Not to be a pain, but can you wrap lines at a more standard 74 columns as
opposed to whatever you are currently wrapping them at? Thanks.
On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Jim Bryant wrote:
> Gordon Tetlow wrote:
>
> > As a preface to this whole thing, I find it higly amusing that you are
> > sending this mail from a Linux box. Of course, for that matter, so am I.
> > (I'm planning on changing that soon.)
>
>
> Excuse me?
>
> FreeBSD wahoo.kc.rr.com 5.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #18: Fri Aug 10 16:51:25 CDT
>2001
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/WAHOO i386
>
> When Netscape comes out with support for FreeBSD again, I'll run
> native, until then, I, like everyone else using freebsd am stuck using
> netscape in the COMPATLINUX construct.
>
> Please don't make assumptions about an operating environment without
> understanding the problems of living within that environment.
Ah, my apologies. It's much less amusing now.
> Also, dinosaurs or not, DOD is now an INVESTOR in the FreeBSD system.
> Name any other group besides maybe BSDI that has provided $1.4 million
> [USD] to the project.
Okay, I don't recall the FreeBSD Foundation getting $1.4 mil. I know that
the DOD is sponsoring some TrustedBSD stuff, but where exactly is the
money going?
> We should look towards making FreeBSD the open-source OS of choice in
> the DOD environment, in which Linux has already made major inroads
> where FreeBSD isn't even allowed to tread yet.
>
> Actually, it is up to us to resolve this. I don't think you
> understand how DOD operates. The vendor makes the changes, not DOD.
> Not the admin.
Again, I don't see why we should cater to one specific group of people and
let them dictate the direction of the project.
> Another priority item should be making sure we are compatible with
> such things as the latest versions of Oracle, etc... This is an area
> in which we can compete head-to-head with the high-dollar stuff.
Well, considering that Oracle doesn't publish *anything* for FreeBSD, I
doubt there is anything we can do about it. Veritas NetBackup has a
FreeBSD client (no server). IBM DB2 has no FreeBSD support. Heck, as you
point out Netscape doesn't even make FreeBSD binaries. And you know what?
There's squat that the project can do about it. We can't make companies
support FreeBSD if they don't want to spend the resources for it.
> Also, I havn't worked for DOD in a long time, but I have done recent
> contracts with them, and understand firsthand the BS involved in
> having to do without tools all unix people, including myself, consider
> standard, that are not allowed because it's not part of the base
> install.
>
> Moving the non-GPL shells to /bin is a trivial request that can solve
> problems that you obviously don't understand.
Um, bash is GPL. The reason for not putting it in the base system is due
to licensing restrictions. We try to use as few GPL'd pieces as possible.
After seeing that grep is a GNU tool, I'm almost tempted to try writing a
BSD-style grep for the fun/exercise of it.
> DOD will is a vast new market for FreeBSD, and if we don't think ahead
> now and consider what will make admins recommend FreeBSD over Linux,
> Solaris, or HP-UX, then we'll never reach the kind of market
> penetration that Linux, Solaris, and HP-UX have in the DOD market.
> Key to this is an admin-friendly environment designed to get around
> the pre-cambrian attitudes that prevent DOD admins from using standard
> tools just because it's in the wrong place on the disk array or
> because it's considered a third-party option, or even worse: freeware
> [ooooh! step away from the keyboard, son. you going to prison,
> boy!].
Read my lips (er text, whatever). Bash and other shells are not going to
make it into the base FreeBSD OS. The increasing code base does worry me
though. I'm not a big fan of adding more and more functionality to the
"base." I like the very functional, very useful codebase that we currently
have. You can do alot more with a base FreeBSD installation than you can
with a base Solaris installation (like compile things).
> I'm more for an evolutionary unix where the idea of what's standard
> changes to reflect the needs of it's admins and users in diverse
> environments.
Then feel free to take FreeBSD, tweak it and publish it as DODBSD. By
all means, the license lets you do it.
> I may not be one of the big movers, but I think this is why I do what
> I can to help out with -CURRENT, to move forwards meeting the needs,
> instead of going nowhere due to outdated beliefs "oh, but that belongs
> in /usr/local/bin". If something after years of use becomes a
> standard tool, it needs to be moved into the base distribution. I
> give perl as a prime example of one time that this actually happened,
> despite the arguments for or against perl, it *IS* a standard tool,
> and it *IS* expected to be available.
And for 99.9999999% of the users, they could care less if it's in
/usr/local or in /
And for things that are not in the base system, they belong in /usr/local.
That's the way it's done. If an organization installs a default install of
*any* OS and doesn't make any local modifications, it's their own fault,
not ours. I don't think there is a single box that I don't add some
software too (well, except maybe a dedicated dns server).
> Of course, if my argument is somehow bad, then we do have a real
> dilemma here. Better remove tcsh from /bin at once to clear up this
> dilemma! As I recall the Carnagie-Mellon University tcsh wasn't in
> the original BSD or USG implementation of Unix! Can't be cluttering
> up the tree now, get it outta there! [see how many admins, including
> myself, like that suggestion, after they fought so hard to get it in].
> I recall posting a similar message to this list or -hackers back in
> '94 or '95 to get tcsh into /bin, I also remember people making the
> same argument as you back then. I may be wrong, but I think I even
> recall Terry saying it'd be a bad idea.
I think Terry still complains about it. There were alot of people that
said how it broke POLA to switch csh to tcsh. The same reason why we will
not (for the forseeable future (I hope)) go to using vim instead of nvi in
the base os.
Cheers,
-gordon
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
