Re: Weird entry in ISO
After reading all entries written by Przemyslaw, I would rather shorten legendary Shut up and hack! to Shut up!. Where is your netiquette? --- I also don't like lynx mc often doesn't even work (OTB) in cli under DF /where it works fine in X/.
Venom [Re: Weird entry in ISO]
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:06:20 +0200 klanger klan...@wp.pl wrote: After reading all entries written by Przemyslaw, I would rather shorten legendary Shut up and hack! to Shut up!. Where is your netiquette? Clangor, please do not hide yourself after your nick. Poles like you are known (within Poles of course) to Vaseline/sycophant attitudes to foreigners. I do not understand only one thing. Why do you spit out your venom ad personam not contributing to development. I found bugs, they were confirmed. It is a plus for DFBSD, does it matter what your impressons are reading my langage? --- I also don't like lynx mc often doesn't even work (OTB) in cli under DF /where it works fine in X/. You may even do not like your own ass but why I have to know about it? Do not litter my box with such junk mails. PLease. -- Przemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2) [pron. Pshemislav Paveltchick] http://pp.blast.pl, pp...@o2.pl pgpmLlk7vgAP6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Weird entry in ISO
* klanger wrote: After reading all entries written by Przemyslaw, I would rather shorten legendary Shut up and hack! to Shut up!. Where is your netiquette? You (!) should have a look at the netiquette. Even if one likes his suggestions or not, its not polite to insult someone on a public mailing list. Moreover he spotted a bug in a man page and in the installer, so not bad for a thread about software in the base installation. Matthias
Re: Venom [Re: Weird entry in ISO]
I was talking about a way of saying things - with anger or rather attack. You are Matthias correct - I shouldn't have answer in this way. Sorry for that, it was stupid and not mature. Dnia 27-09-2010 o 16:23:21 Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl napisał(a): On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:06:20 +0200 klanger klan...@wp.pl wrote: After reading all entries written by Przemyslaw, I would rather shorten legendary Shut up and hack! to Shut up!. Where is your netiquette? Clangor, please do not hide yourself after your nick. Poles like you are known (within Poles of course) to Vaseline/sycophant attitudes to foreigners. I do not understand only one thing. Why do you spit out your venom ad personam not contributing to development. I found bugs, they were confirmed. It is a plus for DFBSD, does it matter what your impressons are reading my langage? --- I also don't like lynx mc often doesn't even work (OTB) in cli under DF /where it works fine in X/. You may even do not like your own ass but why I have to know about it? Do not litter my box with such junk mails. PLease. -- Używam klienta poczty Opera Mail: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: Weird entry in ISO
I was talking about a way of saying things - with anger or rather attack. You are Matthias correct - I shouldn't have answer in this way. Sorry for that, it was stupid and not mature. -- Używam klienta poczty Opera Mail: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Weird entry in ISO
Hi, Three questions. 1. I opened DFBSD x64 ISO in latest Red Hat Linux (Scientific Linux 5.5) under the control of Midnight Commander and saw the following entries within file lists (in MC panel): ... [ -200 00 ] cpio [ -201 00] mailq etc ... What does it mean? 2. Why there is no Lynx (text web browser with HTTPS) and MC (Midnight Commander) in basic set of applications on DFBSD x64 ISO CD? Only OpenBSD decided to attach Lynx but no MC, afaik, NetBSD didn't applied the tools as well. I tried to check DFBSD on my PC but it didn't recognize IP sent by DHCP from my PC router, I had to find dhclient first and run it manually. In such moments the MC would be like Swiss Army Knife, adding that I am much attached to it. I run every possible apps or tools from MC. It saves time. Similarly, reading documentation from DFBSD website would be possible having Lynx at hand when there is no other PC around. 3. I tried DFBSD 2.6.3. After I got network from my home network I tried to download MC using pkg_radd. Alas, I got message that MC is not compatible with my system, or samething like that - I will check the issue later when I will try DFBSD x86_64 contained on latest ISO (2.7.x?). How come? Regards -- Przemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2) [pron. Pshemislav Paveltchick] http://pp.blast.pl, pp...@o2.pl pgp8wnkLwXPzP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Weird entry in ISO
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 02:04:25PM +0200, Przemys??aw Pawe??czyk wrote: Hi, Three questions. 1. I opened DFBSD x64 ISO in latest Red Hat Linux (Scientific Linux 5.5) under the control of Midnight Commander and saw the following entries within file lists (in MC panel): ... [ -200 00 ] cpio [ -201 00] mailq etc ... What does it mean? I don't know. I don't use MC. 2. Why there is no Lynx (text web browser with HTTPS) and MC (Midnight Commander) in basic set of applications on DFBSD x64 ISO CD? We have very limited resources which makes adding every bell and whistle that people might want untenable. Thus we rely on pkgsrc for these sorts of applications. It is my opinion that one should do one's best to know and use the least common denominator in unix utilities for the best cross-implementation experience. Joe
