From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Nov 6 14:49:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (winston.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.27.229]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ABB237B479 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:49:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winston.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eA6MniI66531; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:49:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com) To: Terry Lambert Cc: ignacioc@avantel.net (Ignacio Cristerna), freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Installation: what to (not) do about it In-Reply-To: Message from Terry Lambert of "Mon, 06 Nov 2000 22:20:48 GMT." <200011062220.PAA22673@usr08.primenet.com> Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 14:49:44 -0800 Message-ID: <66527.973550984@winston.osd.bsdi.com> From: Jordan Hubbard Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > The software isn't severable, and it's not layered. If the > NetBSD rc files go in, then you will have a talking point. No relevance to the current point. A proper upgrade issue will take advantage of such abstractions where they exist and whap over them with a blunt object where they do not. There will never be enough "layers" to make an upgrade totally painless and a mixture of both approaches will always, to some degree, be necessary. > The restrictive license was a requirement placed there by Whistle > when they funded the developement under FreeBSD. I've heard this story differently and with Sun involved, but no matter as it's a petty point. > I seem to remember that FreeBSD started out with proprietary bits > in its installer. Your memory is flawed. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message