Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:55:02 -0700 (MST)
From:      Barnacle Wes <>
To: (Keith Leonard)
Cc:, (Wes Peters)
Subject:   Re: Returned mail: sender unknown...
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <> from "Keith Leonard" at Feb 6, 96 07:51:01 pm

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
> And perhaps you should check the messages and see that 
> you seem to be the only one 'irritated' with the question.

No, it's just that most people don't even bother to respond to
messages like yours anymore, messages of the ilk "I can't install
this because you guys are too stupid to make an installation program
that just does what I want it to.  Never mind that you're giving
I WANT IT TO."  Your tone was very demanding for someone partaking
of a gift.

> OK, now that I've returned 'tit for tat' let's get on with the real work, 
> son.

Don't you dare insult my parents like that, I am certainly *not*
your son.

> I don't want to saw my HD in have and do as you suggest. I just want 
> a clean system that doesn't depend on X.

So don't install any X apps, and stop whining about it!

This is the crux of the issue I have with your mail message:  the
'average' FreeBSD user, whom the sysinstall program was created
for, *does* want to run X.  The packages for Emacs and other
applications you whined about were built for this 'average' user.
If you want something different, something custom, you're free to

If you want an emacs that doesn't depend on X, take the time to read
the INSTALL instructions that come with emacs, figure out that you
have to configure --with-x=no, and build it.  Install it.  Be happy.
But don't criticize someone else for building the 'package' version
--with-x just because that's not what you want.

> X is nice - but you really don't 
> need it. Even the developer of X is very disappointed in the direction 
> that X has taken. And to think that every useful program for U*ix is 
> falling into the same trap as 'DOG and Windoze'is a major bummer. Perhaps 
> if we were given the choice it wouldn't be so irritating. 

Perhaps *YOU* don't need it, but I do.  The reason I ftp'd 386bsd
in the first place was to develop X applications; this is pretty
tough to do without X.

You are given the choice, if you would simply take the time to read
the installation instructions, rather than running the default
installation, which assumes you will be running X and behaves

> Or, perhaps if the installation program installed the shared libraies 
> instead of making you install (and I know that this is going to be 
> flamed) a pretty, 3-D shell then perhaps we would be less iritated. I 
> have run all the programs mentioned without X running, so maybe 'it's not 
> an X world after all' [sung to the tune of 'it's a small world after all'].

Or, perhaps if you'd do it yourself, after reading the instructions,
rather than *demanding* someone else *donate to you* the time to
fix the installation program to do it how *you* want it, rather
than the average user!

> By the way - I have looked at the CD. And I see what could be install 
> from a few disk now bloating a 600 meg CD. Windoze philosophy is comming 
> - run for your lives.

Funny, I have a perfectly workable FreeBSD installation running on
a 386sx/16, with 5 Meg RAM and a 100 Meg disk.  Of course, I took
the time to read the installation instructions and do this without
complaining to the world at large that sysinstall wouldn't do it
for me.

> If anyone else reads this - Thank you for your patient and quiet response.

Well, I'll take this as an invitation to drop this back into the
newsgroup, maybe others will have a renewed interest in your snotty
demands for help.

   Wes Peters	| Yes I am a pirate, two hundred years too late
    Softweyr 	| The cannons don't thunder, there's nothing to plunder
   Consulting	| I'm an over forty victim of fate...	|					Jimmy Buffett

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>