Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:47:40 +0200 (CEST) From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: dougb@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Interpreted language(s) in the base Message-ID: <20100816.094740.74728369.sthaug@nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1008152240370.66595@qbhto.arg> References: <4C673898.2080609@FreeBSD.org> <AANLkTim_prShRiHkLnFbhek9%2Beaa-KaJ5oZtNo%2BLd0K1@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1008152240370.66595@qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Personally, I think the whole "base" and "ports" thing is an artificial > divide that is rapidly losing utility. I think we're past due for > stripping the FreeBSD "base" down to a much more bare minimum, and > having a lot more of the bells and whistles live in the ports tree. Strongly disagree. One of the reasons I've been using FreeBSD for many years is precisely the fact that the base system is very good, and contains most of what I need without installing a lot of extra ports/ packages. (Yes, I always end up installing perl, but that is one of a select few.) If I only wanted a kernel and everything else as installable packages, I might as well use one of the Linux distributions. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100816.094740.74728369.sthaug>