Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:15:39 -0700 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> To: tlambert2@mindspring.com Cc: nik@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tedm@toybox.placo.com, ewayte@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Mall now BSDCentral Message-ID: <20010709161539I.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: <3B49E58D.5EDDDA2A@mindspring.com> References: <3B4560DD.428634F8@softweyr.com> <20010706092541.C23117@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <3B49E58D.5EDDDA2A@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is all patently ridiculous, especially given that we know you have a previously declared bias in being able to sell some sort of installer for money and would clearly wish to kill any "competition" for it, no matter how benign it would be to otherwise include it as an option (which is all Nik was saying). Whether you personally find any merit in sysinstall or not, and I'm often among the first to point out its many shortcomings, trying to kill it off for business reasons is just as obnoxious and Microsoft-ish as trying to kill off, say, RAID support because you just so happen to have a proprietary RAID solution you'd prefer users to use instead. Yeesh! Talk about a complete and total failure to get what FreeBSD is all about! I really have to wonder why you continue to hover around the community like a horsefly, year after year, without contributing anything but complaints about how things should be remoulded in your own image... It's a crock, Terry, and it stinks like a porta-potty in Texas at high noon. - Jordan From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Mall now BSDCentral Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 10:10:37 -0700 > Nik Clayton wrote: > > The thorny question of "What do they have to include and still call it > > FreeBSD?" is resolved by saying that any FreeBSD distribution must > > include, as a minimum, the contents of the "mini" ISO (including > > sysinstall). Anyone that wants to include an alternative installation > > routine (open or closed source) can do, as long as sysinstall is still > > there. Then the FreeBSD docs can continue to refer to sysinstall, and > > the project doesn't get flack if someone puts together a distribution > > with a crap installer, because sysinstall will always be there as a > > fallback. > > First: sysinstall must die: this is non-negotiable. > > Second: it is an albatross, and forcing people to > include it is obnoxious, and definitely not in the > long term best interests of the project. > > Third: tying the hands of distributors with regard > to what they "must" distribute is stupid: you might > as well GPL the damn thing, and call it a day, if > you want that level of editorial control over third > party distributors content. > > Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to trust people > to do right by the project; I'd be happy with an X > server that configured itself in software, and with > a default boot-to-X and that Java version of the > InstallShield product. I'd also like to see someone > produce a handicap accessible version of FreeBSD: > e.g. there would be no sysinstall. I'd like to see > a distribution that Installed multiple roots, and > supported fail-over booting like nextboot used to. > And I want to see a distribution where / is mounted > read-only, with only the necessary parts being mounted > writeable at all. > > > Making people keep sysinstall precludes innovations > which make FreeBSD more accessible to more people, > and broaden the user base. > > -- Terry > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010709161539I.jkh>