From owner-freebsd-ports  Fri Sep 22 03:18:52 1995
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id DAA24010
          for ports-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 1995 03:18:52 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id DAA23987
          ; Fri, 22 Sep 1995 03:18:38 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA21716; Fri, 22 Sep 1995 03:18:12 -0700
To: kelly@fsl.noaa.gov (Sean Kelly)
cc: pechter@shell.monmouth.com, gryphon@healer.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org,
        freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeNix? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 Sep 1995 18:13:03 MDT."
             <9509220013.AA07421@emu.fsl.noaa.gov> 
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 03:18:12 -0700
Message-ID: <21713.811765092@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> And I got it, by golly.  And I'm sticking with it.  I'm not going to
> use continue to use FreeBSD if it becomes FreeSVR4.  It's *not* a
> mistake to keep ourselves 4.4 compatible.  That's a desirable feature!

I think this thread had gotten a little out of hand (though I
congradulate the principles for taking it to -chat rather than
swamping -hackers - thank you!) but I can summarize my own attitude
(and what I'll thus be "pushing" for) thusly:

1. A lot of BSD fans run BSD because they're used to the organization of
the tree and it's one less headache for them in administrating large
collections of machines.  We should therefore strive to maintain some
consistency with *ourselves*, if not some vaporous "BSD" standard,
and this means no gratuitous changes for change's sake.

2. That said, if some change is *not* gratuitous and provides
significant additional functionality or makes an admin's job easier,
then we shouldn't throw it out just because it's new, different or
looks suspiciously like what SYSV might have done.  BSD is not or at
least should not be a static, unchanging entity.  That way lies
stagnation and death.  We need to continue to improve the product,
and if that entails changing a few old and crufty mechanisms that
were long overdue for replacement, then I say go for it.

					Jordan