Subject: Re: Packages for NetBSD
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Ernst J. du Toit <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/11/1995 11:06:51
Hi, just my 0.02
> As someone who can't use sup and has to upgrade using tarballs, I want
> to cast a big NO vote on anything that will bloat the system any
> The ONLY thing I want to see added is pkg_add itself. Everything else
> should be optional packages.
I agree completely, but with all this discussion - is anyone out there
willing to start a NetBSD 'user' distribution ala FreeBSD, etc?
Someone can wrap up a good canned version of a Release kernal, utils
and optional app modules (that can EASILY install/uninstall)
and flood the net with BeastieWare! complete with color graphic install
(Just PLEASE keep the CORE team out of this - I can't stand the thought of
loosing this group of geniuses to the job of maintaining packages!)
One of the main reasons why FreeBSD and Linuz is to popular is that their
'Release packages' follow the MicroSoft(tm) line - big bloated with
everyting all there. It seems the Dos(tm?) crowd is used to it and doesn't
bother/expects it. Anything more elegant, and NetBSD DOES needs a manual
read BEFORE you install, seems to scare off these users.
The key question is, DO we as NetBSD users/delevelopers/hackers/etc. WANT
these people to use NetBSD??
One of the MAIN reasons I migrated to NetBSD was that FreeBSD
was becoming too open, like Linuz, and the grade of user was dropping,
resulting in the groups being flooded with 'Duh, I can't install'
questions etc. which was virtually ALL covered in the FAQs.
To return to my question above, my personal observation is that the average
Linuz user was running MicroSoft(tm) and wanted more, where as the average
NetBSD user comes with some/little (like me) UNIX background/experience
and wants to run a 'real' UNIX at home just like on the 'big' machines at
university/college/work. Before I sound elitest :-) it just seems that NetBSD,
maybe BECAUSE of its not-too-open nature has collected a good solid following
of very knowledgable people.
Why not just build on this base? Admittedly it's a lot smaller than the
zillions of Dos(tm?) users out there getting tired of GPF msgs in MS-Windows(tm).
Oops, I'm woffeling again - last word:
I feel that to install from fresh you should be able to do the following:
Grab the base set - like now as Boot Disks, Bin-dist and optional
Src-dist (still seperated so you can grab the kernal srcs only if
you want etc.)
Access the package archive for the rest. Incl. X?
Oh, and since NetBSD is multi platform and compiles virtually everthing
I've grabbed of the Net like a dream packages should be source... flame on
Seriously though I'd HATE to run an Archie and see how many
foo-bar-1.01-NetBSD-(platformID)bin.tar.gz I can spot between all the
foo-bar-1.01-linuxbin.taz hits :-)
Ok, admitedly BIG apps like XFree86 that really needs space to compile should
ideally be in binary form too. I don't have the space at home to build it
on my drives, and I don't think this should disadvantage me or others in
the same situation.
How about - a support system on the Net where only source packages are
offically archived and binary versions can be obtained other users - we just
need a really good package manager for this!
If you want to flame just be gentle - I like a good argument :-)
Ernst J. du Toit (TED5) Internet: email@example.com
School of Electrical Engineering BELTEL : 175250 / Amateur Radio: ZR1ABB
Cape Technikon Voice: +27 21 460 3911 / Fax: +27 21 45 4161
South Africa /* Hackers do it with bytes and nybbles ! */