Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:06:24 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Distributions: Leveling the playing field Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990914140446.04b44100@localhost> In-Reply-To: <83679.937337703@localhost> References: <Your message of "Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:53:48 MDT." <4.2.0.58.19990914122930.04ad8c20@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:35 PM 9/14/99 -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: >> It is very likely that many things which were done as part of that > > distribution would be contributed. But this should not be a requirement. > >As long as the component itself was not a requirement to installing >the product, I'd agree. If you make your hypothetical new installer a >requirement and now all the users of "FreeBSD HyperBrett" are going >through a substantially different installation experience and posting >emails to -questions which say things like "I'm at the default smell >configuration menu and I can't decide between (M)usty library and >(D)amp basement, has anyone tried these two smells yet?", well, the >people who staff those lists are going to be exceedingly confused. How about if the user is given the option of which installer to use? Use of the new installer would not be a requirement but rather a third- party option, and clearly labeled as such. Would this work? --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.0.58.19990914140446.04b44100>