Re: Weird entry in ISO
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:18:32 -0400 Joe Talbott jose...@cstone.net wrote: On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 02:04:25PM +0200, Przemys??aw Pawe??czyk wrote: Hi, Three questions. 1. I opened DFBSD x64 ISO in latest Red Hat Linux (Scientific Linux 5.5) under the control of Midnight Commander and saw the following entries within file lists (in MC panel): ... [ -200 00 ] cpio [ -201 00] mailq etc ... What does it mean? I don't know. I don't use MC. I've met the write for the first time in my life. But I _do_ use MC. 2. Why there is no Lynx (text web browser with HTTPS) and MC (Midnight Commander) in basic set of applications on DFBSD x64 ISO CD? We have very limited resources which makes adding every bell and whistle that people might want untenable. Thus we rely on pkgsrc for these sorts of applications. It is my opinion that one should do one's best to know and use the least common denominator in unix utilities for the best cross-implementation experience. I know, and I would expect such answer. No offense please, but for how long yet such attitude will prevail in Unix community? It lingers from 80s of the last... Cenury of the last Millennium. ;-) Regards -- Przemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2) [pron. Pshemislav Paveltchick] http://pp.blast.pl, pp...@o2.pl pgp72AuVq9AXn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Weird entry in ISO
On 24/09/10 13:37, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote: I know, and I would expect such answer. No offense please, but for how long yet such attitude will prevail in Unix community? It lingers from 80s of the last... Cenury of the last Millennium. ;-) Sorry, but I simply fail to see why we need 'mc' and 'lynx' in base. If someone can't use the standard unix commands, he should possibly learn before using a unix system. In any case, you are free to install whatever software you want/need, and that's the main reason why we don't 'need' to ship 'mc', 'lynx' and similar stuff. Regarding your pkg_radd problem, just use pkg_radd -f. You just have the wrong package repo or so in use. Regards, Alex
Re: Weird entry in ISO
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:43:26 +0100 Alex Hornung ahorn...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/09/10 13:37, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote: I know, and I would expect such answer. No offense please, but for how long yet such attitude will prevail in Unix community? It lingers from 80s of the last... Cenury of the last Millennium. ;-) Sorry, but I simply fail to see why we need 'mc' and 'lynx' in base. If someone can't use the standard unix commands, he should possibly learn before using a unix system. The same pervasive attitude... You failed but I did not fail, the more so I explained in plain English (I hope) why the toots might be helpful. I know standard unix commands I program in shell. Does it mean that I should stick to them for full 50 years of my life? Pathetic... Of course, I am not so stupid to bang my head onto concrete wall of chastity of Unix diehard users. BTW. I do not want to creat another thread not be slamed for my uncouth character. It would be nice and convenient for ***ME*** if the DFBSD used the idea of system software chunks aka sets conjured up by NetBSD and OpenBSD teams. Why not creat one more set of useful tools with Lynx, MC, and other apps? CD size is big and modern networks provide fast downloads. Sorry, but I simply did not fail to see that DFBSD system might gain having such tools distibuted on its ISO and be the leader on the BSD trek of all BSD flavors. For all those like me who like to use mc or lynx. We have the right to breath too, haven't we? Regards -- Przemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2) [pron. Pshemislav Paveltchick] http://pp.blast.pl, pp...@o2.pl pgpISy7hY9TeH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Weird entry in ISO
On Fri, September 24, 2010 8:37 am, PrzemysÅaw PaweÅczyk wrote: I know, and I would expect such answer. No offense please, but for how long yet such attitude will prevail in Unix community? It lingers from 80s of the last... Cenury of the last Millennium. ;-) The LiveDVD image (dfly-gui-*) comes with preinstalled packages, including a web browser. I don't think MC's on there but it should be easy to add. Except there doesn't seem to be one for 2.6 - the build for it must have not worked? The error you saw was probably from a pkg_install version check; you can rebuild/upgrade it locally, and then things should work. pkg_install recently had a version check introduced where other packages won't be installed if they were built with a newer version, so it has to be upgraded first.
