FreeBSD and XFree86

[Compunuts]

This is more like a rant than a question ... ;D

For those BSD freaks that bash Debian for being so far behind with their stable version, this shocked me a lot.

The latest stabel release of FreeBSD 4.5 comes with X 3.3.6 instead of 4.1.0 or something ..... :

[Hamond]

This is more like a rant than a question ... ;D

For those BSD freaks that bash Debian for being so far behind with their stable version, this shocked me a lot.

The latest stabel release of FreeBSD 4.5 comes with X 3.3.6 instead of 4.1.0 or something ..... :

what's the big deal? it's "stable" because some people might actually want tried and true software on their system because they either don't like it when things crash on them or they don't like insecure things.

bleeding edge is not always a good thing.

besides, if you're interested in making and optimizing your system, you're not going to be using the packages anyhow; those ports are there so you can have the most bleeding edge software compiled for *your* hardware, and you should be remaking 'world' to the latest version of Fbsd ASAP anyhow (there's a bug with SoftUpdates that can cause corruption).

Yea, but you installed the -RELEASE version of 4.5, not the latest stable snapshot.

[Compunuts]

I don't get it.. Isn't it the 4.5 the latest STABLE release ?? 5.0 is more like Current but then again, it may not be stable or otherwise they will be releasing as latest.

[Compunuts]

it's "stable" because some people might actually want tried and true software on their system because they either don't like it when things crash on them or they don't like insecure things.

I'm specifically refering to those who bash Debian for not updating the stable distro. One of the reason they said it's outdated is that it still defaults to X 3.3.6. And those people happen to be raving about BSD.

bleeding edge is not always a good thing.

Where did I say bleeding edge is always a good thing?? Especially not from me who runs Debian Potato (Stable) with 2.2.20 kernel.

besides, if you're interested in making and optimizing your system, you're not going to be using the packages

Right. I'm also not interested in spending a lot of my time compiling system from scratch like LFS. Why do I pay money to buy an OS? I let others do it for me.

I think crazy people compile everything.... I don't have time for it since I use my computer to work for me and I don't work for my computer.

[Hamond]

I'm specifically refering to those who bash Debian for not updating the stable distro. One of the reason they said it's outdated is that it still defaults to X 3.3.6. And those people happen to be raving about BSD.

well, with the ports, it shouldn't be all that hard to grab X 4.2.0... when I install a *nix, I never install the version of X that the distro comes with; I like to grab the latest and greatest 'stable' version available.

Where did I say bleeding edge is always a good thing?? Especially not from me who runs Debian Potato (Stable) with 2.2.20 kernel.

I ran Debian Sid (unStable) with the 2.2.20 kernel. The 2.4 kernels were ridiculously unstable, despite being deceptively labelled as 'stable'.

Right. I'm also not interested in spending a lot of my time compiling system from scratch like LFS. Why do I pay money to buy an OS? I let others do it for me.

I think crazy people compile everything.... I don't have time for it since I use my computer to work for me and I don't work for my computer.

I think you can do 'pkg_add -r foo' to have the package management system grab your stuff for you...just like with apt. You'll want to check the manpages before trying that, though.

[SolarfluX]

Personally, I prefer having X 3.3.6 in the base FreeBSD install... *It's so much more convenient to configure (XF86Setup) and frankly, I don't notice any difference between 3.3.6 and 4.x.x, other than 4.x.x is a PITA to get working.

You can always install without X and then get the 4.x.x packages or install it from ports.

As far as Debian goes, I was a big proponent of it until 'apt-get upgrade' borked my system. *Ever since I've been using the BSDs, I don't believe that a package/software management system should be allowed to upgrade system components; they should be distinct and separate. *This is why ports is awesome, as there is virtually no chance at hosing the system. *If I want to rebuild the system sources, cvsup gets them and I can upgrade at my leisure. *

Debian also comes with lots of services and potential holes in the default install that, frankly, are time-consuming to close/disable. *FreeBSD does come with some non-essential services running, but disabling them is trivial. *

I consider Debian (and Linux in general) to be a good learning experience, but I'm past that point now. *I don't have time to be messing around with fixing system stuff, when all I want is to upgrade some software. *I even reinstalled Debian recently for a friend's computer and it was truly painful to deal with. *Never again. *I wiped it in favor of FreeBSD and it took much less time to configure and tighten up.

Use the tool that minimizes your risk and maximizes your efficiency... *For me, that tool is FreeBSD.

http://bsdvault.net

[Feztaa]

I think crazy people compile everything...

I guess that makes me one crazy mofo!

4.x.x is a PITA to get working.

Eh? I installed it just fine, no troubles.

[Compunuts]

I guess that makes me one crazy mofo!

I know you are !! :P :P

[kenshi]

For the record, FreeBSD stable contains both X-3 and 4. It's your choice which to install. I'm currently using 4.1.0. It was installed by ports. I agree with Solarflux that v4 is tough to get working. I've installed it on both FreeBSD and Debian. I did get them both working, but it took a lot of work whereas v3 worked after one run of xf86config. And I have yet to notice any difference, other than the config file.