DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2010-09
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Weird entry in ISO

From: Tomas Bodzar <tomas.bodzar@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:06:40 +0200

2010/9/24 Przemysław Pawełczyk <pp_o2@o2.pl>:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:28:16 +0100
> "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steve@sohara.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:07:50 +0200
>> Przemysław Pawełczyk <pp_o2@o2.pl> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:43:26 +0100
>> > Alex Hornung <ahornung@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 24/09/10 13:37, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote:
>> > > > I know, and I would expect such answer. No offense please, but
>> > > > for how long yet such attitude will prevail in Unix community?
>> > > > It lingers from 80s of the last... Cenury of the last
>> > > > Millennium. ;-)
>> > > Sorry, but I simply fail to see why we need 'mc' and 'lynx' in
>> > > base. If someone can't use the standard unix commands, he should
>> > > possibly learn before using a unix system.
>> >
>> > The same pervasive attitude... You failed but I did not fail, the
>> > more so I explained in plain English (I hope) why the toots might
>> > be helpful.
>> >
>> > I know standard unix commands I program in shell. Does it mean that
>> > I should stick to them for full 50 years of my life? Pathetic...
>>       Not at all - just because these tools are not in the base
>> system does not mean they're not easily available just install them
>> with pkg_radd or pkgin or build them yourself
>> (cd /usr/pkgsrc/sysutils/mc; bmake install clean clean-depends).
> Let me show you a real example, I did stuck with no network
> during installation. DF is new to me. Unix commands like dhclient are
> not available though paths so I had to find it. The DF tree is
> different from other systems.

If you will read first before doing something then you will find this
page http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/newhandbook/Installation/ where
is even description how to enable network after install.

DF tree is not so different from that one in OpenBSD. You can read man
page (which has same name as in OpenBSD) here too

> Using MC I get broader picture of system dir layout and their contents
> - I get two panes with a lot of information - and I am not coerced to
> wander thru subdirectories typing cd and ls like idiot (not as bad as
> I would be getting acquainted with DF bowels but MC is more convenient).

I don't like MC. I prefer simple terminal with tmux(1) and couple of
commands like ls(1) and similar. If I need explorer-like then I'm
using xfe. And what? It's my choice. It doesn't need to be same for
all. MC is not a holly cow of Unix.

>> > Of course, I am not so stupid to bang my head onto concrete wall of
>> > chastity of Unix diehard users.
>>       Nobody is suggesting that these tools aren't useful - just
>> that there's no compelling reason to put them in the base system when
>> they can be so easily added from pkgsrc where they are well
>> maintained without distracting the DragonFly developers from
>> developing DragonFly.
> If there is no problem for me installing it via pkgsrc the more so
> there wouldn't be a problem for developers. If I got the network
> working I wouldn't noticed how badly I miss my MC. ;-)
>> > It would be nice and convenient for ***ME*** if the DFBSD used the
>> > idea of system software chunks aka sets conjured up by NetBSD and
>> > OpenBSD teams. Why not creat one more set of useful tools with
>> > Lynx, MC, and other apps? CD size is big and modern networks
>> > provide fast downloads.
>>       DragonFly does support building ISOs with a configurable set
>> of packages pre-installed. Installing packages is easy once the base
>> system is installed so there's no particular reason to add to the
>> base.
> I didn't say about packages but about sets:
> http://ftp.bytemine.net/pub/OpenBSD/4.7/amd64/
> What about DF basic system software divided into sets similar to sets
> found in OpenBSD?

And why? Because everything must be as in OpenBSD? Hint: My only OS is
OpenBSD, but I like a lot of features in Dfly and a way of its
developers in some areas.

>> > "Sorry, but I simply did not fail to see that" DFBSD system might
>> > gain having such tools distibuted on its ISO and be the leader on
>> > the BSD trek of all BSD flavors. For all those like me who like to
>> > use mc or lynx. We have the right to breath too, haven't we?
>>       The problem here is that it's an endless cycle which
>> culminates in an install that needs a blu-ray disc and comes with
>> everything under the sun pre-installed.
> Why everyone sees the issue of extra tools as a point boiled down to
> extreme end? It is not an argument during such discussion if any. Did I
> ask for all the blobs lurking on the IT market?

Yes, it's possible to create something like Solaris installer where
install or upgrade takes forever and after that you have disk full of
unneeded stuff, but again - why? Dfly's target is not super-duper OS
with every possible piece of SW from the market. It's not problem to
create Ubuntu-like OS, but some people/users/developers prefer
funcionality/quality/simplicity instead of over-bloated crap.

And yes, lynx in OpenBSD base install is fine, but they have much more
developers and money from users so if you want it in Dfly then pay
someone or do it yourself or more simple - said in OpenBSD way - shut
up or hack ;-)

> Regards
> --
> Przemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2) [pron. Pshemislav Paveltchick]
> http://pp.blast.pl, pp_o2@o2.pl

“If you’re good at something, never do it for free.” —The Joker

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