Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:22:10 +0200 From: Alex de Kruijff <freebsd@akruijff.dds.nl> To: Andreas Klemm <andreas@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: strip FreeBSD a bit Message-ID: <20030910162210.GC31532@dds.nl> Resent-Message-ID: <200309101623.h8AGNANG052109@Intranet.lan> In-Reply-To: <20030910104807.GB47986@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> References: <3F50C956.70603@carebears.mine.nu> <20030830151544.G21642@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <3F5193E2.8060805@carebears.mine.nu> <20030831065010.GA23179@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> <20030909221106.GA31532@dds.nl> <20030910104807.GB47986@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:48:07PM +0200, Andreas Klemm wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:11:06AM +0200, Alex de Kruijff wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 08:50:10AM +0200, Andreas Klemm wrote: > > > Christer, > > > > > > I think its a bad idea to remove components from FreeBSD that > > > everybody would expect in a BSD. > > > > I think there has to be a clear reason if components where removed. This > > still doesn't mean that it couldn't come installed by default. It just > > meant useing the package / port system. Why sould we not use it? > > Because breaking BSD into too many little pieces has contra > productive side effects... The cause of these are not the port system in it self. They all can be solved if one is willing to do so. I didn't see a reason that could not be easly solved. If i read you correct you conserns are: 1. Having a system without applications installed that have bin there a long time. 2. Having applications that are mainstream not mainted by FreeBSD committers. 3. Having applications that are mainstream not mainted by experianced programmers. 1) Having a application in the ports doesn't mean it should not be part of the base install. A used might expect a full OS, including sed, but doesn't realy care how he got it. 2) Its seemt to me that application will become ports when FreeBSD commiters dont want to maintain them. This doesn't mean that there are no FreeBSD commiters that would want to maintain a FreeBSD port. Ports just have the potential of being maintained by other people. This however does not have to be a oblication. 3) There more experianced programmers out there than the FreeBSD team. Having a port means having a larger pool of programmers. This include the good as well as the bad ones. (I cut your text if I feld you objection was in the points above.) > You need more experience in coding if you maintain a complete > OS then to make something to fit under ports control to make > it simply run. I fail to see you point here. > If the software is under CVS control, then many eyes watch the > code from time to time by software review and such .... The are planty examples of code that is under CVS control and still is in the port system. Samba is one of them. This could also be true for other applications. > > > I think you touch areas here like tradition ... > > > > > > In Linux its another thing, they don't have such a tradition, > > > since Linux is only a kernel and Linux never defined a Linux > > > basde system. So there you can discuss of having sendmail, > > > exim, postfix or qmail installed by default or not. > > > > The way the kernel is related to the distribution is totaly irrelevant. > > If you looking for traditions here they sould be in the various > > distributions. > > What I mean with tradition is, that an Operating System exists > since a long time and you are used to expect this and that in > it ... > > And I repeat, Linux is only a kernel, therefore every distribution > maker can't have something like a "normal tradition" since Linux > never defined something like a base system for Linux. My point was that a user look at the hole thing. Therefor the way they handle there kernel is irrelevant. I'll bet that most user would point to the disctributions when you asked them what linux whas. > The effects are as I described, missing sed in standard installation > like red hat and bloated installations all around. Many different > flavours of tools in the different Linux installations. > > Though the BSD also differ in much things I have the feeling that > they are still much closer to each other than the many many Linuxes > I played with in the past: Slackware, RedHat, SuSE, Knoppix, Gentoo, > Debian. I fail to see your point here. -- Alex Articles based on solutions that I use: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/index.php?dir=docs/FreeBSD/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030910162210.GC31532>