From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Oct  2 13:13:06 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA20148
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 13:13:06 -0700
Received: from etinc.com (etinc-gw.new-york.net [165.254.13.209])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA20133
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 13:12:58 -0700
Received: from trumpet.etnet.com (trumpet.etnet.com [129.45.17.35]) by etinc.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA11200; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 16:16:08 -0400
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 16:16:08 -0400
Message-Id: <199510022016.QAA11200@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Don Whiteside <freelist@elf.kendall.mdcc.edu>
From: dennis@etinc.com (dennis)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1 will require a minimum of 8MB for installation.
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>
>On Sun, 1 Oct 1995, dennis wrote:
>
>> >On Sat, 30 Sep 1995, dennis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> NO!!!!!!!! NFS is the best and fastest way to load semi-custom systems.
>> >
>> >    I agree, but if we have to choose, I'd lose NFS first too.  How
>> >many first-time users (those who will be baffled the most by the 8-meg
>> >requirement) have access to an NFS server with the FreeBSD distribution
>> >ready of installation?
>> 
>> Great Idea! Lets lose the established users who are pushing for the O/S to
>> support the idiots. Let's eliminate those that are building systems based on
>> FreeBSD in hopes of luring the occasional one-time user.  This is a great
>> business decision.
>
>Is your response module broke and stuck on "volume: full, mode: rant"??
>
>I just don't understand, Dennis. You get pissed off at the 4 meg limit 
>and rant about how apparently this is akin to setting your wallet on 
>fire. You scream about NFS because this is the best way to load custom 
>systems. Now you've been mortally offended because someone has suggested 
>that the default install kernel be kindest to the people who are unable 
>to choose other options.
>