From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jun 27 9:44:27 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from dt052n3e.san.rr.com (dt052n3e.san.rr.com [204.210.33.62]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9CA37C3FF; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:44:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@gorean.org) Received: from gorean.org (doug@master [10.0.0.2]) by dt052n3e.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA25235; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:44:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@gorean.org) Message-ID: <3958D9DC.DA75504E@gorean.org> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:44:12 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT-0603 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Warner Losh Cc: papowell@astart.com, nik@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? References: <3958502D.DF9729BD@gorean.org> <200006242153.OAA01110@h4.private> <200006270615.AAA31842@harmony.village.org> <200006270725.BAA32822@harmony.village.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Warner Losh wrote: > > In message <3958502D.DF9729BD@gorean.org> Doug Barton writes: > : I'm surprised to hear this coming from you, actually. I disagree > : strongly that discouraging commercial vendors from being able to > : integrate "stock" parts of freebsd into their product is "not our > : problem." One of the drawing cards for freebsd is that commercial > : vendors _can_ take our code and use it in any manner they see fit. The > : list of exceptions is long enough already, I haven't seen a compelling > : reason to make it longer. > > I'd like to point out that FreeBSD isn't all Free. A point which I readily concede. My question is, should we be working to make it more free, or adding more software that makes it less free? > Second, the ARTISTIC license does not preclude FreeBSD from including > LPRng. This statement is still true. We can comply with all the > terms of the license. I also conceded this point. > Third, we have a crying need for a better print system. This is where you lose me. I haven't seen this need demonstrated. Au contraire, I have seen many people say that the current lp* is good enough for them, or easily adaptable to their specific needs through the ports. In all my years of working with freebsd, including using it as a desktop at home I've not spent even 10 hours worrying about lpd. I've installed apsfilter at home, and added the jet direct card to the printcap at work.... voila. > lpr/lpd are hard to maintain and difficult to audit. I can't comment authoritatively on this, except to say that we do have volunteers willing (and apparently able) to hack on what we have. I would like to see them have the opportunity. > So we have to weigh the needs of most of the FreeBSD users against the > theoretical needs of a potential company wanting to make print servers > on a stick that requires them to hack lprng. You have left out the philosophical point. I think it's obvious that you don't see that as important (or important enough), but there are some of us who do. Perhaps in the end that's not enough of a reason to keep it out. I just personally feel that this would be a move in the wrong direction. This'll probably be my last post on this topic, since I'm now repeating myself. Doug -- "Live free or die" - State motto of my ancestral homeland, New Hampshire Do YOU Yahoo!? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message