Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 22:31:39 +0000 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com> To: "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: "hackers@FreeBSD.org" <hackers@FreeBSD.org>, "Michael Smith" <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: Re: Re(2): Standard Shipping Containers - A Proposal for Distributing FreeBSD Message-ID: <2983.832372299@critter.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "17 May 1996 05:13:10 EST." <n1379812485.49184@Richard Wackerbarth>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > All this discussion is telling us is that there are several different ways > > by which FreeBSD source code is distributed, and each of these > > different ways works well for different people. Rich, I guess that I need to say my piece here, and so I will. 1st: I don't see the FreeBSD project as being in the business of enforcing policies, but rather we try to offer tools. 2nd: Correct or incorrect as your suggestions may be, they involve work that I don't see the payback justifying. 3rd: They way you want to sell the idea of a change, is to make people realize it's better for them that way. You can of course sit on the edge of the bed and tell them how good it will be if you have it your way, or you can offer it as an alternative and see if they buy it. CTM received a very cold reception when I started it, basically there were two camps: a) people who looked at is as lesser service than SUP, usually because they didn't pay for their packets and generally got them all though the networks. b) people for whoom SUP didn't worked because they didn't have TCP/IP access or coudn't afford it. For the a)-team, it would have to be better than SUP, for the b)-team anything was better than nothing. Some of the troubles I put the early users into are still being classified in relation to the UNs understanding of basic human rights and I'm not doing well on that grade, but on average people kept up with my blunders because it did something for them that they couldn't do otherwise. Now CTM is getting about to where I had hoped we would have it two years ago, and it will actually support local development (*.ctm feature), and with some luck we will have even better selection and validation features soon. CTM will never get around the problem of the snap-shot modus operandi, and people we cannot live with that will have to use SUP. I only know of about 5 people where I would think that applies. Most of the rest of the users would be just as happy and probably richer by using CTM, only problem is, it is harder to use, and they will have to change something that works for no significant benefit. If you want to make a difference, you sit down, and think about what you would want from CTM if you sat in the far end of an longdistance 1200 baud UUCP line, and wanted to keep up to date, then you discuss it with the rest of us, go off and implement it, we test it and if it works, more people will use CTM and at some point, we can ditch SUP for all but that handful of people who actually need SUP. The only way to get what you propose it to make it an advance, to make it give people something they don't have today, and make sure that "something" isn't trouble. Finally, Rich, you need to learn one lesson more which is: Issuing Grand Plans doesn't do shit here, unless you implement them yourself and do it well. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2983.832372299>