Originally posted by jake_lesser
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Pkg 1.6.0 Is Coming Soon To FreeBSD
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by septianix View PostUnlike you I'm an actual FreeBSD user and I don't need to pathologically make up 'facts' out of my ass.
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
-
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.
How does this affect your world view?
Comment
-
Originally posted by uid313 View PostLinux-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?
The only good package managers i know are xbps and nix. Nix is a bit weird, however.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jake_lesser View PostThere's no need for any linux adopt pkgng because there is no technical merits.
Originally posted by jake_lesser View Postapt 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by nasyt View PostAnd apt and yum still suck. Xbps and Nix, to give some examples, are far ahead (technically) yet underutilized.
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.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment