[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: stripped OpebBSD and a bit philosophy.
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: RE: stripped OpebBSD and a bit philosophy.
- From: Thomas Ammitzbøll-Bach <thomasj_(_at_)_superusers_(_dot_)_dk>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:32:54 +0100
Sean Cavanaugh [mailto:seanc_(_at_)_unixgeeks_(_dot_)_ca] wrote:
/* Chris Hedemark wrote:
/* > "Sean Cavanaugh" <seanc_(_at_)_unixgeeks_(_dot_)_ca> wrote:
/* > > Seems like every couple of months someone
/* > > suggests making the installer more like x, more
/* user-friendly, etc.
/* > And rather than take that criticism constructively, the
/* established group
/* > pulls this arrogant elitist attitude and nothing good
/* comes of it. Myabe if
/* > the suggestions were evaluatated on their relative merits,
/* and occaisionally
/* > implemented, you wouldn't have the same suggestions every
/* couple of months.
/* Some suggestions are implemented. The problem is that you
/* can't please
/* everybody. This thread illustrates that perfectly. Many people want
/* things changed, many want things to stay the same. If things were
/* changed, then the list would be flooded by people
/* complaining about the
/* changes. It's just human nature...
my 0.02 is this: BSD differs mainly from Linux in this way: Linux
is a kernel and BSD is an operating system. Ofcourse most people
mean Linux + ..., when they say Linux, but that is really the problem
here, because what is "...", and what version (in particular glibc)
are we talking about. I could really agree on that Bind or Apache is
not always nessessary, but you do open a box of problems here.
The simplest OS I have installed was really BeOS. It asked me
plainly of how much space on the disk I wanted to use, and installed
the files and rebooted. Bang, done. To me this an ideal model.
(BeOS is not ideal system in other ways, but...) There is no
granularity here, so the system is the system.
This has two add. advantages: The user knows what (at least) is there.
I have seen stripped system without a vi editor and an awk. So you
basically need to know a variety of editors and can't be sure if a
script can run. The developer (and porter) also knows what is there,
or at least should be there, before someone started rm'ing stuff.
She would also know what version of the different parts is. This makes
things less breakable.
So you really get two things: Easier installation and more consistent
system for the price lesser granularity. It is much easier to argue
a cause, when you have a "canonical" system.
And then you can keep the toys in the ports closet. (Bind and Apache
could arguably be moved to the ports tree, but if you look at the size
of them, well, they don't take much space each, and they don't really
fits in the same (separate) set.)
<!----------------------------- 72 chr ------------------------------->
Thomas Ammitzbøll-Bach, UNIX instructor and consultant.
SuperUsers A/S, Karlebogård, Karlebovej 91, DK-3400 Hillerød.
Visit your host, monkey.org