Re: Weird entry in ISO

[Przemysław Pawełczyk <pp_o2@xxxxx>]

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.

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).


> > 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?


> > "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?

Regards


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

Attachment: pgp00011.pgp
Description: PGP signature