Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:29:05 -0600 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do! Message-ID: <l03010602aeba112be0c7@[208.2.87.4]> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.961121080520.2830A-100000@uplink.eng.umd.edu> References: <199611211217.WAA13171@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Robey replies: >On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Michael Smith wrote: > >> If you like, I am respectfully offering the gauntlet to the >> anti-bloatists, and suggesting that they nominate what they feel to be >> the core of the system, and then do something about it. > >On this point I can agree. If the folks who are concerned about bloat >feel strongly enough about that, why couldn't we have a minimal >distribution *that they have to maintain* for them? Then they could also >field the questions from users on why different things don't work on their >boxes, and the rest of us could stop hearing about bloat. > >I would personally kinda like to folk some gui stuff into the >distribution, so things could get even more friendly, and I don't mean >initial install, either. This would be absolutely impossible in today's >one distribution paradigm. Having two dists would kinda free everyone up. I don't agree that we have "one distribution". There are already separate pieces for "games", "share", "source", etc. There is no operational problem with having a large number of distribution subsets. There is little wrong with the "package" mechanism. On top of that, we need to add some "super packages" that are just dummys for various collections like "minimal", "standard", "the_works". Once you get a Un*x system running, "make" can easily figure out what you need to do and how to best do it. It is easy to then write a "custom" configuration and let it do its thing. The problem occurs when you have someone "just starting". Perhaps they don't have direct access to the CD OR the net. We need to "KISS" the answer to "Which files do I need?". As for the "core team" wishing to cop-out on keeping things up-to-date, they need to open their eyes. The SYSTEM is much more than the "core". L***us has good control on the "core" of that system. However, many of the distributions are weak because the group compiling a distribution does a poor job on the rest of it. We don't want to fall into the same boat. I think that it is ESSENTIAL that we keep the quality of the distribution high. That means that everyone who contributes to the distribution must work as a team. Those who think that they can ignore the rest of the problem simply by calling themselves "core" are wearing blinders. IMHO, they are also working against "team spirit" by separating themselves from the rest.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03010602aeba112be0c7>