Re: More webbrowsers for the list at FAQ8

> > OK, I reworded that part again. Though why is the policy to emphasize packages over ports these days?
> 
> Lol. "These days" ?  Where have you been the past... 8 years or so ?
> 

8 years ago ... I had never heard of OpenBSD then! But for the last 3 years or so I've been using it, and in that time it seems only recently I have seen an emphasis on packages. So it seems the limited time frame I have been following the pufferfish has given me this impression.


> That decision was made when we decided to have a package system that works.
> 
> I distinctly remember a discussion with Theo, where he asked me whether we
> wanted binary packages that work, or keep tinkering with ports.
> It was definitely a looong time ago, back when we switched to "fake" for
> every port.
> 
> Once the decision that made, we never went back.
> 
> Simply put, the ports system is just a reasonably user-friendly tool that
> has ONE major goal: facilitate the build of binary packages that can then
> be deployed everywhere.
> 
> We do regret not having quite enough manpower and testing ability so that,
> sometimes, end-users are forced to build some package themselves instead of
> using binary packages.
> 
> Of course, the ports tree is still there for pedagogical purposes and for
> the occasional tinkerer, but the goal *is* binary packages, and everything
> is heavily slanted in that direction.
> 

Yes, that makes sense to me. I like to rebuild all the ports I use overnight, after updating my machine -current, but if I was just running release would definitely prefer to have the packages available.