Subject: Re: don't remove ksh
To: NetBSD Userlevel Technical Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 10/21/2001 03:25:01
[ On Sunday, October 21, 2001 at 00:01:04 (-0700), Greywolf wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: don't remove ksh
> Now you're changing the terms of the argument, here. This *is* relevant.
No, I don't think I changed anything.
> Migrating to a db-based system for the base is nuts.
If you mean "db(3)" [or something equally opaque], then ``Maybe.''
The storage format used needs to meet the requirements of the users, and
in some cases that will mandate an indexable random-access format, but
whether that's the sole format allowed or not will depend on *all* of
the requirements of the users.
> "Make this an option."
It is! :-) [[ even if it comes to being only via UTSL-ing! ;-) ]]
You don't even have to use pkg[src] if you don't want to!
> And don't go installing 3rd party stuff into the base hierarchy, but that's
> my opinion. It's part of what hierarchies are for -- again, IMO.
Once you have a proper software and system configuration management
system it really doesn't matter if you keep separate hierarchies for
different purposes or not.
Once you get beyond the paranoia of keeping system and add-on stuff
separate you can begin to appreciate the many benefits of unifying the
the system into one coherent and consistent single heirarchy where users
don't have to learn the difference between systems software and add-on
software just to be able to make sane use of the system. Been there,
done that, and I've already worn the t-shirt out and thrown it away!
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>