From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 25 17:53:49 1995 Return-Path: owner-chat Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id RAA02477 for chat-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 17:53:49 -0700 Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (sri.MT.net [204.94.231.129]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA02465 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 17:53:39 -0700 Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA12300; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 18:55:35 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 18:55:35 -0600 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199509260055.SAA12300@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), kelly@fsl.noaa.gov, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports startup scripts In-Reply-To: <199509260031.RAA06329@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199509252309.RAA12073@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199509260031.RAA06329@phaeton.artisoft.com> Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk { Moved to -chat } > > Your way requires change (ie; more work), while Sean is arguing for the > > less work case. The average FreeBSD user won't gain anything with the > > change (asserting that the Desktop is lost), so why give ourselves more > > work being different just to be different? > > Why does having a utility to adminster the system imply "desktop! desktop" > in your mind? > > Because it's usable by desktop-level people? Huh? What does the init stuff have to do with the desktop? Sean is arguing that by adding the extra complexity to init you aren't buying anything for the normal user. His arguement is backed by the fact that the average user is competent b/c Unix lost/doesn't have/never had/couldn't have/would like to have but didn't stand a chance on the desktop. :) Nate