Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 01:13:53 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RFC: remove xten from the base system? Message-ID: <3D085441.E458688E@mindspring.com> References: <20020613004013.K2539-100000@master.gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton wrote: > > Coda has a project. > > Perl has a project. > > TCL has a project. > > > > Xten does not have a project. > > > > This is effectively saying "Get a project to support you, because we > > are about to throw you in the ocean". > > I can certainly understand you coming to that conclusion. I would > characterize my position as, "Since this code is used by very few people, > those people should do the work of supporting it." The other examples you > gave A) have a lot more general appeal than xten, and B) already have > people to support them. What work do you feel needs to be done? I actually haven't seen any complaints about the support he code has gotten, so far. I think that's probably because it works. > > 2) People wanting the FreeBSD base to be broken into optional > > subsets, and attacking a weak target, just like a company > > filing a lawsuit against the littlest offender in order to > > get case law on their side (e.g. they failed with Sendmail, > > which was too big, so they are trying to get the camel's > > nose into the tent in another way). > > This has been going on for years. It's not new, and xten is not > the only target. I'm definitely guilty of 2. Me too. However, there's a project in place to do this, and the proper place to advocate this is in the context of code cotributed to that project. > > If it's mostly #2, then the place to work towards that is not by > > pushing everything else out of FreeBSD, until it's nothing more > > than a kernel, just like Linux. If they want this, they can either > > go over to Linux, or they can contribute code to the work that Eric > > Melville was doing. > > I don't think this is the way... I think there should definitely > be a default distribution that has most of the relevant bits included by > default. However, it should be a lot easier to eliminate bits than it is > now. Personally: me too. I think that the approach being taken has some pitfalls. However, it's the approach advocated by the project, and it's by one of the release maintainers (Eric cut the ISO's for at least one CD distribution, runor has it), so until/if it fails, or someone starts a competing project, and it wins, strangling babies "because adults fight back" is not the way to advocate the change. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D085441.E458688E>