Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:09:35 -0600 From: Duke Normandin <01031149@3web.net> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River Message-ID: <20010406090934.A149383@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <000901c0be60$bc644680$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>; from "Ted Mittelstaedt" on Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 11:13:45PM References: <20010405161526.A1968@gforce.johnson.home> <000901c0be60$bc644680$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 11:13:45PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: [snip] > As a server admin, I have complete confidence that if the FreeBSD core > project were asked to make a design decision on some aspect of FreeBSD, that > was a design decision that would either favor the desktop at the expense of > compromising system integrity, or favor system integrity at the expense of > the desktop, I am completely confident they would shaft the desktop every > time. > > With the Linux crowd, I don't have this confidence. I believe that if the > Linux community had to make a tradeoff between system integrity and > something that would improve the desktop, if some large commercial > organization was pushing them to shaft system integrity to gain something > for the desktop, they would do it. Would you give some concrete examples as to *how* one precludes the other. -- -duke Calgary, Alberta, Canada To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010406090934.A149383>