Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:04:39 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pkg-based base system. Message-ID: <4057F887.1010709@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040317065013.03b765a0@imap.sfu.ca> References: <20040315134745.1eb201f4.manlix@demonized.net> <20040315125710.GK797@camelot.theinternet.com.au> <20040315140153.30348b1e.manlix@demonized.net> <nt1xntb68t.xnt@mail.comcast.net> <4057D767.2090107@freebsd.org> <6.0.1.1.1.20040317065013.03b765a0@imap.sfu.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Colin Percival wrote: > At 04:43 17/03/2004, Scott Long wrote: > >FreeBSD is an operating > >> system. It is not a kernel with interchangeable userland pieces. > > > Nor, I think, do many users want a kernel with interchangeable > userland pieces. What I hear from many users, however, is that > they would like an operating system with optional pieces -- so > that they could sysinstall FreeBSD without sendmail, named, or > doscmd (to take a random example). > > Colin Percival > > > The trick here is to know when you start sliding too far down the slope. It's hard to argue about sendmail, named, gcc, etc, but where do you stop? Before long, you'll be chopping out nvi for the people who favor vim, and so on. I'm actually more in favor of keeping FreeBSD as the 'reference implementation', and encouraging others to make derivatives off if it that satifies these kinds of needs. But we will see where things head. Above all, I support your work, but just ask you to be cautious and not this get carried away. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4057F887.1010709>