On 05/07/2012 10:48, Olivier Smedts wrote:
And it really annoys me too because usually, instead of an immediate
command not found, you've got a reply seconds later if on a not so
fast computer. When working on Ubuntu, after a typo or missing command
I have the time to realize that something
1) XML output from some sysctl variables. It isn't just stupid. It's sad.
2) bsdlabel -e allows editing only when NONE of partitions are open/mounted,
in spite that they are not modified. In FreeBSD 6 it
allowed editing everytime and all worked.
Preventing people doing stupid things would
to me...man pages are -reference- material. They are not intended to be the
'right way' to learn something, but instead as a quick reference guide.
manual pages are intended to PROPERLY describe how program/function etc.
operates.
Of course, I doubt anyone can make a case for the 'one true
I think this is unintentionally specious reasoning. No offense intended. :)
true
The program itself is fairly trivial to write.
i don't need such a tool, but if it would be separate tool, then it is all
right if someone like to write it. This would be unix way.
So it's really not
greatest resistance to writing any documentation.
I'll just note that over the past ~6 months, the documentation team has
seen a lot of new contributors and new energy. So from my view, the
situation is improving.
And is already great. The topic wasn't about documentation.
On 18 Jul 2012 09:39, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
wrote:
I think this is unintentionally specious reasoning. No offense intended.
:)
true
The program itself is fairly trivial to write.
i don't need such a tool, but if it would be separate tool, then it is
all right if
On 07/18/12 01:36, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
not really. the idea was to integrate it with shell and turn on it by
default, prefering newbies over norml users, and making another change
that would actually prevent getting knowledge to newbie.
I don't agree with modifying the shell either, and I
At 19:15 05/07/2012, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 13:09:44 -0400
Jason Hellenthal jhellent...@dataix.net wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 06:19:31PM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
As long as it can be toggled off system-wide, persistently (sysctl?), I
can't see the harm in bringing
the behavior of shells is an even worse idea than turning this nanny
behavior on for everyone.
Add sysctl for apps is a no-no, sysctl is for system control, not userland
still this stupid idea topics continue? Is FreeBSD finally intended
to be unix implementation or feature war with
At 11:25 17/07/2012, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
the behavior of shells is an even worse idea than turning this nanny
behavior on for everyone.
Add sysctl for apps is a no-no, sysctl is for system control, not userland
still this stupid idea topics continue? Is FreeBSD finally intended
to be
On 07/16/12 22:45, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Why not create a command wtf(1)?
there are really lot of good features that can be made in FreeBSD.
actually good, instead of that crap
Unless you have some objective, measurable, and quantifiable definition
of crap, your judgement is a subjective
Why not create a command wtf(1)?
there are really lot of good features that can be made in FreeBSD.
actually good, instead of that crap
While this is certainly not the most important improvement that could
be made (Fix the PRs!), the proposed wtf command could be useful.
And, importantly,
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:32:19 -0400
Dieter BSD dieter...@engineer.com wrote:
Why not create a command wtf(1)?
there are really lot of good features that can be made in FreeBSD.
actually good, instead of that crap
While this is certainly not the most important improvement that could
be made
On 07/17/12 12:35, Mike Meyer wrote:
I'm not going to do this - this is the kind of thing that makes me
loathe Linux. But if you want this functionality in your/the base
system, your first step is clear - write the WTF program! Until that
exists, the rest is just pointless debating.
I think
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:56:33PM -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
I've been using FreeBSD since the 90s. My perception (over many
years of observation) is that the FreeBSD people most able to
document what exists and how to use it seem to also have the
greatest resistance to writing any
On 07/17/2012 01:56 PM, Dave Hayes wrote:
I've been using FreeBSD since the 90s. My perception (over many years of
observation) is that the FreeBSD people most able to document what
exists and how to use it seem to also have the greatest resistance to
writing any documentation.
