Nik Clayton wrote:
> The thorny question of "What do they have to include and still call it
> FreeBSD?" is resolved by saying that any FreeBSD distribution must
> include, as a minimum, the contents of the "mini" ISO (including
> sysinstall). Anyone that wants to include an alternative installation
> routine (open or closed source) can do, as long as sysinstall is still
> there. Then the FreeBSD docs can continue to refer to sysinstall, and
> the project doesn't get flack if someone puts together a distribution
> with a crap installer, because sysinstall will always be there as a
> fallback.
First: sysinstall must die: this is non-negotiable.
Second: it is an albatross, and forcing people to
include it is obnoxious, and definitely not in the
long term best interests of the project.
Third: tying the hands of distributors with regard
to what they "must" distribute is stupid: you might
as well GPL the damn thing, and call it a day, if
you want that level of editorial control over third
party distributors content.
Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to trust people
to do right by the project; I'd be happy with an X
server that configured itself in software, and with
a default boot-to-X and that Java version of the
InstallShield product. I'd also like to see someone
produce a handicap accessible version of FreeBSD:
e.g. there would be no sysinstall. I'd like to see
a distribution that Installed multiple roots, and
supported fail-over booting like nextboot used to.
And I want to see a distribution where / is mounted
read-only, with only the necessary parts being mounted
writeable at all.
Making people keep sysinstall precludes innovations
which make FreeBSD more accessible to more people,
and broaden the user base.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
