16 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-archRe: RFC: remove xten from the base sy...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Jacques A. Vidrine | Jun 12, 2002 5:34 am | |
| Terry Lambert | Jun 12, 2002 9:55 am | |
| Cyrille Lefevre | Jun 12, 2002 1:08 pm | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 12, 2002 11:45 pm | |
| Robert Watson | Jun 13, 2002 12:08 am | |
| Terry Lambert | Jun 13, 2002 12:32 am | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 13, 2002 12:45 am | |
| Terry Lambert | Jun 13, 2002 1:13 am | |
| Cyrille Lefevre | Jun 13, 2002 12:53 pm | |
| Terry Lambert | Jun 13, 2002 5:17 pm | |
| M. Warner Losh | Jun 13, 2002 11:37 pm | |
| M. Warner Losh | Jun 13, 2002 11:41 pm | |
| M. Warner Losh | Jun 13, 2002 11:43 pm | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 13, 2002 11:51 pm | |
| Brooks Davis | Jun 14, 2002 9:59 am | |
| M. Warner Losh | Jun 14, 2002 10:54 am |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: remove xten from the base system? | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Doug Barton (Dou...@FreeBSD.org) | |
| Date: | Jun 13, 2002 12:45:19 am | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-arch | |
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
Coda has a project. Perl has a project. TCL has a project.
Xten does not have a project.
This is effectively saying "Get a project to support you, because we are about to throw you in the ocean".
I can certainly understand you coming to that conclusion. I would characterize my position as, "Since this code is used by very few people, those people should do the work of supporting it." The other examples you gave A) have a lot more general appeal than xten, and B) already have people to support them.
I think this is really about two things:
1) The Perl advocates trying to punish everyone for getting rid of Perl in the base system, even though FreeBSD's Perl support has actually improved, since the system Perl left out important (to the Perl people) features.
I consider myself to be a "Perl developer," in the sense that I use it, like it, and get paid to do it. However, I am on record as being opposed to importing it in the first place, and a vocal advocate for removing it. I also posted my first "Why is xten in the base?" post years ago. Thus, I don't think 1. applies to me.
2) People wanting the FreeBSD base to be broken into optional subsets, and attacking a weak target, just like a company filing a lawsuit against the littlest offender in order to get case law on their side (e.g. they failed with Sendmail, which was too big, so they are trying to get the camel's nose into the tent in another way).
This has been going on for years. It's not new, and xten is not the only target. I'm definitely guilty of 2.
If it's mostly #2, then the place to work towards that is not by pushing everything else out of FreeBSD, until it's nothing more than a kernel, just like Linux. If they want this, they can either go over to Linux, or they can contribute code to the work that Eric Melville was doing.
I don't think this is the way... I think there should definitely be a default distribution that has most of the relevant bits included by default. However, it should be a lot easier to eliminate bits than it is now.
Doug
-- "We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. And in this great conflict, ... we will see freedom's victory." - George W. Bush, President of the United States State of the Union, January 28, 2002
Do YOU Yahoo!?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message