implemented features (Re: Decision time....)
dave at jetcafe.org
Tue Jun 5 19:12:17 PDT 2007
talon <talon at lpthe.jussieu.fr> writes:
> This being said this is no implicit of explicit criticism of Matt Dillon,
> who is an extremely competent programmer, and has every right to do
> whatever he sees fit for his project. My own prejudice is that having a
> good installer and a good package management system (including a good
> upgrade mechanism) is *extremely* important, far more than any kernel
> nicety. This is clearly the Achilles heel of all BSD systems.
At the risk of evoking age old debates....please define "good"? :)
I'm hacking on the installer now. It's a lot better than sysinstall
was (no offense to Bill Hacker intended), and easier to modify. It
appears to have quite adequate and appropriate library
abstractions...even after working with it for some time. Of course,
this is my own subjective viewpoint.
I'm also using the package management system. PKGSRC is roughly the
same as the FreeBSD ports tree, and both are quite adequate for my
needs...but that could be my own subjective viewpoint as well.
So...what do you mean by "good"? Do you mean that "most any human on
the planet can use it"? Are you looking for so much pre-packaged
consumer goodness that 9 million people suddenly adopt DFly as their
OS of choice?
I'm going to claim that this entire subject is ... subjective. I will
cite my own experience looking for the 'perfect' window manager as an
example. Yes, I tried everything. I finally went -back- to what I was
using in the early 90s...FVWM2. Why? Because it's powerful, it doesn't
get in my way, and it doesn't ever presume that I am incapable of
handling a computer. Non-computer people, look at this window system
and have a heart attack. That's an added feature, in my book.
Notwithstanding my claim above, I am actually curious as to what the
accepted definition of "a good installer" and "a good package
management system" really is. I'm even more curious at the intent
behind the wielding of the label "good"...I think what I'm really
seeing is people who want to adopt DFly based on the excellent
technical work therein but who are frustrated with what DFly does
not currently do.
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
If at first you don't succeed ... redefine success.
More information about the Kernel