Budhi Setiawan wrote:
> dear all
> 
> i guess this is stupid question, but since i very young in the openbsd land, 
> i have a lof of question :
> 
> 1. how important to make our system (OS and packages) always up-to-date ( 
> except with security reason of course ), because some people says "
> you should update your system at least once a year"

Depends on you really. I keep my ports tree up to date on a weekly
basis. My src tree - only when SA's are out or I wish to upgrade to a
new release - Then again, FreeBSD allows you to do that - I have not
done that with Open. I always pretty much wiped and reinstalled - seems
like a waste, but that be on my own ignorance.

> 2. if i'm doing upgrade from 3.7 to 3.8, what happen to my old program's 
> since my old program's using the old librari's ? is it still works without 
> recompiling ?

OpenBSD and FreeBSD do things differantly here. While Open prefers you
to use and do binary installs of packages (thus the reason they are
called packages) you still can grab the ports tree and work from there.

To me, FreeBSD is far superior when it comes to update/upgrading the
ports tree agains the installed ports. Meaning, there are ports in the
ports tree of FreeBSD that allows you to do just that - somewhat
effortlessly.

Don't get me wrong - I adore Open, but I like to upgrade the src tree
and ports tree within releases and after. FreeBSD is just more flexable
- then again, I speak from a biased point of view - meaning, I have been
with FBSD since 2.2.8

If you find Open to rigit for your tastes, try FreeBSD. However, there
will be a learing curve if you wish to "maintane" ports and src.

> 3. and another if, how to make my system clean after i'm upgrade from one 
> version to another version ? because i still see the old libraries from the 
> old version !

I have never "upgraded" Open from one version to another. It may be very
simple - To me (again I'm biased) FreeBSD gives you that playability.

These are just my opinions of course.


-- 
Best regards,
Chris

You can make it foolproof, but you can't make it
damnfoolproof.

Reply via email to