From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Oct 1 19:12:54 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA11069 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 19:12:54 -0700 Received: from etinc.com (etinc-gw.new-york.net [165.254.13.209]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA11062 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 19:12:50 -0700 Received: from trumpet.etnet.com (trumpet.etnet.com [129.45.17.35]) by etinc.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA09018 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 22:16:20 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 22:16:20 -0400 Message-Id: <199510020216.WAA09018@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: hackers@freebsd.org From: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1 will require a minimum of 8MB for installation. Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >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. > You forgot: 4 - Reseller / Integrater who wants to built the least expensive possible to system to be competitive. We're talking about letting everyone in without making sizable trade-offs. The Linux people have figured it out, now we're trying to figure out if the FreeBSD guys can. Dennis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25