Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Jan 2012 22:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 503079
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-24
My recollection is that PC-BSD, based upon FreeBSD, has a more Windows style installation convention. The packages are binary, and include all the needed libraries, which may or may not be the libraries provided by the OS.
I've criticised this in the past, for various reasons. It means more files must be replaced from various sources to address security vulnerabilities. And results in greater memory use, overall. But it's definitely a cut above the Linux model for avoiding library incompatibility problems. I'd say that FreeBSD's PC_BSD spinoff has Linux beat on this one. At least regarding user-friendliness and future-proofing of their packages.
-Steve