From owner-freebsd-ports  Mon Sep 25 17:34:36 1995
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id RAA01859
          for ports-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 17:34:36 -0700
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA01850
          ; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 17:34:31 -0700
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA06329; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 17:31:20 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199509260031.RAA06329@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: ports startup scripts
To: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 17:31:20 -0700 (MST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, kelly@fsl.noaa.gov, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG,
        freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199509252309.RAA12073@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Sep 25, 95 05:09:11 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 541       
Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> Your way requires change (ie; more work), while Sean is arguing for the
> less work case.  The average FreeBSD user won't gain anything with the
> change (asserting that the Desktop is lost), so why give ourselves more
> work being different just to be different?

Why does having a utility to adminster the system imply "desktop! desktop"
in your mind?

Because it's usable by desktop-level people?


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.