Dear Paul,

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:43:48PM -0600, Paul Seniura wrote:
> It seems NetBSD and OpenBSD continue to include
> telnet+telnetd+tn3270 together under one subdir as part of
> /src/usr.bin -- but FreeBSD moved only the telnet[d] pieces
> to /src/contrib/telnet and eliminated the tn3270 pieces completely.
> 
> (I haven't dug too deep yet in the libtelnet tree, which is one
> piece that FreeBSD does retain as other BSDs have it. 
> But for right now let's stick to the command & daemon parts.)
> 
> I'm seriously debating in my head whether FreeBSD should add back
> the tn3270 pieces to /src/contrib/telnet so that we can match the
> other BSDs albeit in the 'contrib' subtree.

I don't understand the word albeit in this line. English is not my
native language, sorry.

Why do you want so much for all different groups to be alike?

It seem to me that differences are natural when you have diffenent
groups. NetBSD and OpenBSD didn't have ports when FreeBSD started with
the use of ports. And this now is very succeful. We whould have missed
this if all we did was be like the others.

I personal feel that getting stuff out of the base system and in to the
port tree is a good thing if it is posible. This is more modulair and
thus is much more flexible. I see this as a good thing.

Why should this ports be in the base system? Just because NetBSD or
OpenBSD do? FreeBSD is not OpenBSD or NetBSD

-- 
Alex

Articles based on solutions that I use:
http://www.kruijff.org/alex/index.php?dir=docs/FreeBSD/
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to