Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:27:31 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Michael Bushkov <bushman@rsu.ru> Subject: Re: [HEADS UP]: OpenLDAP+nss_ldap+nss_modules separated patch and more (SoC) Message-ID: <200608291627.32524.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20060826055402.W43127@fledge.watson.org> References: <44E9582C.2010400@rsu.ru> <20060825220033.GC16768@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20060826055402.W43127@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 26 August 2006 01:00, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > IMHO, FreeBSD should move towards a more modular system - a minimal base > > with most of the functionality in optional packages (or ports). Removing > > uucp, games and perl are steps in this direction. I believe there should be > > a very high bar on the import of functionality that is already available in > > ports. > > One of the strongest historical arguments for using *BSD as the base for > development of an embedded/appliance-style system has been that this is > precisely what FreeBSD is not: by keeping a useful base set of applications in > revision control, tested together, and integrated together, we provide an > excellent starting point for building network appliances, storage appliances, > ISP systems, etc. It's when you start having to deal with big piles of > applications that aren't tested together, managed in a single revision control > tree, and so on, that maintainability and complexity become problems for these > users. I can tell you that if we ripped out BIND, sendmail, and a dozen other > highly useful base system components out into ports, I would be using another > system, because it is precisely this integration that makes FreeBSD most > useful as a starting point :-). This isn't an argument for endless growth (or > even significant growth) of the base system, rather, an argument for not > abandoning integrated revision control and building of the current system. Agreed. I also think LDAP would be a very useful thing to add. I know that I currently use NIS/yp because it just works and is integrated into the base, etc. I think adding LDAP as the logical successor to NIS/yp would be a good thing. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200608291627.32524.jhb>