Installing Open Office / Perl updating
in [FreeBSD]
|
Prev: Failed opal3 build
Next: MPT Timeouts on FreeBSD 8.0 VM
From: Balwinder S Dheeman on 10 May 2010 02:21 On 05/10/2010 06:05 AM, Bob Melson wrote: > On Sunday 09 May 2010 18:09, Balwinder S Dheeman > (bsd.SANSPAM(a)anu.homelinux.net) opined: > >> On 05/10/2010 02:23 AM, Bob Eager wrote: >>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 00:57:46 +0530, Balwinder S Dheeman wrote: >>> >>>> On 05/09/2010 03:45 PM, Bob Eager wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:07:44 +0100, Chronos wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Exactly what I do. Granted, I'm an atypical user and I have a fairly >>>>>> well specified tinderbox system that can build OOo with localisation >>>>>> in 2 hours or thereabouts, but it's not beyond the realms of >>>>>> possibility to use NFS to distribute packages built with a single >>>>>> high spec desktop machine and one of the ports management utilities. >>>>>> That's the beauty of the ports system: It works in many scenarios >>>>>> where a package manager would fall flat. >>>>> >>>>> That's pretty well what I do, too. I have a high spec machine that >>>>> manages all of the ports, as well as buildworlds for nanoBSD etc. >>>>> >>>>> And I've been using FreeBSD since 2.1.something...and UNIX since >>>>> 1976... >>>> >>>> Where are the numbers; are your own compiled OOo, QT4, KDE and, or >>>> GNOME on FreeBSD much more efficient than the pre-build and signed >>>> binary packages of Debian and, or Ubuntu? >>>> >>>> If not or if the difference is not distinguishable enough, why waste >>>> CPU cycles, disk IO, bandwidth and, or electricity? >>>> >>>> In case you really want to do some fine-tuning and build the same or >>>> similar packages on Debian and, or Ubuntu also; provided you are >>>> willing to learn and, or do it. >>> >>> I'm happy with what I have. It is *sufficiently* efficient for me. My >>> time is more valuable than the minuscule amount of electricity. >> >> I bet, not only you, but none of so called advocates of FreeBSD ports >> system have those numbers; *sufficiently* is not a comparable figure. >> >> Who cares stopping you from wasting your time on debugging, resolving >> wrong dependencies and, or building ports. > > You don't like it, don't use it. I don't see anybody standing behind you > with a gun, forcing you to use FBSD against your will. Except in a > commercial environment, where o/s usage is generally a policy matter, > decided by management, what o/s to use on a personal system is a matter of > free choice, arrived at in many instances after years of experimentation. > That may not make you, as a "Registered Linux (L)User", particularly happy > or satisfy your need to feel superior - something that should've been > mentioned in McClellan's "Hierarchy of Needs" - but it's a fact of the > real world in which most of us live. Please stay on topic. > Oh, and something I'm generally reluctant to do because I value other > opinions > > <plonk!> This is/was not expected from an experienced people like you. You failed to provide and, or cite figures; is that plonking is also a matter of your choice and, or hobby? -- Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709 Anu'z Linux(a)HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192 Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP Home: http://werc.homelinux.net/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/
From: fdgfdsgsdfgdfsg on 10 May 2010 02:10 Fr�d�ric Perrin said the following on 2010-05-08 23:23: > Bob Eager <rde42(a)spamcop.net> writes: >> On Sat, 08 May 2010 19:29:39 +0200, Fr�d�ric Perrin wrote: >>> Ubuntu has binary packages for OO.o. People don't need to build >>> OO.o on Ubuntu. When the user wants to install that, it only takes >>> as long as downloading tens of MB of bloat (and extracting the >>> packages, but that fast in comparison). On FreeBSD, you have to >>> compile 1.9GB of C++ ! There are only amd64 packages, no i386 or >>> other archs last time I looked. >> I've installed it from packages in the past. As it happens, last >> time I built it very soon after a new port appeared, so I wasn't >> expecting a pre- built package. > > Pray tell me, where are the packages for OOo ? I couldn't find them > there : > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-8.0-release/editors/ http://ooopackages.good-day.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/ > And in packages-8-stable, you can only find a 2.4 version (that's from > 2008!). > >> You (and Mr Talon) have omitted to mention that, yes, you have to >> download the source. And it takes a long time to build. > > That was entirely my point. Actually, "it takes a long time" is an > understatement: it takes so many resources (hard disk space) that I > couldn't de it on my laptop. > >> But it is as >> simple as typing 'make'. > > And that's why I'm very happy with FreeBSD for my server. But for a > personal machine, compiling stuff is a PITA. >
From: fdgfdsgsdfgdfsg on 10 May 2010 02:17 John Levine said the following on 2010-05-09 00:10: >>> I've installed it from packages in the past. As it happens, last >>> time I built it very soon after a new port appeared, so I wasn't >>> expecting a pre- built package. >> Pray tell me, where are the packages for OOo ? I couldn't find them >> there : > > For some reason they're here: > > ftp://ooopackages.good-day.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/FreeBSD/ > > I agree that they're not as up to date as you might hope if your laptop > isn't an amd64. > And for i386 they are here, if you run FreeBSD 8 http://ooopackages.good-day.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/FreeBSD/packages-8-i386/
From: Mike Scott on 10 May 2010 03:31 Michel Talon wrote: ...... > is mostly true for desktops but blatantly false for laptops. It is a > fact, whatever you are saying, that you can run Ubuntu without problem > on basically all desktops and laptops. The probability that it will work > is the same as with Windows. Hence i maintain that hardware support is -1 I have a 'standard' desktop, where ubuntu (8.04) behaviour is decidedly unpredictable: hibernate sometimes works, but fails when I'm in a hurry, while even shutdown can sometimes just revert back to a login window. Neither rhyme nor reason. OTOH I put crunchbang (ub 9.04-based iirc) on a laptop, and /everything/ bar 90degree screen rotation "just worked". I've been running fbsd headless for years on a desktop without significant problem; but every attempt to run on (the same as above) laptop has led to serious problems. And sorry for the swipe, but I have to agree the ports systems is a mess. I'd even say thoroughly broken. I tried to do a simple upgrade of a single port the other day, should have taken a couple of minutes. But it pulled in a lot of dependencies, several individual ports couldn't see the correct libraries, and it took over a day to fix the mess. And pkgdb quite often flags problems that are certainly not of my creation. /That's/ what I call broken. Never yet had a problem with the ubuntu system though. -- Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk) Harlow Essex England
From: Michel Talon on 10 May 2010 05:18
Indi <indi(a)satcidananda.16x108.merseine.nu> wrote: > On 2010-05-09, Michel Talon <talon(a)lpthe.jussieu.fr> wrote: > > > In general i consider all people who > > don't have the balls to post under their real name are cranks and don't > > merit any answer. > > > > And yes, as a woman I don't have "balls". > Then i present you my excuses for this incorrect language. Sincerely sorry. > -- Michel TALON |