Re: Weird entry in ISO
2010/9/24 Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:43:26 +0100 Alex Hornung ahorn...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/09/10 13:37, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote: I know, and I would expect such answer. No offense please, but for how long yet such attitude will prevail in Unix community? It lingers from 80s of the last... Cenury of the last Millennium. ;-) There is a very specific and very good reason why the Unix community has this attitude and it has prevailed for so long. Did you ever consider what it might be? Importing software and even seemingly simple defaults, like making software required for things like our LiveDVD, increases our maintenance burden. Our maintenance burden is already too high. Sam
Re: Weird entry in ISO
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:07:50 +0200 Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:43:26 +0100 Alex Hornung ahorn...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/09/10 13:37, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote: I know, and I would expect such answer. No offense please, but for how long yet such attitude will prevail in Unix community? It lingers from 80s of the last... Cenury of the last Millennium. ;-) Sorry, but I simply fail to see why we need 'mc' and 'lynx' in base. If someone can't use the standard unix commands, he should possibly learn before using a unix system. The same pervasive attitude... You failed but I did not fail, the more so I explained in plain English (I hope) why the toots might be helpful. I know standard unix commands I program in shell. Does it mean that I should stick to them for full 50 years of my life? Pathetic... Not at all - just because these tools are not in the base system does not mean they're not easily available just install them with pkg_radd or pkgin or build them yourself (cd /usr/pkgsrc/sysutils/mc; bmake install clean clean-depends). Of course, I am not so stupid to bang my head onto concrete wall of chastity of Unix diehard users. Nobody is suggesting that these tools aren't useful - just that there's no compelling reason to put them in the base system when they can be so easily added from pkgsrc where they are well maintained without distracting the DragonFly developers from developing DragonFly. It would be nice and convenient for ***ME*** if the DFBSD used the idea of system software chunks aka sets conjured up by NetBSD and OpenBSD teams. Why not creat one more set of useful tools with Lynx, MC, and other apps? CD size is big and modern networks provide fast downloads. DragonFly does support building ISOs with a configurable set of packages pre-installed. Installing packages is easy once the base system is installed so there's no particular reason to add to the base. Sorry, but I simply did not fail to see that DFBSD system might gain having such tools distibuted on its ISO and be the leader on the BSD trek of all BSD flavors. For all those like me who like to use mc or lynx. We have the right to breath too, haven't we? The problem here is that it's an endless cycle which culminates in an install that needs a blu-ray disc and comes with everything under the sun pre-installed. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins.|licences available see You lose and Bill collects. |http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Weird entry in ISO
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:13:57 -0400 Justin C. Sherrill jus...@shiningsilence.com wrote: The error you saw was probably from a pkg_install version check; you can rebuild/upgrade it locally, and then things should work. pkg_install recently had a version check introduced where other packages won't be installed if they were built with a newer version, so it has to be upgraded first. Decidedly the remarks should be incorporated into installation manual and engraved on DF download page. Thanks. -- Przemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2) [pron. Pshemislav Paveltchick] http://pp.blast.pl, pp...@o2.pl pgpBD2ZKKlk4l.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Weird entry in ISO
