> Not only do some ports take a long time to compile (like Firefox) but a little too often won't compile--maddening when that happens 2 hours after entering "make".

I've only once tried using FreeBSD for a desktop machine, and lengthy compilation times (followed by the occasional failure) were one of the reasons I didn't, and another one of the reasons why I eventually dumped Gentoo as my choice for workstations. I remember building Xorg overnight once on Gentoo only to discover that it had failed about 30 minutes after I went to bed.

I'm still a little upset over that, thinking back on it.

> (Don't know enough about Arch to comment on it.) On the whole pkg is pretty painless.

Arch is a rolling release distribution with binary packages; it seems that pkg operates in a manner similar (identical?) to this. It really is the best of both worlds: New packages, when updates are released upstream--usually within days--without the need to compile.

Though, I wouldn't recommend Arch for much other than a workstation (partially due to the nature of rolling releases--breakage happens), it has actually been a fantastic distro for someone whose nix history went something like OpenBSD -> FreeBSD -> Gentoo. You update the system periodically, new packages are downloaded and installed, and updates occur frequently. Compilation is mostly limited to the AUR (Arch User Repository), but the benefit with Arch is that its build tools create binary packages by default that you can then use on other machines of the same architecture. Gentoo allows the same thing, but IIRC it's not something it'll do by default and it's a bit fussier. If you do have to build something, Arch will build the package first, then install from that. But the main repositories have essentially everything you'd want, so compilation truly is limited to less popular/common packages. Everything else is just a download + install away.

But again, Arch is susceptible to some breakage at times, although I've had pretty good luck avoiding this. I guess it's like anything else: If you're careful and apply some meticulous scrutiny to the process, you're less likely to break things in a manner that's difficult to fix. Updating regularly (as with other rolling releases, like Gentoo) is also helpful. Too long between updates can create a bit of a difficult situation to get out of.

> Yes and no. I installed openjdk 8.x the other day using 'pkg search', then 'pkg install'. Quite simple. However, if for some reason the Oracle version is necessary, then you'd have the hassle of getting it from their site.

Okay, that's not too bad. I vaguely* recall it being painful back during 5.x-6.x, but I never had much need for Java on FreeBSD either outside some odds and ends.

> Maybe I should feel a little embarrassed that I still have one DB server which has been running FBSD 6.0 since 2005 (I think).

NOPE! (I wouldn't.)

When I ran FreeBSD (all the way back through the latter 4.x days, probably 4.5-4.6 at the absolute earliest, but I think we had a 4.7/4.8 machine running for a number of years), the beautiful thing about it was definitely its stability. You could do exactly that: Go for ages without updating it and as long as it wasn't Internet-connected, there wasn't really much you needed to worry about. And even if it was, you could just update whatever software you had listening on open ports, within reason, and not worry (I'd do this with Apache or BIND). I know this goes counter to much of the philosophy here, but sometimes if it ain't broke...

The curious thing regarding FreeBSD was the more conservative upgrade path you'd often feel compelled to take, and you seldom felt guilty for leaving a machine untouched. You could always take comfort in the fact that it'd Just Work and remain fairly secure.