Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 03 Jun 1997 21:58:54 -0700
From:      Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
To:        Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Cc:        chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: sgml formatting code 
Message-ID:  <199706040458.VAA03147@precipice.shockwave.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Jun 1997 14:22:46 %2B0930." <199706040452.OAA11760@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

  From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
  Subject: Re: sgml formatting code
  Paul Traina stands accused of saying:
  > 
  >   From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
  >   Subject: Re: sgml formatting code
  >   
  >   As are many other 'value-add' components.  The persistent suggestion that
  >   we should strip the system bare in search of some sort of naked purity
  >   is the deluded rabling of tunnel vision.
  > 
  > Deluded boy here... putting stuff in base system, when it works perfectly
  > well as a port, only makes it:
  > 
  >     (a) harder to keep things up to date and maintined
  >     (b) encourages people to not send fixes and changes back to authors
  >     (c) bloats the system with stuff many users may not care about
  >     (d) inflicts your choices and values on folks who don't agree
  > 	with you
  > 
  > Now, who has tunnel vision?
  
  Anyone who thinks that saying to a potential software customer :
  
  "but before you can use our software you have to install A, B, C, D, E, F,
  G, H, X, Y and Z."
  
  is helpful.  And so forth.  "works perfectly well as a port" is fine
  from the POV of an application, not so good when you are talking
  about primitive tools, with the current installation model.

That's a job for son of sysinstall.  Debian Linux has been doing the right
thing in this regard for years, so don't give me a line about this being the
end of FreeBSD as we know it.
  
  If you _want_ a system on which it is _painful_ to do anything, there
  are plenty of examples already around.  If, OTOH, you consider that
  there is value in providing an integrated, highly functional system,
  then ripping components out is just not the way to go.
  
  Sometime down the track, when it becomes possible to layer the installation
  process so that masochists and minimalists can be satisfied without
  annoying the crap out of the rest of us, this argument will probably
  become more subtle.  Until then, bear in mind that what you want is
  already there; you're only suffering some (minor) bloat.  In contrast,
  you are insisting that I sacrifice the basic usefulness of the system
  to me.
  
  Do you wonder at my defence?

No, I scoff at it. :-)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706040458.VAA03147>