Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 18:20:08 +0100 From: mouss <usebsd@free.fr> To: "Marco van de Voort" <Marcov@stack.nl>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT Message-ID: <4.3.0.20010102180455.055ed100@pop.free.fr> In-Reply-To: <20001229193646.49F822E802@hermes.tue.nl> References: <4.3.0.20001228192610.054d4570@pop.free.fr> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012272126220.92620-100000@valu.uninet.ee>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 20:29 29/12/00 +0100, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>Perfect for your purposes. I, as user (and with some machines
>running on FreeBSD), want to be able to rebuild the kernel at any
>time, and fix myself when needed. I don't want any binary packages
>that can cause trouble and delay days.
before working for a com company, I'm a BSD user, and my participation to
this list is from this point of view.
I've never asked for any modifications that would make user's life harder.
note that I've not asked for any modifs, I just "started" the question.
>You mean some base support in makefiles to make patching easier?
>In general: No problem with that.
well, I was meaning a patch to config and to some makefiles.
why config?
I find it annoying that config must be run in $arch/conf, with the exact config
filename, and that either one has to be root or he has to copy kernel sources.
the config program requires that you run it in ${sys}/$arch/conf and that
you give
it a "pure" filename. "config /sys/i386/conf/GENERIC" doesn't work!
This is because it needs three dirs: the ${sys}/$arch/conf, the ${sys}/conf and
the ${sys}/compile. but I still believe this is an old heritage that may be
easily
"fixed".
>In specific cases: No.
As a BSD user, I'll never ask for specific stuff, be it for a company I
work for:)
my discussion was about how to ease 3d party stuff in BSD, not how to
make any company or anybody happy by any sacrificial modifs.
The problem I was talking about is that if every company modifies the
kernel sources
or the build procedure in its own way, then the least of the things that
happen is that
the modifications are not compatible, which is not good.
now, let's forget about companies and about any commercial entities.
There are things to improve in BSD (though it's perfect:). and among those,
the possibility for extensibility, be it by single developpers, by
commercial companies,
or by anyone on earth.
The question is not who does what, the real question is how anything is done.
if that is good, it's good and we oughtta take it. if it's bad, we'd better
reject it.
cheers,
mouss
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.0.20010102180455.055ed100>