Writing code
On 07/17/12 15:14, Doug Barton wrote:
Some sources of this are: I rarely read the handbook
So now that we've discussed *our* shortcomings, let's discuss yours. :)
Read the handbook. Seriously.
I should have written that better. I *do* read the handbook; check the
conjunction. I said:
I
On 07/17/2012 03:38 PM, Dave Hayes wrote:
On 07/17/12 15:14, Doug Barton wrote:
Some sources of this are: I rarely read the handbook
So now that we've discussed *our* shortcomings, let's discuss yours. :)
Read the handbook. Seriously.
I should have written that better. I *do* read the
On 07/05/12 02:03, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/05/2012 01:28, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-Jul-05 09:22:25 +0200, Jonathan McKeown
j.mcke...@ru.ac.za wrote:
As for the idea that Linux refugees need extra help to migrate,
that's the sort of thinking that led to things like:
alias dir=ls
Whilst
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Dave Hayes d...@jetcafe.org wrote:
Why not create a command wtf(1)?
When you type it, it detects the shell you are using, looks at the last
command you typed, and provides all sorts of arbitrarily verbose and usable
documentation and suggestions as to what
On 07/16/12 15:16, David Brodbeck wrote:
I suspect you meant this as a sarcastic suggestion, but I actually
like it. It reminds me of AmigaDOS's why command, which would give
a detailed explanation of why the previous command failed.
Actually I meant this as a real suggestion, though I'll
Why not create a command wtf(1)?
there are really lot of good features that can be made in FreeBSD.
actually good, instead of that crap
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To
On Monday 09 July 2012 22:53:14 Doug Barton wrote:
We get it, change is hard.
No, that isn't what I said at all. I was pointing out that there's some
inconsistency between arguing that we need to make things more predictable
for new users, while simultaneously arguing that we should remove
On 07/09/2012 16:45, George Mitchell wrote:
On 07/09/12 17:01, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/09/2012 06:45, Mark Blackman wrote:
Indeed, 'dig' and 'host' must be present and working as expected
in a minimally installed system.
So if you don't like the versions that get imported, install
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
But I think you are wrong about this one aspect of your
proposed change. To discover that dig is suddenly not in the base
FreeBSD system any more some day would be just about the worst
violation of the Principle of Least
On 07/08/2012 23:16, Avleen Vig wrote:
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 07/08/2012 22:43, Avleen Vig wrote:
It would be silly not to keep bind-tools in base.
Sounds easy, but not so much in practice. Keeping any of the code
doesn't solve the problem of
On 07/09/2012 00:34, Avleen Vig wrote:
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 07/08/2012 23:16, Avleen Vig wrote:
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 07/08/2012 22:43, Avleen Vig wrote:
It would be silly not to keep
On 7/9/12 12:44 AM, Dan Lukes wrote:
On 07/08/12 23:55, Doug Barton:
On 07/08/2012 07:41, Dan Lukes wrote:
...
Sorry, you're not understanding what is being proposed. Specifically
you're confusing the system stub resolver (the bit that's compiled into
libc, and used by binaries) and the
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
Unbound has different policies and release schedules that are more in
line with ours. So in the short term (as in, the next few years) we're
better off with unbound in the base.
Where is there information about this / what
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 07/07/2012 16:33, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:17:53 -0700, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org said:
BIND in the base today comes with a full-featured local resolver
configuration, which I'm confident
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/08/2012 10:10, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
From first impression it seems that drill(1) has a syntax that
leaves something to be desired like the eased use of host or dig.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 07/08/2012 22:43, Avleen Vig wrote:
It would be silly not to keep bind-tools in base.
Sounds easy, but not so much in practice. Keeping any of the code
doesn't solve the problem of the release cycles not syncing up. And
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 23:16:04 -0700, Avleen Vig avl...@gmail.com said:
I could care less about the resolver daemon itself, I agree with what
you're saying and I don't think most end users will care about that.
But getting rid of dig and host in base would be bad.
