Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:12:25 -0600 From: William Grim <wgrim@siue.edu> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Discussion on the future of floppies in 5.x and 6.x Message-ID: <4001A019.2030604@siue.edu> In-Reply-To: <20040111161839.53EC788@toad.stack.nl> References: <20040111161839.53EC788@toad.stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marco van de Voort wrote: >>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. > >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > This idea dawned on me a few moments ago: If it's really such a big deal to get rid of floppy support, how about we get rid of it and make sure an older version of FreeBSD 4.x/5.x is always available for download? This way, floppy users could install an older version of the OS and cvsup to the latest version they want. I see the above as a decent compromise. This way, we no longer have to support newer floppy editions, but we leave people with floppy drives an option to perform the installation. What do you think? -- William Michael Grim Student, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville Unix Network Administrator, SIUE, Computer Science dept. Phone: (217) 341-6552 Email: wgrim@siue.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4001A019.2030604>