From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 29 20:21:03 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC2716A4CE for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:21:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32A943D1D for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:21:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior-wifi.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3TKOv0D032797; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:24:57 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <4272971C.70307@samsco.org> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:20:44 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050218 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: racerx@makeworld.com References: <57436.216.177.243.42.1114582155.localmail@webmail.dnswatch.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20050426233321.084e9210@cobalt.antimatter.net> <51899.216.177.243.42.1114584317.localmail@webmail.dnswatch.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20050427001118.0327cd50@cobalt.antimatter.net> <52515.216.177.243.42.1114586501.localmail@webmail.dnswatch.com> <61359.216.177.243.35.1114722481.localmail@webmail.dnswatch.com> <20050429105416.GA94049@wedge.madpilot.net> <42728DF1.9040908@makeworld.com> <427291EE.4080809@makeworld.com> In-Reply-To: <427291EE.4080809@makeworld.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org cc: /dev/null cc: John Sconiers cc: Guido Falsi cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: boot banner project X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:21:04 -0000 Chris wrote: > John Sconiers wrote: > > >>On 4/29/05, Chris wrote: >> >> >>>John Sconiers wrote: >>>... >>> >>> >>>>Adding less then a meg here or there is not bloat. Unless of course the goal is to >>>>create an advanced operating system unable to get / keep users. >>>> >>>>My $.02 >>> >>>The problem is this; if everyone keeps adding "less then a meg here or >>>there" then you DO end up with bloat. >>> >>>Where to you draw the line? How much is too much? To me, I would rather >>>add that less then a meg here and there to the core OS ... Not to >>>something that (to me) does not need to look perdy. >>> >>>... and my .02 >>> >>>-- >>>Best regards, >>>Chris >>> >>>If reproducibility may be a problem conduct the >>>test only once. >>> > > > John Sconiers wrote: > >>Do you want to get / keep new users, compete wth other operating >>systems, etc.... >> > > > Of course - but NOT at the expense for the OS itself. The banner is only > seen once. It does not have to be perdy to attract users. > > If that's the case, if it needs to be perdy to attract users - then > (speaking for myself) do you want that flavor of user? > > Are you not at that point trying to emulate a Windows-ee look? As I > said, I care more about the quality of the OS. > > It's pretty lame to make technical decisions based on schoolyard politics of who is and isn't cool enough to play with our to toys. Software projects with conceited attitudes rarely survive. Scott