From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 26 14:26:40 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id OAA04152 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 14:26:40 -0800 Received: from glueserv1.umd.edu (glueserv1.umd.edu [129.2.70.69]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA04140; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 14:26:37 -0800 Received: from mocha.eng.umd.edu (mocha.eng.umd.edu [129.2.98.16]) by glueserv1.umd.edu (8.6.10/8.6.4) with ESMTP id RAA27982; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 17:26:18 -0500 Received: (chuckr@localhost) by mocha.eng.umd.edu (8.6.10/8.6.4) id RAA26860; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 17:26:17 -0500 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 17:26:17 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey To: Amancio Hasty cc: "Alex R.N. Wetmore" , freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: httpd as part of the system. In-Reply-To: <199503261325.NAA01458@star-gate.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 26 Mar 1995, Amancio Hasty wrote: > > > Ugh, please don't make emacs part of the standard distribution, let > > alone XEmacs. There are those of us who really don't feel like wasting > > 20 megs of local space (or whatever it takes) for a product that we > > don't use. > > > > Well, by todays prices the cost Xemacs is $9.99 :) Having a surfeit of disk myself, I have a nice, full set of applications, and no one else who is like me will be surprised to hear that I think it's great; but I know several friends who have much more minimal systems, and who want to still participate, but to a more limited extent. I can understand their requests, but I really don't want the technology to be handcuffed by yesterday's needs. I'm watching this discussion, and wondering if a middle ground could possibly be reached by having 2 different distributions? This would completely remove the limitations requested by owners of more modest systems from a more advanced distribution, and free that end of it for more experimentation. On the other hand, the more basic distribution, since it would rely on a more stable set of utilities, would probably have somewhat enhanced reliability, and be better suited for commercial applications. I know that this could be done today, and a lot of it is, by changing targets on makefiles. If two distributions were officially supported, it would ease things, I think. I am making a dutch uncle proposition here, because I spend so much time on homework, I really don't have time to DO any of this... but it seems a reasonable, political solution. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 7608 Topton St. | New Carrollton, MD 20784 | I run Journey2 (Freebsd 2.0) and n3lxx (301) 459-2316 | (FreeBSD 1.1.5.1) and am I happy! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------