I don't think it's as bad as
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 07/08/2012 23:16, Avleen Vig wrote:
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 07/08/2012 22:43, Avleen Vig wrote:
It would be silly not to keep bind-tools in base.
Sounds easy, but not so
On Monday 09 July 2012 09:34:34 Avleen Vig wrote:
The issue is also one of barrier-to-entry. By removing `dig` and
`host`, I think we're making things unnecessarily more difficult for
people who don't *know* FreeBSD. `dig` and `host` a universally
standard tools for doing DNS lookups. Taking
On 9 Jul 2012, at 08:34, Avleen Vig wrote:
Agreed. The idea of a minimally functional system itself might be
flawed. Do you consider having `dig` and `host` essential in a
minimally functioning system? I do.
It's pretty f'king hard to resolve problems with installing the
bind-utils port,
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Avleen Vig avl...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
The issue is also one of barrier-to-entry. By removing `dig` and
`host`, I think we're making things unnecessarily more difficult for
people who don't *know* FreeBSD. `dig` and `host` a universally
standard tools for
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:42:43AM -0700, Jos Backus wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Avleen Vig avl...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
The issue is also one of barrier-to-entry. By removing `dig` and
`host`, I think we're making things unnecessarily more difficult for
people who
On 2012-Jul-09 14:15:13 +0200, in freebsd-security, Andrej (Andy) Brodnik
and...@brodnik.org wrote:
Excuse my ignorance - but is there a how-to paper on transition from
bind to unbound for SOHO?
In particular, if unbound has no authoritative server capabilities, what
suggestions are there for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/2012 13:47, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-Jul-09 14:15:13 +0200, in freebsd-security, Andrej (Andy)
Brodnik and...@brodnik.org wrote:
Excuse my ignorance - but is there a how-to paper on transition
from bind to unbound for SOHO?
You
On 07/09/2012 06:33, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
On Monday 09 July 2012 09:34:34 Avleen Vig wrote:
The issue is also one of barrier-to-entry. By removing `dig` and
`host`, I think we're making things unnecessarily more difficult for
people who don't *know* FreeBSD. `dig` and `host` a universally
On 07/09/2012 06:45, Mark Blackman wrote:
Indeed, 'dig' and 'host' must be present and working as expected
in a minimally installed system.
So if you don't like the versions that get imported, install bind-tools
from ports.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
On 9 Jul 2012, at 22:01, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/09/2012 06:45, Mark Blackman wrote:
Indeed, 'dig' and 'host' must be present and working as expected
in a minimally installed system.
So if you don't like the versions that get imported, install bind-tools
from ports.
my DNS resolution
On 07/09/12 17:01, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/09/2012 06:45, Mark Blackman wrote:
Indeed, 'dig' and 'host' must be present and working as expected
in a minimally installed system.
So if you don't like the versions that get imported, install bind-tools
from ports.
Doug
Doug, you are one of
what integration are you concerned about?
The utilities (specifically host(1) and dig(1)) are the only
user-visible interfaces I care about. I don't see any need for there
to be an authoritative name server in the base system. So long as the
resolver works properly and does DNSsec
On 8. Jul 2012, at 02:44 , Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 7, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:17:53 -0700, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org said:
BIND in the base today comes with a full-featured local resolver
configuration, which I'm confident that Dag-Erling can
On 7. Jul 2012, at 23:45 , Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/07/2012 16:34, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 7. Jul 2012, at 23:17 , Doug Barton wrote:
Other than authoritative DNS, what features does unbound lack that you want?
DNS64 as a start.
Personally I would classify that as a highly-specialized
On 07/07/2012 19:44, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 7, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:17:53 -0700, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org said:
BIND in the base today comes with a full-featured local resolver
configuration, which I'm confident that Dag-Erling can do for
On 07/08/2012 01:03, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 8. Jul 2012, at 02:44 , Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 7, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:17:53 -0700, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org said:
BIND in the base today comes with a full-featured local resolver
On 07/08/2012 01:07, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 7. Jul 2012, at 23:45 , Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/07/2012 16:34, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 7. Jul 2012, at 23:17 , Doug Barton wrote:
Other than authoritative DNS, what features does unbound lack that you
want?
