Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 22:08:40 -0400 From: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org> To: Jim Bryant <kc5vdj@yahoo.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bash in /usr/local/bin? Message-ID: <20010812220839.A1817@shall.anarcat.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <3B772A23.4000909@yahoo.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0108121642440.6349-100000@smtp.gnf.org> <3B772A23.4000909@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [This email contains coarse language due to the absurdity of the thread level we're in. My apologies to those offended. Also, my apologies to the author of the original mail. You have triggered very sensitive areas of my mind. :)] [This probably belongs to -chat, -flame (we should create that one) or IRC, anyways] On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Jim Bryant wrote: > Also, dinosaurs or not, DOD is now an INVESTOR in the FreeBSD system. Na= me=20 > any other group besides maybe BSDI that has provided $1.4 million [USD] t= o=20 > the project. > > We should look towards making FreeBSD the open-source OS of choice in the= =20 > DOD environment, in which Linux has already made major inroads where Free= BSD=20 > isn't even allowed to tread yet. I do not agree with that statement. We should not distort FreeBSD's vision to fit what a few people believe to be DOD wishes. Even if it would be the DODs wishes, I say: fuck the DOD. Fuck the army. FreeBSD is a Free project. We don't have to comply to some freakin military. > Actually, it is up to us to resolve this. I don't think you understand h= ow=20 > DOD operates. The vendor makes the changes, not DOD. Not the admin. =20 And FreeBSD is the *vendor*? I don't think so. At least I don't hope so. If I'm mistaken, slap me, but the project should not bend over for any big guy who pulls out enough money. I know this will sound ridiculous, but what if Mucrosoft put 1M$ in FBSD? Would we fucking bend over? I hope not. > Moving the non-GPL shells to /bin is a trivial request that can solve=20 > problems that you obviously don't understand. Then we could also answer a trivial request such as making apache part of the base system! If the DOD need a webserver, they're screwed? They panic? What the heck is that? And why should we care about such d**kheads? > DOD will is a vast new market for FreeBSD, and if we don't think ahead no= w=20 > and consider what will make admins recommend FreeBSD over Linux, Solaris,= or=20 > HP-UX, then we'll never reach the kind of market penetration that Linux,= =20 > Solaris, and HP-UX have in the DOD market.=20 Saying: "the military uses our sw, you should use it too" should make admins use the sw? What a sick world we're in. Wasn't the DOD using NT? > Key to this is an admin-friendly=20 > environment designed to get around the pre-cambrian attitudes that preven= t=20 > DOD admins from using standard tools just because it's in the wrong place= on=20 > the disk array or because it's considered a third-party option, or even= =20 > worse: freeware [ooooh! step away from the keyboard, son. you going to= =20 > prison, boy!]. Bash standard? Funny. I had very good comments on the easiness (sp?) ppl have installing third party apps in the install process. And the ports collection, and the packages, etc... FreeBSD is very admin friendly, IMHO. > DOD is only an example of an organization that can benefit from such a=20 > trivial change. They can already get this with Sun, and probably HP as w= ell=20 > [I haven't seen the latest minor release to 11.x, but I bet they are=20 > following Sun's lead]. I don't give a flying fluck about the DOD, they can go blow themselves up on freakin Mars. Seriously. > Try thinking outside the box sometime. If you want a "traditional" unix,= I=20 > think there is still a PDP-11 emulator and DL01 image of V7 at=20 > gatekeeper.dec.com. Yeah. Let's go with the New Technology: NT. All these buzzwords and semantics are messing things up here. It's not a matter of tradition, it's a matter of license (bash is GPL, FBSD is BSD-licensed), and functionality (bash !=3D sh). See also the comment about resistance to have perl in the base system.=20 Linux have bash in the base system simply because there's no other free clo= se relative to sh around. > I'm more for an evolutionary unix where the idea of what's standard chang= es=20 > to reflect the needs of it's admins and users in diverse environments. As much as I appreciate "evolution", I think this mentality is exactly the thing that makes us pull away from support from old hardware. That's a shame. > going nowhere due to outdated beliefs "oh, but that belongs in=20 > /usr/local/bin".=20 Again, it's not a belief. It's a philosophy that is behind FreeBSD.=20 I would actually like to get *more* stuff out of the base system. Small is beautiful. We could probably include about 10 other shells in /bin just on the grounds that it's "standard" or "useful". > If something after years of use becomes a standard tool,=20 > it needs to be moved into the base distribution. I give perl as a prime= =20 > example of one time that this actually happened, despite the arguments fo= r=20 > or against perl, it *IS* a standard tool, and it *IS* expected to be=20 > available. Perl might be a standard tool (again, a funny thought) but being "available" does not necessarly mean to have it in the base system. Anyways, this has probably been burnt to death long time ago, I should not get into this. > My argument for the trivial move of the non-GPL shells to /bin, so long a= s=20 > they are statically linked, is based on experience in a market in which= =20 > FreeBSD just got it's foot inside of the door. We have already done this= =20 > with tcsh. I don't see what the problem is getting the rest of the non-G= PL=20 > shells into /bin is. I missed something here. Is tcsh GPLed? I don't think so... A quick look at /usr/src/contrib/tcsh gives me 2 matches for "GNU", config.guess and config.sub. The rest looks like standard BSD license. Am I wrong? > Of course, if my argument is somehow bad, then we do have a real dilemma= =20 > here. Better remove tcsh from /bin at once to clear up this dilemma!=20 Er... Why not? Screw csh/tcsh. I never minded installing tcsh using ports/packages when I used it.=20 > How about an instant poll: >=20 > 1). Since tcsh was included as a "standard" tool in /bin, do you use it i= n a=20 > standalone scenario? > b). No =20 Actually, a standalone scenario for me resloves to single-user mode. And in that case, /bin/sh is ran. And it's what I use. For everything else I can just exec bash or zsh. :) > 2). Since tcsh was included as a "standard" tool in /bin, is it root's=20 > default shell? >=20 > a). Yes This is hardly arguable. Just check /usr/src/etc/master.passwd :) =20 > jim Please, jim, do not take my comments too harsh. I have a very strong... opinion of the military, and of "progress", "evolution" or whatever you want to call that mad "fuite en avant" (I don't know the proper idiom in english (this was french)). Have a nice day. A. --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: Pour information voir http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7dzam7uV99pHLOSIRAq5CAKCgFe8tsyQZhF5WPYnTLFnjn9ewswCfSs0s AndhXbKBMlVrTxgL1awpc1s= =ACm3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010812220839.A1817>