From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 11 08:18:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C34316A4CE for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:18:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.stack.nl (vaak.stack.nl [131.155.140.140]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC8143D45 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:18:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcov@stack.nl) Received: from toad.stack.nl (zen.stack.nl [2001:610:1108:5010::130]) by mailhost.stack.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4001775F#7DAE81F00D for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:18:39 +0100 (CET) Received: by toad.stack.nl (Postfix, from userid 816) id 53EC788; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:18:39 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <400108FC.9010008@iconoplex.co.uk> "from Paul Robinson at Jan 11, 2004 08:27:40 am" To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:18:39 +0100 (CET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL88 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <20040111161839.53EC788@toad.stack.nl> From: marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) Subject: Re: Discussion on the future of floppies in 5.x and 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:18:42 -0000 > I also don't think it's the issue that needs to be dealt with - > distribution is much, much, MUCH bigger an issue than "shall we get rid > of floppies"? I sent this to the list before, but it got ignored, so > I'll send it again, where Jordan points out we have bigger issues to > deal with when discussing the "floppy disk problem" whilst discussing > libh:- (http://rtp1.slowblink.com/~libh/sysinstall2/improvements.html): > > "As I mentioned in Section 2.3, one of the more annoying problems with > FreeBSD's current distribution format is the dividing line between > distributions and packages. There should really only be one type of > "distribution format" and, of course, it should be the package (There Can > Be Only One). Achieving this means we're first going to have to grapple > with several problems, however: > > First, eliminating the distribution format means either teaching the > package tools how to deal with a split archive format (they currently do > not) or divorcing ourselves forever from floppies as a distribution > medium. This is an issue which would seem an easy one to decide but > invariably becomes Highly Religious(tm) every time it's brought up. In > some dark corner of the world, there always seems to be somebody still > installing FreeBSD via floppies and even some of the fortune 500 folks can > cite FreeBSD success stories where they resurrected some old 386 box (with > only a floppy drive and no networking/CD/...) and turned it into the star > of the office/saved the company/etc etc. That's not to say we can't still > bite that particular bullet, just that it's not a decision which will go > down easily with everyone and should be well thought-out." > > And I have to say, I agree. If abondoning floppies is part of some > well-thought-out and well-planned package management strategy, I'm all for > it. Otherwise, let sleeping dogs lie? It isn't as far as I can understand from that link. JKH is talking about doing floppy only install (....some old 386 box (with only a floppy drive and no networking/CD/...) and turned it into the star of the office/saved the company/etc etc...) not loading an installation kernel and /stand from floppy and then transfer to network/cd later. This because when then base/packages need to fit on floppy. This isn't necessary for the current two-flop, then CD install which is discussed now. P.s. for the record, I prefer Slackware's approach to floppy booting. Multiple cut down bootsets (SCSI, NET etc) with the ability to simply extract extra kernel modules from CD to a floppy (on a separate machine) and load them from floppy while still in the initial system ramdisk (before mounting CD). The loading/mounting etc must be done by hand, no extra new functionality required. Maybe the basic idea should be to forget the equivalence of floppy and cd boot, and deliver a set of kernel modules on CD, and a few basic boot/root floppies, and for the rest let users create their own custom driver discs, and do some extra work to keep their floppy boot running. That ends the one boot/root for all idea, but is maybe more flexible, ( didn't have to make something with custom kernel to install my Proliant 1500, but only select the right kernel disc and copy some extra kernel moduless to an empty flop) and at the same time decrease release engineering on the floppies. I think this is a good compromise: Keep floppy option open, but shift some burden to the users.