Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 23:16:26 +0100 From: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, Eric Wayte <ewayte@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Mall now BSDCentral Message-ID: <20010709231626.B16152@clan.nothing-going-on.org> In-Reply-To: <3B49E58D.5EDDDA2A@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 10:10:37AM -0700 References: <000701c10452$ca818600$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <3B4560DD.428634F8@softweyr.com> <20010706092541.C23117@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <3B49E58D.5EDDDA2A@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 10:10:37AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Nik Clayton wrote:
> > The thorny question of "What do they have to include and still call it
> > FreeBSD?" is resolved by saying that any FreeBSD distribution must
> > include, as a minimum, the contents of the "mini" ISO (including
> > sysinstall). Anyone that wants to include an alternative installation
> > routine (open or closed source) can do, as long as sysinstall is still
> > there. Then the FreeBSD docs can continue to refer to sysinstall, and
> > the project doesn't get flack if someone puts together a distribution
> > with a crap installer, because sysinstall will always be there as a
> > fallback.
>=20
> First: sysinstall must die: this is non-negotiable.
>=20
> Second: it is an albatross, and forcing people to
> include it is obnoxious, and definitely not in the
> long term best interests of the project.
>=20
> Third: tying the hands of distributors with regard
> to what they "must" distribute is stupid: you might
> as well GPL the damn thing, and call it a day, if
> you want that level of editorial control over third
> party distributors content.
It's reasonable to want to control what get's called FreeBSD.
The intent here is not to prevent third party installers -- they can be
open source, closed source, or whatever mix you want. If you want to
produce a commercial distribution of FreeBSD that does not use
sysinstall as the default installation mechanism then go right ahead,
make it the default, have it come up automatically when your customers=20
boot from CD, and so on.
However, if you want to call it FreeBSD, then, somewhere, sysinstall
(and whatever replaces it) must be available. Put it on "boot-legacy.flp"=
=20
if you want, and strongly urge your customers not to use it. But make
it available to those that want it.
Then I can make sure that the Handbook chapter on installation says,
right at the beginning:
This chapter describes how to install FreeBSD using the installation
software provided by the project. Third party vendors are
completely free to provide their own installation routine, document
it, and support it.
However, they must also provide and document a mechanism for you to=20
use sysinstall. This is the only installer we document here, and
it's very likely that the members of -questions mailing list will only
be able to answer installation related questions if you're using
sysinstall.
If, at some point, you (or whatever third party develops a better
installation system) donates it back to the project then it becomes the
sysinstall replacement we've all yearned for, and the documentation can
be updated accordingly.
> Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to trust people
> to do right by the project; I'd be happy with an X
> server that configured itself in software, and with
> a default boot-to-X and that Java version of the
> InstallShield product. I'd also like to see someone
> produce a handicap accessible version of FreeBSD:
> e.g. there would be no sysinstall. I'd like to see
> a distribution that Installed multiple roots, and
> supported fail-over booting like nextboot used to.
> And I want to see a distribution where / is mounted
> read-only, with only the necessary parts being mounted
> writeable at all.
All of that is fine. Indeed, I'd like to see them happen as well.
> Making people keep sysinstall precludes innovations
> which make FreeBSD more accessible to more people,
> and broaden the user base.
Just to make sure we're not talking at cross purposes -- all I'm saying
is that sysinstall must be available somewhere on the installation media
that you provide, and that instructions on how to boot from it as an
alternative to whatever installation mechanism you provide must also be
available.
I am *not* saying that sysinstall *must* be used, just that it *must* be
available for use.
N
--=20
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.freebsd.org/
FreeBSD Documentation Project http://www.freebsd.org/docproj/
--- 15B8 3FFC DDB4 34B0 AA5F 94B7 93A8 0764 2C37 E375 ---
--BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjtKLTkACgkQk6gHZCw343Wu2wCeMXLKY6bDEy1CZYchCrzs6Vs0
1AgAnAwwrDdh6rwbGrJJq92ZlBdSg6Bq
=a/JY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC--
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010709231626.B16152>