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:28:16 +0100 Steve O'Hara-Smith st...@sohara.org wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:07:50 +0200 Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:43:26 +0100 Alex Hornung ahorn...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/09/10 13:37, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote: I know, and I would expect such answer. No offense please, but for how long yet such attitude will prevail in Unix community? It lingers from 80s of the last... Cenury of the last Millennium. ;-) Sorry, but I simply fail to see why we need 'mc' and 'lynx' in base. If someone can't use the standard unix commands, he should possibly learn before using a unix system. The same pervasive attitude... You failed but I did not fail, the more so I explained in plain English (I hope) why the toots might be helpful. I know standard unix commands I program in shell. Does it mean that I should stick to them for full 50 years of my life? Pathetic... Not at all - just because these tools are not in the base system does not mean they're not easily available just install them with pkg_radd or pkgin or build them yourself (cd /usr/pkgsrc/sysutils/mc; bmake install clean clean-depends). Let me show you a real example, I did stuck with no network during installation. DF is new to me. Unix commands like dhclient are not available though paths so I had to find it. The DF tree is different from other systems. Using MC I get broader picture of system dir layout and their contents - I get two panes with a lot of information - and I am not coerced to wander thru subdirectories typing cd and ls like idiot (not as bad as I would be getting acquainted with DF bowels but MC is more convenient). Of course, I am not so stupid to bang my head onto concrete wall of chastity of Unix diehard users. Nobody is suggesting that these tools aren't useful - just that there's no compelling reason to put them in the base system when they can be so easily added from pkgsrc where they are well maintained without distracting the DragonFly developers from developing DragonFly. If there is no problem for me installing it via pkgsrc the more so there wouldn't be a problem for developers. If I got the network working I wouldn't noticed how badly I miss my MC. ;-) It would be nice and convenient for ***ME*** if the DFBSD used the idea of system software chunks aka sets conjured up by NetBSD and OpenBSD teams. Why not creat one more set of useful tools with Lynx, MC, and other apps? CD size is big and modern networks provide fast downloads. DragonFly does support building ISOs with a configurable set of packages pre-installed. Installing packages is easy once the base system is installed so there's no particular reason to add to the base. I didn't say about packages but about sets: http://ftp.bytemine.net/pub/OpenBSD/4.7/amd64/ What about DF basic system software divided into sets similar to sets found in OpenBSD? Sorry, but I simply did not fail to see that DFBSD system might gain having such tools distibuted on its ISO and be the leader on the BSD trek of all BSD flavors. For all those like me who like to use mc or lynx. We have the right to breath too, haven't we? The problem here is that it's an endless cycle which culminates in an install that needs a blu-ray disc and comes with everything under the sun pre-installed. Why everyone sees the issue of extra tools as a point boiled down to extreme end? It is not an argument during such discussion if any. Did I ask for all the blobs lurking on the IT market? Regards -- Przemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2) [pron. Pshemislav Paveltchick] http://pp.blast.pl, pp...@o2.pl pgpPGsff5Gqr9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Weird entry in ISO
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:27:20 -0600 Samuel J. Greear s...@evilcode.net wrote: 2010/9/24 Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:43:26 +0100 Alex Hornung ahorn...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/09/10 13:37, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote: I know, and I would expect such answer. No offense please, but for how long yet such attitude will prevail in Unix community? It lingers from 80s of the last... Cenury of the last Millennium. ;-) There is a very specific and very good reason why the Unix community has this attitude and it has prevailed for so long. Did you ever consider what it might be? Importing software and even seemingly simple defaults, like making software required for things like our LiveDVD, increases our maintenance burden. Our maintenance burden is already too high. Sam Thanks Sam. No more question then from my side concerning additional software. I hope the DF installation will always work. And me naiive thought adding mc and lynx would be a trivial task, well, they say that man learns through all his life. ;-) Regards -- Przemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2) [pron. Pshemislav Paveltchick] http://pp.blast.pl, pp...@o2.pl pgp62yD9LK7jw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Weird entry in ISO