DNS64 as a start.
Personally
On 07/07/2012 17:35, Adam Vande More wrote:
I am unclear on how this solves the main problem I think was stated
about syncing up with release branches.
I've already explained this at length in the past. ISC has changed both
their release schedule and their policy regarding not allowing new
line with ours. So in the short term (as in, the next few years) we're
better off with unbound in the base.
The ideal, long-term solution is to re-think what The Base is, and
give users more flexibility at install time. Unfortunately, there is a
making base as minimal as possible give you
On 07/07/2012 17:47, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
On 2012-07-07 16:45, Doug Barton wrote:
Also re DNSSEC integration in the base, I've stated before that I
believe very strongly that any kind of hard-coding of trust anchors as
part of the base resolver setup is a bad idea, and should not be done.
We
On 5 July 2012 01:30, Tim Kientzle t...@kientzle.com wrote:
On Jul 4, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 03:59:29PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/04/2012 15:55, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
Seeing as sudo plays a big part of this
No ... not only is sudo not a
On 2012-07-08 02:31, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/07/2012 17:47, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
On 2012-07-07 16:45, Doug Barton wrote:
Also re DNSSEC integration in the base, I've stated before that I
believe very strongly that any kind of hard-coding of trust anchors as
part of the base resolver setup is
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 02:21:46AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/08/2012 01:03, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 8. Jul 2012, at 02:44 , Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 7, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:17:53 -0700, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org
said:
The ideal, long-term solution is to re-think what The Base is, and
give users more flexibility at install time.
Flexibility is double-edged sword.
Feel free to replace one resolver with another resolver (but don't do it
so often, please). Applications can be patched to fit new API, scripts
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 02:31:17 -0700, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org said:
Neither of which has any relevance to the actual root zone ZSK, which
could require an emergency roll tomorrow.
Surely that's why there's a separate KSK. The ZSK can be rolled at
any time.
-GAWollman
On 2012.07.08. 1:17, Doug Barton wrote:
Other than authoritative DNS, what features does unbound lack that you want?
[Picking up a random mail from the thread.]
Other than the functionality, when we replace something, it is also
important to do some benchmarks and assure that the performance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/08/2012 10:10, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
From first impression it seems that drill(1) has a syntax that
leaves something to be desired like the eased use of host or dig.
So once again, if you need the exact capabilities of ISC host and dig,
On 07/08/2012 10:43, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 02:31:17 -0700, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org said:
Neither of which has any relevance to the actual root zone ZSK, which
could require an emergency roll tomorrow.
Surely that's why there's a separate KSK. The ZSK can be
On 07/08/2012 13:25, Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
On 2012.07.08. 1:17, Doug Barton wrote:
Other than authoritative DNS, what features does unbound lack that you
want?
[Picking up a random mail from the thread.]
Other than the functionality, when we replace something, it is also
important to do
On 07/08/2012 07:41, Dan Lukes wrote:
The ideal, long-term solution is to re-think what The Base is, and
give users more flexibility at install time.
Flexibility is double-edged sword.
Feel free to replace one resolver with another resolver (but don't do it
so often, please). Applications
On 07/08/12 23:55, Doug Barton:
On 07/08/2012 07:41, Dan Lukes wrote:
...
Sorry, you're not understanding what is being proposed. Specifically
you're confusing the system stub resolver (the bit that's compiled into
libc, and used by binaries) and the resolving name server (BIND). No one
is
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 02:39:55PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/08/2012 10:10, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
From first impression it seems that drill(1) has a syntax that
leaves something to be desired like the eased use of host or dig.
So once again, if you need the exact capabilities of
On 07/08/2012 22:43, Avleen Vig wrote:
It would be silly not to keep bind-tools in base.
