Subject: Re: Packaged for NetBSD (Was: Why are there two 4.4BSD dev. groups)
To: Herb Peyerl <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Michael Graff <email@example.com>
Date: 01/08/1995 13:06:27
>There are always many people who say "NetBSD would be better if it
>only had xxx and yyy included in the base release" but the union
>of the sets of "xxx and yyy"s is effectively an empty set. You
>want NetBSD to include Pine. Someone else wants Elm. Yet another
>person wants MH.
Exactly. I would not want NetBSD to include every (excuse the term)
whimsical toy someone thought would be cool to have in the base
>I believe that it is up to the people to do things like generate
>packages and value-added distributions on CDROM and/or ftp sites.
>NetBSD is just the OS. The frills are the responsibility of the
>people. If someone wanted to create "The penultimate NetBSD OS"
>with X11R6, TeX, Gnu*, Perl, Pine, Elm, MH, etc, then I'm sure
>it would be well received by people. However, I don't believe it's
>the responsibility of the core.
I have long thought an OS should be an OS. If you want applications,
install them as applications. That may be contrary to what people
want though. So mention the archive locations in the install docs.
Michael Graff <firstname.lastname@example.org> NetBSD is the way to go!
PGP key on a key-server near you! Rayshade the world!