tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Adding the "links" text mode web browser to the base system

2009/10/31 James K. Lowden <>:
> I almost agree with you, except that I think every server should have a
> client. ÂWe have finger/fingerd, ftp/ftpd, ssh/sshd. Âhttpd has been in
> base for years, yet we have no http client.
> I also think sysinst for one could be better implemented as a bunch of CGI
> scripts....

I think a more general comment might be that the actual sysinst
operations would be better implemented as a library which could be
hooked into a cgi, curses or x11 interface :)

I *do* like the idea of a NetBSD install/upgrade option that could be
performed from a remote web browser as well as locally (assuming a
network interface), and in fact could even run without accessing the
console at all (thinking of the existing recover CD for NetBSD/cobalt
Qube boxes which do not have consoles, or even remote upgrades for
hosted boxes where all you have is remote reboot and net access). On
the other hand the 'remote' facility could just as well be provided
with the existing sysinst by building sshd into the ramdisk image...
(both require some way of setting a password on or for the image)

Its all down to someone with the time and desire to scratch that itch.

Back on topic - this sort of question (what should be in base) will
keep coming round every so often, and over time the answers may
change, and while I think a simple visual text http client should make
the cut today that view is obviously not universally held.

I don't know what the best way of determining this would be, the
obvious ones would be a decision by core or a poll of developers
(possibly whether to take a poll should be determined by core),
including an "if the answer is no we should not revisit this for at
least N years". I personally would be happy to abide by either option.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index