-LTS versions. Where one can at least have predictable timings for major system changes potentially capable of breaking things apart. This allows to use such systems to conduct daily activity and some reasonably critical jobs, where system failure tranforms to money loss or reputation loss. And guys like you tend to have some proprietary OSes to do critical jobs, proving their "technically superior" solutions are actually just some ... toys.

              Comment

              Working...
              X