Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 25 Mar 1995 07:27:49 -0800
From:      "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>
To:        Amancio Hasty <hasty@star-gate.com>
Cc:        Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.mt.net>, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com
Subject:   Re: httpd as part of the system. 
Message-ID:  <24435.796145269@freefall.cdrom.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Mar 95 23:10:30 GMT." <199503242310.XAA01112@star-gate.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Why would we add a tool to mh as part of the standard system when mh is
> > NOT part of the standard system?  It seems kind of foolish to me.
> 
> Is not foolish obviously is by implication.

Guys, guys!

1. Amancio is right, in principle.  We do need a better applications suite like
   this at some point if we're to be taken seriously on the desktop.

   I am rather tired of people telling me about how they run Linux on their
   desktop and FreeBSD as their server because "Linux has such a nice
   desktop, and its interactive response for a single user is so much better."

   Perhaps, in the past, their response time WAS better, but I think David and
   John have gone a long ways towards fixing that, and we've always known that
   our *response curve* (e.g. as you add more users/processes) was quite a bit
   better.  If we can add to this (either by port, package or dist) a very
   comfortable out-of-box configuration, we'll finally be able to tell them
   that they can run FreeBSD on BOTH.

2. Nate is right.. :-)  We can't go down this road right now, at least not
   until we have a much better installation framework.  If it weren't ALSO
   for the doc team's needs (and folks - the doc teams needs are PARAMOUNT
   right now - we have NO doc! :-( :-( ) I wouldn't have suggested lynx
   and httpd at all.

So let's not let my earlier suggestion run away with us.  That wasn't a call
for the floodgates to open, it was a call for *two* tools.  When we can
truly "classify" each and every binary, library and include file in the system
(perhaps thru a special Make variable) so that it automagically knows which
dist to stick itself into, and we have things like a `netdist' and a `maildist'
and a `whateverelsedist', THEN will be a good time to start soliciting
suggestions for really expanding the system.

For now, I suggest that we make the ports and packages a LOT more highly
integrated into the installation process so that, to the user, the edge
of distinction blurs.  I agree with Amancio about providing out-of-box
Internet solutions, I just don't agree that NOW is the time to start
piling on the solutions.  2.1 is simply too imminent, and we've too much
else to do right now.

Who knows?  If the package stuff starts looking *really* nice, we may even
find that our need to package things into any of the base distributions
goes away.

					Jordan





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24435.796145269>