What about DF basic system software divided into sets similar to sets found in OpenBSD? You got metapackages in pkg_src Sorry, but I simply did not fail to see that DFBSD system might gain having such tools distibuted on its ISO and be the leader on the BSD trek of all BSD flavors. For all those like me who like to use mc or lynx. We have the right to breath too, haven't we? The more important reason i see is... Its a lot harder to remove a package than install it. And if you working with servers you dont want loose ends. Regards Damian -- http://dfbsd.trackbsd.org.ar
Re: Weird entry in ISO
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:04:14 -0300 Sdävtaker sdavta...@gmail.com wrote: What about DF basic system software divided into sets similar to sets found in OpenBSD? You got metapackages in pkg_src Sorry, but I simply did not fail to see that DFBSD system might gain having such tools distibuted on its ISO and be the leader on the BSD trek of all BSD flavors. For all those like me who like to use mc or lynx. We have the right to breath too, haven't we? The more important reason i see is... Its a lot harder to remove a package than install it. And if you working with servers you dont want loose ends. I do not think OpenBSD and NetBSD teams didn't think it over. After all the packages aka sets are destined for CD for faster installation. Having dozens of servers under your control you can install what you need but after that you can download or upgrade every application with its dependencies not adhering to sets. Perhaps I forget something again, I hope not. ;-) Regards -- Przemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2) [pron. Pshemislav Paveltchick] http://pp.blast.pl, pp...@o2.pl pgpRHI29TqZSp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Weird entry in ISO
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:53:14 +0200 Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:28:16 +0100 Steve O'Hara-Smith st...@sohara.org wrote: The problem here is that it's an endless cycle which culminates in an install that needs a blu-ray disc and comes with everything under the sun pre-installed. Why everyone sees the issue of extra tools as a point boiled down to extreme end? It is not an argument during such discussion if any. Did I ask for all the blobs lurking on the IT market? It's simple - you want mc and lynx, someone else wants bash and vim, someone else wants links and emacs, another person wants TeX, and screen ... -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins.|licences available see You lose and Bill collects. |http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Weird entry in ISO
2010/9/24 Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:28:16 +0100 Steve O'Hara-Smith st...@sohara.org wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:07:50 +0200 Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:43:26 +0100 Alex Hornung ahorn...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/09/10 13:37, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote: I know, and I would expect such answer. No offense please, but for how long yet such attitude will prevail in Unix community? It lingers from 80s of the last... Cenury of the last Millennium. ;-) Sorry, but I simply fail to see why we need 'mc' and 'lynx' in base. If someone can't use the standard unix commands, he should possibly learn before using a unix system. The same pervasive attitude... You failed but I did not fail, the more so I explained in plain English (I hope) why the toots might be helpful. I know standard unix commands I program in shell. Does it mean that I should stick to them for full 50 years of my life? Pathetic... Not at all - just because these tools are not in the base system does not mean they're