From owner-freebsd-advocacy Wed Jun 30 2:45:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from www0j.netaddress.usa.net (www0j.netaddress.usa.net [204.68.24.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 56A6314C4B for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 02:45:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jesus.monroy@usa.net) Received: (qmail 10407 invoked by uid 60001); 30 Jun 1999 09:45:46 -0000 Message-ID: <19990630094546.10406.qmail@www0j.netaddress.usa.net> Received: from 204.68.24.39 by www0j via web-mailer() on Wed Jun 30 09:45:46 GMT 1999 Date: 30 Jun 99 02:45:46 PDT From: Jesus Monroy To: Terry Lambert Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: My FreeBSD Experience ]]] Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: USANET web-mailer () Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Terry Lambert wrote: > > > There is a difference between taking away options, and taking away > > > useless options. > > > = > > > For example, it should be impossible to install x86 FreeBSD without= > > > writing a DOS partition table and a DOS-capable MBR, and it should > > > be impossible to install Alpha FreeBSD without a similar DEC-UNIX > > > compatible record. That the tools permit something like that > > > occuring at all is a commentary on the foibles of the tools. > > > > Wait, I disagree with you Terry. I beleive the issue > > one using a DOS-capable MBR is pretty well in-hand. > > The way the installation currently works you get > > a DOS-capable MBR bt default. = > > = >...........[MAJOR SNIP].............. > = > A friend of mine recent upgraded from 2.something release to > 3.something release. This is a UNIX engineer who has decases of > computer experience under his belt. It took him, literally, 3 > tries and about 6 hours to do this supposedly simple task. This > was primarily the fault of the boot block changes, the fact that > by default, the "obviously correct action" in a number of areas > was the wrongest possible thing you could do (luckily, he had > tape backups of his /usr -- I told you he had experience), and > the /etc reorganization being poorly supported on upgrade. > = > If a UNIX engineer has this sort of trouble, then an ordinary > mortal who is not even UNIX literate is going to have a much worse > time of it. > = I see your point, but no solution. I know the = boot block is badly documented. As a matter of fact, the documentation in FreeBSD is incorrect, or at least the = notes. May notes I see, in the code and occasionaly in man(1) pages are just wrong. Mind you I not going to run down these daemons I just don't have the energy for a fight like that. = In any case, I move camps, IF you can present a decent alternative. Never mind the political battle, if = you have a worthy idea, I will at least read (listen). If I agree, you'll get my support and voice. (if you want) --- "I'd rather pay for my freedom than live in a bitmapped, = pop-up-happy dungeon like NT." http://www.performancecomputing.com/features/9809of1.shtml ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D= 1 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message