I fully agree that NetBSD needs something like the Linux & FreeBSD
	binary archives (Tho' as I use the sparc NetBSD this is not likely
	to be a major win for me unless there are source archives as well :)

	But I think there also needs to be a few more programs supplied
	with the base release - some form of shell with command line
	editing (such as tcsh or bash) would really help the immediate
	perception of NetBSD. Other obvious additions might be perl,
	top, screen, and a simple mail front end like pine.

	Would it be possible for someone in the core team to comment as to
	why this is a bad idea (to shut me up :), or if its likely to
	happen?

		David

  D.K.Brownlee@city.ac.uk (MIME). Network Analyst. Postmaster. Hostmaster.
              (>=-=<)   Telephone: (+44) 171 477 8186.   (>=-=<)
  Computing Services, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB.
 .------------------------------------------------------------------------.
  \ Gratuitous advertising      Monochrome BBS      telnet mono.city.ac.uk \
   `------------------------------------------------------------------------'

On Mon, 9 Jan 1995, Herb Peyerl wrote:

> "Michael Graff" <explorer@vorpal.com>  wrote:
>  > That really bothers me.  Public image is important.  Goals along this
>  > line should be to arrange commonly used packages into some sort of
>  > release system.  Linux has a fairly good one I hear, and so does
>  > FreeBSD.
> 
> John Kohl adapted FreeBSD's package software for NetBSD and released
> some packages for it.  I've used it and it works well enough.  I keep
> saying that if I get some more time, I'll create some more packages
> but alas, that time hasn't come.
> 
> Perhaps more people need to start creating some packages and putting 
> them in one place.  Although it *is* a fact that pretty much everything
> I've ever grabbed off ftp sites has built without my shedding any
> brain-cells...
> 
>  > Also, a nice install program would be a HUGE win.
> 
> Hmmm... I've been running my machine since 386bsd-0.0 and all
> I ever do is upgrade from the previous version... When I install
> a new machine, I do it from an already existing machine, so I'm
> not sure I've ever *seen* the install tools.  Consequently, I'm
> not very likely to work on them.  I suspect many people are in
> this position, so I guess what I'm saying is, "when you have
> something to show, let someone know!". :-)
> 
>