Sounds easy, but not so much in practice. Keeping any of the code
doesn't solve the problem of the release cycles not syncing up. And for
the vast majority of users needs the tools we will import will be
something they probably don't even know about, than to skilled users to
turn it off.
If this feature is going to prints quite a few extra lines, let's just
add one more line saying:
To disable this message run: echo set 31337mode ~/.tcshrc
--
should i - from now, understand that this
On Jul 7, 2012 10:25 AM, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
wrote:
something they probably don't even know about, than to skilled users to
turn it off.
If this feature is going to prints quite a few extra lines, let's just
add one more line saying:
To disable this
This is not 'going down'. This is adding features to help newcomers. You are
free to disable them. It will not remove anything
this doesn't help newcomers. Just like easy installers, desktop
environments and so on.
this only generate herds of morons that know FreeBSD and dissolve real
user
On Jul 7, 2012 10:46 AM, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
wrote:
This is not 'going down'. This is adding features to help newcomers.
You are free to disable them. It will not remove anything
this doesn't help newcomers. Just like easy installers, desktop
environments and so on.
this only generate herds of morons that know FreeBSD and dissolve real user
base.
What is the 'real user base?' People who insult newcomers and call them
morons? People who consider it cool to use a OS that is
unnecessarily difficult to learn?
in your way of seeing reality - probably
On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 11:25:07AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
something they probably don't even know about, than to skilled users to
turn it off.
If this feature is going to prints quite a few extra lines, let's just
add one more line saying:
To disable this message run: echo
starting now, we try hard to make FreeBSD easier to use, more consistent
and friendlier in general for a long time now.
In your terminology making FreeBSD easier for newcomers is going
down implies that going up is to make it harder for newcomer.
No. It just quickly eliminate 99% of newcomers
On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 10:17:22PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 12:15:44PM +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
On Thursday 05 July 2012 11:03:32 Doug Barton wrote:
If the new feature gets created, and you don't want to use it, turn it
off. No problem.
No. I
On 3. Jul 2012, at 12:39 , Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org writes:
The correct solution to this problem is to remove BIND from the base
altogether, but I have no energy for all the whinging that would happen
if I tried (again) to do that.
I don't think there will
On 07/07/2012 14:16, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 3. Jul 2012, at 12:39 , Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org writes:
The correct solution to this problem is to remove BIND from the base
altogether, but I have no energy for all the whinging that would happen
if I tried
On 7. Jul 2012, at 23:17 , Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/07/2012 14:16, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 3. Jul 2012, at 12:39 , Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org writes:
The correct solution to this problem is to remove BIND from the base
altogether, but I have no energy for
On 07/07/2012 16:33, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:17:53 -0700, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org said:
BIND in the base today comes with a full-featured local resolver
configuration, which I'm confident that Dag-Erling can do for unbound
(and which I would be glad to assist with
On 07/07/2012 16:34, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 7. Jul 2012, at 23:17 , Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/07/2012 14:16, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 3. Jul 2012, at 12:39 , Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org writes:
The correct solution to this problem is to remove BIND from the
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:17:53 -0700, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org said:
BIND in the base today comes with a full-featured local resolver
configuration, which I'm confident that Dag-Erling can do for unbound
(and which I would be glad to assist with if needed). Other than that,
what
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 07/07/2012 16:34, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 7. Jul 2012, at 23:17 , Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/07/2012 14:16, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 3. Jul 2012, at 12:39 , Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Doug Barton
On 2012-07-07 16:45, Doug Barton wrote:
Also re DNSSEC integration in the base, I've stated before that I
believe very strongly that any kind of hard-coding of trust anchors as
part of the base resolver setup is a bad idea, and should not be done.
We need to leverage the ports system for this so
On Jul 7, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:17:53 -0700, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org said:
BIND in the base today comes with a full-featured local resolver
configuration, which I'm confident that Dag-Erling can do for unbound
(and which I would be glad to
On Thursday 05 July 2012 20:08:36 Eitan Adler wrote
The system should be optimized for new users by default.
