strip FreeBSD a bit
andreas at freebsd.org
Wed Sep 10 03:50:19 PDT 2003
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:11:06AM +0200, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 08:50:10AM +0200, Andreas Klemm wrote:
> > Christer,
> > I think its a bad idea to remove components from FreeBSD that
> > everybody would expect in a BSD.
> I think there has to be a clear reason if components where removed. This
> still doesn't mean that it couldn't come installed by default. It just
> meant useing the package / port system. Why sould we not use it?
Because breaking BSD into too many little pieces has contra
productive side effects...
All components that you put into the ports system are not
directly maintained by the FreeBSD committers anymore.
Don't forget that not all port committers are FreeBSD committers.
You need more experience in coding if you maintain a complete
OS then to make something to fit under ports control to make
it simply run.
If the software is under CVS control, then many eyes watch the
code from time to time by software review and such ....
And as I said, if I make a complete OS installation then I
expect to get a complete OS in the first place.
And with a complete OS I mean a BSD with its roots and tradition
so that at least it contains all those bits and bytes, that usually
every commercial OS / BSD has or that has been in it since years !
2 or 3 years I installed a RedHat for testing ... well the
basic installation didn't contain even "sed".
And things like this I strongly dislike.
I even dislike that UUCP had to go into ports ... Now you don't
have a standard tool in standard OS install like cu to connect
to serial ports what need for job in the networking area.
But at that time nobody wanted to take care of it, so it has to
go out of CVS not to produce bitrod.
> > I think you touch areas here like tradition ...
> > In Linux its another thing, they don't have such a tradition,
> > since Linux is only a kernel and Linux never defined a Linux
> > basde system. So there you can discuss of having sendmail,
> > exim, postfix or qmail installed by default or not.
> The way the kernel is related to the distribution is totaly irrelevant.
> If you looking for traditions here they sould be in the various
What I mean with tradition is, that an Operating System exists
since a long time and you are used to expect this and that in
And I repeat, Linux is only a kernel, therefore every distribution
maker can't have something like a "normal tradition" since Linux
never defined something like a base system for Linux.
The effects are as I described, missing sed in standard installation
like red hat and bloated installations all around. Many different
flavours of tools in the different Linux installations.
Though the BSD also differ in much things I have the feeling that
they are still much closer to each other than the many many Linuxes
I played with in the past: Slackware, RedHat, SuSE, Knoppix, Gentoo,
Andreas Klemm - Powered by FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT
Need a magic printfilter today ? -> http://www.apsfilter.org/
More information about the freebsd-chat