From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Dec 10 07:59:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA23303 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:59:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA23280 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:58:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id HAA21865; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:57:34 -0800 (PST) To: The Classiest Man Alive cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why so many steps to build new kernel? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:09:49 EST." Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:57:34 -0800 Message-ID: <21861.881769454@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Why is it that every time somebody suggests making a script or GUI utility > to automate some boring but necessary UNIX process, all you guys who went > to school with Dennis Richie pop out and start complaining about how the > GUI is the greatest affront to computer science since the invention of the > transistor? Nobody's going to be any worse off if we *add* some new ways What else would there be to do at 3am? :-) Seriously, I can certainly see how it might feel that way, but I think that if you honestly look at the situation you'll find that even the most vocal "punched cards were good enough in my day" types wouldn't actually mind it if somebody released a purely optional curses based kernel configurator (optional so they don't have to use it themselves) or something. What they mostly get tired of is simply the implication that one of them should go write such a thing, since the people who are usually the most likely to ask for features like this are also the least likely to be able to actually do the work themselves, resulting in yet another one of those "it sure would be nice if FreeBSD ..." postings which really translate to "it sure would be nice if *somebody else* would implement the following for FreeBSD" :-) I'm sure that if more of these suggestions started being accompanied by actual working code, they'd meet with a much different reception. I heard from one guy who was working on something called "kconfig", but at last update it had bogged down at the most critical stage, that being the part where all the kernel configuration options are presented in menu form. The copy I reviewed did everything *but* that rather important bit. :-) > I swear, you all are going to drive me to learn C. Hope so - maybe you'll then be the one to implement all this shit! :-) Jordan