not easily available just install them with pkg_radd or pkgin or build them yourself (cd /usr/pkgsrc/sysutils/mc; bmake install clean clean-depends). Let me show you a real example, I did stuck with no network during installation. DF is new to me. Unix commands like dhclient are not available though paths so I had to find it. The DF tree is different from other systems. If you will read first before doing something then you will find this page http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/newhandbook/Installation/ where is even description how to enable network after install. DF tree is not so different from that one in OpenBSD. You can read man page (which has same name as in OpenBSD) here too http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=hiersection=ANY Using MC I get broader picture of system dir layout and their contents - I get two panes with a lot of information - and I am not coerced to wander thru subdirectories typing cd and ls like idiot (not as bad as I would be getting acquainted with DF bowels but MC is more convenient). I don't like MC. I prefer simple terminal with tmux(1) and couple of commands like ls(1) and similar. If I need explorer-like then I'm using xfe. And what? It's my choice. It doesn't need to be same for all. MC is not a holly cow of Unix. Of course, I am not so stupid to bang my head onto concrete wall of chastity of Unix diehard users. Nobody is suggesting that these tools aren't useful - just that there's no compelling reason to put them in the base system when they can be so easily added from pkgsrc where they are well maintained without distracting the DragonFly developers from developing DragonFly. If there is no problem for me installing it via pkgsrc the more so there wouldn't be a problem for developers. If I got the network working I wouldn't noticed how badly I miss my MC. ;-) It would be nice and convenient for ***ME*** if the DFBSD used the idea of system software chunks aka sets conjured up by NetBSD and OpenBSD teams. Why not creat one more set of useful tools with Lynx, MC, and other apps? CD size is big and modern networks provide fast downloads. DragonFly does support building ISOs with a configurable set of packages pre-installed. Installing packages is easy once the base system is installed so there's no particular reason to add to the base. I didn't say about packages but about sets: http://ftp.bytemine.net/pub/OpenBSD/4.7/amd64/ What about DF basic system software divided into sets similar to sets found in OpenBSD? And why? Because everything must be as in OpenBSD? Hint: My only OS is OpenBSD, but I like a lot of features in Dfly and a way of its developers in some areas. Sorry, but I simply did not fail to see that DFBSD system might gain having such tools distibuted on its ISO and be the leader on the BSD trek of all BSD flavors. For all those like me who like to use mc or lynx. We have the right to breath too, haven't we? The problem here is that it's an endless cycle which culminates in an install that needs a blu-ray disc and comes with everything under the sun pre-installed. Why everyone sees the issue of extra tools as a point boiled down to extreme end? It is not an argument during such discussion if any. Did I ask for all the blobs lurking on the IT market? Yes, it's possible to create something like Solaris installer where install or upgrade takes forever and after that you have disk full of unneeded stuff, but again - why? Dfly's target is not super-duper OS with every possible piece of SW from the market. It's not problem to create Ubuntu-like OS, but some people/users/developers prefer funcionality/quality/simplicity instead of over-bloated crap. And yes, lynx in OpenBSD base install is fine, but they have much more developers and money from users so if you want it
Re: Weird entry in ISO
On Friday 24 September 2010 10:17:45 Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: It's simple - you want mc and lynx, someone else wants bash and vim, someone else wants links and emacs, another person wants TeX, and screen ... I think that the CD should have pkgin and install it. Any packages like mc and screen we could put as package files in a separate directory on the CD and have pkgin look for them on the CD if the network isn't available. Pierre -- The Black Garden on the Mountain is not on the Black Mountain.
