Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:07:01 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: "Nate Williams" <nate@sri.MT.net>, "FreeBSD Hackers" <hackers@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Re(2): Re(2): Standard Shipping Containers - A Proposal for Distributing FreeBSD Message-ID: <199605171407.IAA26980@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <n1379830899.41486@Richard Wackerbarth> References: <n1379830899.41486@Richard Wackerbarth>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I also don't consider the current system a problem. Thousands of folks are > able to get the sources today, and I actually think that the current scheme > tends to make sure that folks who get the newest sources have the ability to > deal with them, vs. giving them to the 'masses' when they aren't in a state > that they can handle. > > > Both -current and -stable are moving targets, and should only be used by > more competent people. If you aren't competent enough to figure out SUP > and/or CTM as it is currently, use the SNAPS or wait for the CD. > > I'll take another shot at that comment. It is no wonder the Linux is more > popular. I'm glad that Jordan doesn't adopt your "keep it hard to do" > attitude. I never once said 'keep it hard'. What I implied was 'don't make it annoyingly easy' since it'll simply mean more confused users who don't know what to do with the sources once they've gotten them. > There are thousands who manage to get the sources IN SPITE OF THE > DIFFICULTIES in their way. Actually, if you read Usenet, *most* of the Linux users use the distributions (ie; RedHat, Slackware, FT, etc..). It isn't the majority that use the 'newest sources', but people who are more computer literate than your 'average user'. Heck, our system is *much* easier to bootstrap to a new release than *any* version of Linux, and getting the sources are easier to get. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605171407.IAA26980>