Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 01 Oct 1995 17:27:41 -0700
From:      "Amancio Hasty Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
To:        dennis@etinc.com (dennis)
Cc:        Brian Tao <taob@io.org>, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD 2.1 will require a minimum of 8MB for installation. 
Message-ID:  <199510020027.RAA00326@rah.star-gate.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 01 Oct 1995 19:43:04 EDT." <199510012343.TAA08602@etinc.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> dennis said:
 > >On Sat, 30 Sep 1995, dennis wrote:
 > >>
 > >> NO!!!!!!!! NFS is the best and fastest way to load semi-custom systems.
 > >
 > >    I agree, but if we have to choose, I'd lose NFS first too.  How
 > >many first-time users (those who will be baffled the most by the 8-meg
 > >requirement) have access to an NFS server with the FreeBSD distribution
 > >ready of installation?
 > >--
 > 
 > 
 > Great Idea! Lets lose the established users who are pushing for the O/S to
 > support the idiots. Let's eliminate those that are building systems based on
 > FreeBSD in hopes of luring the occasional one-time user.  This is a great
 > business decision.
 > 
 > Dennis
 > 
 
Oh guys, is not a  big deal to build a kernel if you are unix awared however
the so called "idiots" are a pain in the butt to support . 
Also, there is nothing that can prevent us from loading a different kernel
once the system is up and running. For instance, during the first install
phase one could ask to load into disk a bloated kernel or not.

	Amancio





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510020027.RAA00326>