Re: Weird entry in ISO
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:38:02 -0400 Pierre Abbat p...@phma.optus.nu wrote: On Friday 24 September 2010 10:17:45 Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: It's simple - you want mc and lynx, someone else wants bash and vim, someone else wants links and emacs, another person wants TeX, and screen ... I think that the CD should have pkgin and install it. Any packages like mc and screen we could put as package files in a separate directory on the CD and have pkgin look for them on the CD if the network isn't available. I thought that was what pkg_radd was for. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins.|licences available see You lose and Bill collects. |http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Weird entry in ISO
Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:06:40 +0200 Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com wrote: snip And yes, lynx in OpenBSD base install is fine, but they have much more developers and money from users so if you want it in Dfly then pay someone or do it yourself or more simple - said in OpenBSD way - shut up or hack ;-) At last! At least one user agreeing with me. :-) And another that disagrees. I see absolutely no reason to put lynx into the base system ... now links on the other hand ... -- Regards, Rumko
Re: Weird entry in ISO
2010/9/24 Przemysław Pawełczyk pp...@o2.pl: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:06:40 +0200 Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com wrote: (...) Not at all - just because these tools are not in the base system does not mean they're not easily available just install them with pkg_radd or pkgin or build them yourself (cd /usr/pkgsrc/sysutils/mc; bmake install clean clean-depends). Let me show you a real example, I did stuck with no network during installation. DF is new to me. Unix commands like dhclient are not available though paths so I had to find it. The DF tree is different from other systems. If you will read first before doing something then you will find this page http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/newhandbook/Installation/ where is even description how to enable network after install. If you read first before doing something then you would find that I got stuck before installation - I just inserted CD, kick off DF and... opsys was in memory but it ended up without IP. So checking in dmesg if LAN interface was detected or reboot to your original OS and http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/newhandbook/Configuration/ ? DF tree is not so different from that one in OpenBSD. You can read man page (which has same name as in OpenBSD) here too http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=hiersection=ANY Thank you. The permeation of BSD flavors is unprecedented, isn't it? ;-) Mmm I hope that there will not be more and more diferences like in Linux :-) Using MC I get broader picture of system dir layout and their contents - I get two panes with a lot of information - and I am not coerced to wander thru subdirectories typing cd and ls like idiot (not as bad as I would be getting acquainted with DF bowels but MC is more convenient). I don't like MC. I prefer simple terminal with tmux(1) and couple of commands like ls(1) and similar. If I need explorer-like then I'm using xfe. And what? It's my choice. It doesn't need to be same for all. MC is not a holly cow of Unix. xfe w/o X? I did not say if with or without X ;-) Anyway ls, cp, cat, vi, more and others are still here and in combination with tmux it's superb enough. Of course for me. Can't talk for others. (...) I didn't say about packages but about sets: http://ftp.bytemine.net/pub/OpenBSD/4.7/amd64/ What about DF basic system software divided into sets similar to sets found in OpenBSD? And why? Because everything must be as in OpenBSD? Hint: My only OS is OpenBSD, but I like a lot of features in Dfly and a way of its developers in some areas. I thought because OpenBSD sets were good solution. Period. If DF takes from other BSDs, why not in this point? Maybe because they can't see point in this or don't have time for this? I really don't know. (...) And yes, lynx in OpenBSD base install is fine, but they have much more developers and money from users so if you want it in Dfly then pay someone or do it yourself or more simple - said in OpenBSD way - shut up or hack ;-) At last! At least one user agreeing with me. :-) Sometimes I feel like there was another adage - use it or ditch it (and get lost). Just another rude expression dressed in smiley. It wasn't meant as something rude ;-) It's just fact. Communities are smaller around OpenBSD or Dfly, but I think that much more useful and I can see thanks to my own use that approach in OpenBSD community leads to quality so no problem with that for me. Regards -- Przemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2) [pron. Pshemislav Paveltchick] http://pp.blast.pl, pp...@o2.pl -- “If you’re good at something, never do it for free.” —The Joker
Re: Weird entry in ISO
Our base ISO/IMG will always be small and will not have any bells and whistles. pkg_radd (via internet connectivity) is *the* official way to get more packages installed after an installation. Trying to pack packages onto CDs, DVDs, or large images has historically been a big lose for us. That said, we do have a larger nrelease build called the GUI build which includes a lot more packages. Getting them all built is fraught with difficulties and I can't promise that a GUI image will be available for this release. We will not know how solid the 2010Q3 package set is until the first week of October. I am open to using other pkgsrc management utilities, or at least including them in the GUI image. We could include one or two of the pkgsrc management utilities on the base ISO/IMG as well. We are not going to be throwing general gui applications onto the base ISO/IMG, its hard enough fitting just the basics in there, like 'git', and there is simply too wide a variety and too many opinions on what should and should not be included. -Matt
