Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:41:52 +0200 From: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> To: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, Eric Wayte <ewayte@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>, freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD ISOs & redistribution [was Re: FreeBSD Mall now BSDCentral] Message-ID: <20010706104152.C96591@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <20010706092541.C23117@canyon.nothing-going-on.org>; from nik@freebsd.org on Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 09:25:41AM %2B0100 References: <000701c10452$ca818600$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <3B4560DD.428634F8@softweyr.com> <20010706092541.C23117@canyon.nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
FWIW, On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 09:25:41AM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote: > I think that the conclusion is that "the project" should be putting out > five ISOs and making them freely available. Four of them would > correspond with the four discs that have traditionally made up the > commercial CD sets. The fifth one would be a mini-ISO that contains > everything needed to do a complete install, but now ports or packages > (basically, the existing disc 1 with no third party apps, except, > possibly, XFree86). This ISO would only be about 200-250MB in size, and > is more useful to the people who only download the ISO to do an install, > and use the net for packages/ports. I *really* like the idea of this small ISO. I don't know if those four ISOs should all be available, but that fifth one is a great idea. I always use the net for installing ports etc., but I like to keep a copy of a -RELEASE disc for reinstalls around. Right now I always download ~400mb too much :( > Third parties can then base their commercial distributions around these > ISOs. They might simply repackage them (on CD, or DVD). Or they might > provide value-add services, such as additional documentation, more packages > and so on. Maybe the infrastructure that's required to make the 4CD set should go into the repo, but not the ISO's themselves? (and yes, I know this is hard, and it's been argued before, re: what if Jordan gets hit by a bus...) If five ISO images are available, people *will* get confused about what is the right one to install FreeBSD, not to mention that people will (try to) download all four discs when they only need one (talk about waste of bandwidth). If the infrastructure is something like 'make release' then interested third parties can easily produce those four discs themselves. The hard part is getting the release process to that point. Or am I mistaking and is this already included? > The thorny question of "What do they have to include and still call it > FreeBSD?" is resolved by saying that any FreeBSD distribution must > include, as a minimum, the contents of the "mini" ISO (including > sysinstall). Anyone that wants to include an alternative installation > routine (open or closed source) can do, as long as sysinstall is still > there. Then the FreeBSD docs can continue to refer to sysinstall, and > the project doesn't get flack if someone puts together a distribution > with a crap installer, because sysinstall will always be there as a > fallback. Like I already stated above, this is a really good idea IMHO. --Stijn -- "I'm not under the alkafluence of inkahol that some thinkle peep I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010706104152.C96591>