Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:09:01 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Jonathan Anderson <jonathan@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, lyndon@orthanc.ca, sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, sthaug@nethelp.no Subject: Re: rcs Message-ID: <52542E1D.9000000@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <52542BD4.5070706@FreeBSD.org> References: <60177810-8DC4-4EA3-8040-A834B79039D2@orthanc.ca> <52538EDC.2080001@freebsd.org> <52541202.3010707@mu.org> <20131008.170444.74714516.sthaug@nethelp.no> <52542BD4.5070706@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/8/13 8:59 AM, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> On 8 October 2013 16:04, <sthaug@nethelp.no> wrote:
> > - For some of us, the attraction of FreeBSD is that it is a tightly
> > integrated system, and the base contains enough useful functionality
> > that we don't *have* to add a lot of packages.
> >
> > - Each package that is moved out of the base system means less useful
> > functionality in the base system - and for me: Less reason to use
> > FreeBSD instead of Linux.
> >
> > I absolutely see the problem of maintaining out-of-date packages in
> > the base system, and the desirability of making the base system less
> > reliant on GPL. I'm mostly troubled by the fact that there seems to
> > be a rather strong tendency the last few years of having steadily
> > less functionality in the base system - and I'm not at all convinced
> > that the right balance has been found here.
>
> I think this is the core problem at the root of many discussions
> besides this one. What is the base system?
>
> FreeBSD users tend to agree that we like a self-contained wad of stuff
> called The Base System but disagree quite strongly about what should
> be in it. There are several approaches to the problem, ranging from
> concrete and specific ("exactly what shipped with 4.4BSD", a.k.a.
> Originalism) to principled but open to interpretation ("what 4.4BSD
> would ship if it were released today", a.k.a. Founders' Intent).
>
> We will never all agree on exactly what should be in base vs
> ports/packages, but can we perhaps build consensus around principles?
>
> When you first take it out of the box, does The Base System need to be:
>
> - self-bootstrapping
> - POSIX-compliant
> - administerable
> - with local shell
> - with local tools (e.g. RCS, vim, git...)
> - with remote shell (SSH)
> - with remote tools (e.g. Puppet)
> - with "enterprise" integration (e.g. Kerberos, LDAP, 802.1x, SMB...)
> - useful for end-user workloads:
> - [cross-]building FreeBSD
> - [cross-]building {program X in language Y}
> - file server
> - DNS server
> - Kerberos server
> - SVN server
> - Postgres server
> - Web server
> - Hadoop node
> - X server
> - desktop
> - able to install packages / build ports to do the above
> - able to run Linux binaries
>
> ?
>
> I think we all agree with the first two items, but where should we
> draw the line?
>
> Suppose we distributed install media with The Base System + some
> packages tailored to a particular environment; would that change what
> needs to be in The Base System? If "FreeBSD Enterprise Edition" or
> "FreeBSD Hacker Edition" shipped with The Base System plus whatever
> packages you need for that environment/workload, and if the installer
> knew how to install those packages, could The Base System itself be
> smaller, e.g. just what we need to bootstrap FreeBSD itself?
>
>
Jon,
You're right on the money, to be honest this is one of the reasons why
I've switched to using OSX as my desktop OS.
zsh, vim, screen by default. and upgrades work. At the end of the day
I'm spending time doing work, not mucking about my workspace to make it
usable for development.
I think this was brought up at BSDCan in the discussion about making
FreeBSD a more featured development platform.
Speaking of... has anyone tried PCBSD?
--
Alfred Perlstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52542E1D.9000000>