No. People aren't new users for long.This makes a lot more sense:
On Thursday 05 July 2012 19:31:17 Garrett Cooper wrote
Here's a *random* thought to consider. This seems like a
2012/7/6 Mateusz Guzik mjgu...@gmail.com:
and add a hook to the shell that prints the following:
Command foo not found. Run pkg whatever foo to obtain list of ports/packages
providing this program.
No overhead, the message is not too long and can be disabled if someone
finds it offensive.
want -- so maybe the feature should exist (but be off) in FreeBSD and
exist (and be on) in custom FreeBSD distros where users aren't
necessarily expected to know FreeBSD.
This is the most sensible suggestion I've seen in this conversation so far.
indeed this:
---
custom FreeBSD
Jonathan McKeown writes:
No. I think this is entirely the wrong way round. If the new
feature is created and you want it, turn it on.
Commonly known as opt in.
Robert Huff
___
The system should be optimized for new users by default. Whether this
means enabling or disabling a feature is feature-specific.
with such attitude it will not take long to turn FreeBSD to useless thing,
not really different from linux or windows, and about as useful
On Jul 6, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
The system should be optimized for new users by default. Whether this
means enabling or disabling a feature is feature-specific.
with such attitude it will not take long to turn FreeBSD to useless thing,
not really different from linux
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 12:10:17AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 4, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/04/2012 15:01, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:19:38 -0700
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 07/04/2012 11:51, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
What would be
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 12:15:44PM +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
On Thursday 05 July 2012 11:03:32 Doug Barton wrote:
If the new feature gets created, and you don't want to use it, turn it
off. No problem.
No. I think this is entirely the wrong way round. If the new feature is
created
On Jul 4, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/04/2012 15:01, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:19:38 -0700
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 07/04/2012 11:51, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
What would be really nice here is a command wrapper hooked into the
shell so that when
On Thursday 05 July 2012 08:10:17 Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 4, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
First, I agree that being able to turn it off should be possible. But I
can't help being curious ... why would you *not* want a feature that
tells you what to install if you type a command
On 2012-Jul-05 09:22:25 +0200, Jonathan McKeown j.mcke...@ru.ac.za wrote:
As for the idea that Linux refugees need extra help to migrate, that's the
sort of thinking that led to things like:
alias dir=ls
Whilst we're on the subject, can we please also have
#define BEGIN {
#define END }
wired
On 07/05/2012 01:28, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-Jul-05 09:22:25 +0200, Jonathan McKeown
j.mcke...@ru.ac.za wrote:
As for the idea that Linux refugees need extra help to migrate,
that's the sort of thinking that led to things like:
alias dir=ls
Whilst we're on the subject, can we please
On Thursday 05 Jul 2012 13:09:05 per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
... something like this would be *really* valuable to ease
the transition for people coming from a Linux background.
I'm sure some folks here would count this as a reason *not*
to provide it
2012/7/5 Mike Meyer m...@mired.org:
My objection was not due to misunderstanding about auto-install. I
find the feature annoying - spewing a bunch of crap at me because of a
typo. It annoys me far more often than it actually helps me, because
more often than not the missing command is a typo,
2012/7/5 Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org:
On 07/04/2012 15:01, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:19:38 -0700
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 07/04/2012 11:51, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
What would be really nice here is a command wrapper hooked into the
shell so that when you type
On Thursday 05 July 2012 11:03:32 Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/05/2012 01:28, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-Jul-05 09:22:25 +0200, Jonathan McKeown
j.mcke...@ru.ac.za wrote:
As for the idea that Linux refugees need extra help to migrate,
that's the sort of thinking that led to things like:
On Jul 5, 2012 11:16 AM, Jonathan McKeown j.mcke...@ru.ac.za wrote:
On Thursday 05 July 2012 11:03:32 Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/05/2012 01:28, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-Jul-05 09:22:25 +0200, Jonathan McKeown
j.mcke...@ru.ac.za wrote:
As for the idea that Linux refugees need extra
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
