Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 21:48:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@eng.umd.edu> To: Robert N Watson <rnw+@andrew.cmu.edu> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1 will require a minimum of 8MB for installation. Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951001213637.8994F-100000@latte.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <gkPnm8S00YUs8Ic0l8@andrew.cmu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 1 Oct 1995, Robert N Watson wrote: > Excerpts from internet.computing.freebsd-hackers: 1-Oct-95 Re: FreeBSD > 2.1 will requir.. dennis@etinc.com (874*) > > > >On Sat, 30 Sep 1995, dennis wrote: > > >> > > >> NO!!!!!!!! NFS is the best and fastest way to load semi-custom systems. > > > > > > I agree, but if we have to choose, I'd lose NFS first too. How > > >many first-time users (those who will be baffled the most by the 8-meg > > >requirement) have access to an NFS server with the FreeBSD distribution > > >ready of installation? > > >-- > > > > Great Idea! Lets lose the established users who are pushing for the O/S to > > support the idiots. Let's eliminate those that are building systems based on > > FreeBSD in hopes of luring the occasional one-time user. This is a great > > business decision. > > How about two boot disks, then? An installation-by phone/etc disk with > ppp/ftp support, and a mnetwork version for 8 meg+ systems that has nfs > and the ethernet drivers.. Of maybe just an NFS install disk and a > non-nfs install disk.. Assumably no one would nfs over a ppp line (bad > assumption, but ok, I think). I think we're talking about 3 levels of hacker here: 1) little machine, wants to experiment with this Unix thingy. 2) little machine, hacker who knows more but is cash-strapped. 3) bigger machine, wants to change versions or test. I think you have to allow the category 1 guy in, somehow, but I get the idea that doing this on SNAPs might not be too good an idea. Realize this guy hasn't got the experience to get himself out of even the smallest trouble, and should be kept away from anything not real well tested. Making 4 megs SNAPs available for this guy might be asking to trouble, because that's giving him access to versions not too well tested. Category 2 guy knows some unix, can make his own kernels, can get himself out of trouble (much of the time). This will include some folks doing custom things, but such a person does know how to make his own kernels. A minimum kernel should get him up, but not necessarily with every possible interface. CDROM interface might be good to chop here, because this hacker can add his own without too much trouble. Some effort to give this type 4 meg access is reasonable, because he's testing on behalf of the Category 1 fella. Category 3 includes most folks reading this. They are the ones that look hardest at the SNAPs, and must be catered to for installation, because they're putting their own time in it, usually on behalf of others. 4 megs is unlikely to be a limitation here. I think I'm arguing for 2 boot versions, least it seems so. > ---- > Robert Watson (rnw+@andrew.cmu.edu) * Double major: IDS/CS * H&SS > http://www.watson.org/ robert@fledge.watson.org > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and n3lxx, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 2.2 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.951001213637.8994F-100000>