At 9:25 PM -0500 3/8/00, Colin wrote:
> I might be completely out in left field somewhere, but I don't
>see that the defaults should be that important. We're discussing
>what is fundamentally a server oriented system, and realistically
>we have to assume some minimum level of understanding on the part
>of the person(s) installing it.
The experienced people doing server-oriented things are ignoring the
current defaults anyway, so I don't see much harm in picking defaults
that might save newbies a little grief. Even if it just saves them
one complete rebuild during the "learning process", that seems like
a good thing to me. "This is a server oriented OS for experienced
administrators", and yet every experienced person here says "Oh, no,
I NEVER use the defaults!". If they're not using the defaults, then
let's not say that the defaults are set with those people in mind.
I do agree with the idea that "no one size will fit all", and that
we should have a small list of likely configs (with descriptive
names) instead of trying to agree on one perfect partition breakdown.
I would not agree with the idea that "this is a server-oriented OS,
so we should have no discussion of how to make it easier for less
experienced user to use".
[disclaimer: I'm a bit tired here and running on caffeine, so I
hope I'm not sounding too wired-up about this. I do realize people
are working on ways to improve things without getting bogged down
in trying to find a one-size-fits-all solution...]
---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
