Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:51:30 -0800
From:      Chris Pressey <cpressey@catseye.mine.nu>
To:        freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: The beastie boot menu.
Message-ID:  <20041130145130.0aa893f1.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu>
In-Reply-To: <p06002035bdd1f81925dd@[10.0.1.3]>
References:  <20041129024602.GA23324@turingmachine.mentalsiege.net> <1101748454.41ab58e61eb88@imp2-q.free.fr> <FA1860B97FADCA625C68119A@[192.168.1.16]> <1101788709.41abf62519b57@imp2-q.free.fr> <20041130002603.692153b7.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> <p06002035bdd1f81925dd@[10.0.1.3]>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:24:40 +0100
Brad Knowles <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org> wrote:

> At 12:26 AM -0800 2004-11-30, Chris Pressey wrote:
> >                            Highest performance?  Most stable? 
> >  Easiest to use?  Most featureful?  Fewest bugs?
> 
> 	Yes.

OK, then someone in charge should write that down, as part of the
official docs, assuming core agrees.

> >                                        Most accessible?
> 
> 	What do you mean "accessible"?  And by whom?  Do you mean 
> handicapped-friendly?  Do you mean moron-resistant?
> 
> >                                                          Most
> >                                                          conformant
> >  to standards?
> 
> 	Which standards?
> 
> >                 Plays nicest with other OSes?
> 
> 	What do you mean by "nicest"?  Which other OSes?

Maybe all, maybe none - the answers to those questions are all up to
TPTB to decide and make explicit.

> > Largest package system?
> 
> 	That's a side-effect, not a direct goal.

It could quite easily be a goal if it's what the project leaders want.

> [...]
> I would think that the term "power" would be pretty obvious. 

I would disagree; it's certainly open to far more interpretation than,
say, "fastest" would be.  "Powerful" certainly doesn't mean "stable" or
"correct" in the dialect of English that I use - can I assume then that
these two goals would take a backseat to that of raw performance?  (If
yes, write it down; if no, write _that_ down... all I'm saying is,
stating *some* philosophy will put the project in a better position than
just assuming it's obvious and hoping everyone else has made the same
assumptions that they have.)

> [...]
> 	I'm sorry, I just don't see the source of confusion.  I don't
> see the floundering.

Do you follow cvs-src@?

-Chris



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041130145130.0aa893f1.cpressey>