On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:47:33 -0500 Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I love when people say "I've been using arch for a week and it's cool, > but can you change *this*, *this*, and *this*?" > I know what you mean. But in this case I want to contribute too. > Even better is when people say "let's do this like FreeBSD, and this > like FreeBSD, and this too" - why not use FreeBSD? > Personally I want arch to do things a bit more like FreeBSD becuse I use FreeBSD, and I like the way they solve things. But with that said, I dont think they do it right all the way. Therefore I want to suggest how *I* think would be best. What I think is best, does not mean everybody else feels the same way. > The fact of the matter is that everyone who's been using arch for over > a few months is using it because they're happy with it... > That is correct. > Suggesting changes like this, which frankly won't make one bit of > difference (hey, bash is now in the [base] repo instead of [current] - > woohoo) is counterproductive > I should probably tell why I think that. FreeBSD is a OS, and not just a kernel like linux. FreeBSD`s base is just a compliation of both BSD programs (and libs) and GNU program and libs. Without ports FreeBSD is almost useless. I want it that way so people can easely see the difference between the *OS* and "3rd party" applications and libraries. What i tried to tell (but didnt) is to keep the number of reposteries at a minimum. note: I like Arch, but it is not perfect (what is?) - I want to tell what *I* think is the best, and there is no objective way to tell it. I also want to help making the changes, not just tell what and what not to do. What else can I do? It seems pretty useless to fork Arch. I want comments for my views, and I`m grateful for your comments. -- cso _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
