From owner-freebsd-current Fri Dec 5 21:23:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA18891 for current-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 21:23:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from luke.cpl.net (luke.cpl.net [207.67.172.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA18885 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 21:23:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from shawn@cpl.net) Received: from cpl.net (shawn.cpl.net [207.67.172.196]) by luke.cpl.net (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA27549; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 21:26:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3488E112.4BD862AF@cpl.net> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 21:22:26 -0800 From: Shawn Ramsey X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuck Robey CC: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > hmmmm... skip BSDI. they want to charge absurd amounts, so make them > > pay for their own ports.. > > Isn't that kind of narrow-minded? Exactly the kind most people accuse > many commercial companies of. FreeBSD is free, to all comers. Do you > remember where doscmd came from? Why should the FreeBSD people make the port collection work with other OS's? If thats not what some people were suggesting, forget this post. :) I see no problem with making them available for other OS's to use, but that is already the case isnt it? I would tend to agree with the statement about BSDI, whether doscmd came from them or anywhere else...Its a great OS, but not so great company behind it.