GalacticDomin8r

> freebsd-update still implies semi-manual /etc/* merge

freebsd-update.conf

> Both freebsd-update and pkg are no way close to apt-get and more importantly Debian 'unattended upgrades

Exactly, it's better.

This could be a much longer answer, but jails have nowhere near the level of control and isolation a "real" VM does even with the relatively recent additions of things like vimage and HRL's. Jails are awesome and I have used them for many years, but they are not a replacement for a hypervisor for many(most) use cases.

That said, when a young upstart was trying to sell me on Linux superiority and described Docker to me, all I could do was snicker.

>Don't jump to conclusions; my comment says nothing about sudo

Yeah sure this has nothing to do with sudo. Right, gotcha.

> If you can elucidate the reasons (plural)

"Reasons" means plural where I come from(denoted by the "s"). There is no reason to repeat yourself. I decline your request for an elaboration. The "don't use a root shell crowd" has clearly won the popularity contest in the same way TSA now has a significant presence at larger US airports.

> If you're doing because "it's easier" and no other reasons, then you probably need a bit more experience.

Don't jump to conclusions. There are few people here who can truthfully claim more experience than I could. Regardless of our experience levels, it bears no weight in the validity of my statement.

> In any case,

Not really.

> always using a root shell is the Wrong Thing To Do.

You are free to hold whatever opinion you wish.

> always doing things in a root shell

Ah yes. The sudo high horse. I knew I'd see you again.

Viva La #

That known as the "tyranny of the majority" and yes it's one of those warts no one likes to credit democracy with.

In the $2,000,000,000/yr way and in the "Getting Disney to be part owner in a gambling site" way.

I'm all for this simply to get the commercials off the air. I was almost missing the constant barrage of cell phones and insurance providers.

I had the sense they knew this was coming and that's why they hit the advertising so hard. If they can get enough momentum, they can make it legal.

> I'm a religious guy myself, but I am seriously asking this. In many ways religion itself can seem to be a mental illness if it weren't so popular.

Look up delusion in the DSM. The definition is more accurate without a special exemption. A close examination of the entire manual will reveal a careful wording to prevent religious people from being diagnosed with any sort of condition.

Simply the fact that this approach is taken says volumes. A rose by any other name...

> It takes about 3 seconds to Google the article title

Assuming Google will fix it all is an incorrect assumption. Assuming 3 seconds is an incorrect assumption. But let's roll with that:

3600 / 3 = 1200 viewers.

So it takes 1200 viewers to waste 1 hour of time assuming all other resource consumption is zero cost.

> far less than it takes to write incessant complaints about people charging for content.

Bitching about efficiency in this case is the height of irony. Bitching about bitching has always been an exercise in futility. Do it right the first time.

> Can we?

If we couldn't, this HN discussion wouldn't exist.

> Society worships the Goddess of Reason while frowning down on "irrational" and non-verifiable religious testimony.

Yup, and now that the science in question was attempted to be verified and shown to be poor, we can improve the process. Try that with religion.

> Now that science is proven to be systemically corrupt

Huh? Anyone who took psychological research as gospel does so at their own risk and ignorance. We've long known psychology is a soft science little better than voodoo. For example, most of the psychological establishment still default to 12 step programs for addictions. Guess what? It works about as well as any faith based healing program.

This is just another measure of validating the scientific method. Which is to say we don't know everything but we're learning.

Don't forget:

https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257

trivially easy to access == clicking a link and reading expected article.

hyperbole == most things which contain the word 'trivially'.

I'd bet a dollar most of us have better things to do than find a way around a paywall.

Um, yeah I suppose that's one way of way saying. In actually, the health implications are good for herbivores AND other less efficient digestive systems like those in the rodent family.

> The headline is a bit clickbait-y

Calling it "a bit" is a bit of a minimization.

I like Indian tacos.

Sweet, now we can focus all our science attention on things like Megaldons on Discovery Channel and creating more bad ways of doing statistical comparisons.

Um, yes it is.

https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=kqueue&sektion=2

> if i don't remember wrong this number in FreeBSD is below 10000 by default

You are wrong.

ulimit -Hn; ulimit -Sn 467631 467631

Now try that on RedHat/CentOS as a default non-root user.

> How do network cards fail?

All ways they can. I've found them with blown transistors, dead rats attached, no physical imperfections, etc.

Usually for me it's been some kind of hard failure, eg completely dead.

I'm not sure about the exact conclusion you seem to draw but it seems to be something like "GPL projects tend to have better outcomes than non-GPL". The whole point of the thread doesn't support that conclusion coming directly from the GCC brain trust. It's only natural that niche GCC users are going to hang around the longest.

I'd also like to note LLVM/clang didn't gain large non-apple marketshare until GCC adopted GPLv3 which has more to with it's stagnation than anything IMO. v2 is palatable to many business needs, v3 is not.

I understood why you like tracking a security branch as I have been admining *nix boxes for 15+ years.

Where that approach fails is that as a sysadmin one of the responsibilities is to provide good tools to the user, not reduce work for the sysadmin. The user might be a SaaS platform, developers or more traditional (l)users. Regardless, you want your platform to be stable and efficient from a user perspective. Tracking a "Security" branch only give you one of those in many cases.

It's an apples to oranges in some regards because FreeBSD OS patchsets are essentially the "Security" branch while ports is a different issue(and one the user is most likely concerned about).

> I just switched from Xubuntu to Debian+Xfce and it's nearly identical.

So you went from downstream to upstream and the view was largely the same. Yeah that's expected.

> I think the opening for FreeBSD and everyone else is that with containers and virtualization

FreeBSD has had container based virtualization for 15 years. I know it's the Brittany Spears of the linux dev group ATM, but I doubt it and Docker are as big a thing as it seems now. Container based virtualization is great, but it's not a substitute for a real hypervisor. As more people realize the last fact, the shine will wear off.

> Does this mean that version numbers for software in ports and pkg will be frozen and security fixes backported?

ports has already had this for some time:

http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/branches/

There might be semi-official repos for those somewhere as well. Or you can always build your own with poudriere.

> Coming from Debian, I long for a similar model in FreeBSD.

Oh hell no. This gives silly issues like Lenny's pigz being broken for like 4 years. Or OpenSuse's crappy model which shipped a shitty version of kde4 long after it had become stable elsewhere.

If your OS or customization modifies the base OpenSSH great, but it's not the point of the parent comment.

If your OS or customization modifies the base OpenSSH great, but it's not the point of the parent comment.

Are you sure you remember it?

When the majority of your professional advice turns out to be either unsupported or contradicted by evidence, then the term "quack" is warranted.

At least caring presents a better statistical outcome on action than simply praying.

> If you do get it, it will probably be quite obvious

What? Do you mean "If you do get it, it will probably be quite obvious to those around you"? Given the rest of your sentence, I believe not. You should count yourself out on counseling.