Re: Sysinst default root login shell

[Brett Lymn <brett.lymn%baesystems.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 02:41:39AM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> 
> I don't know what "BSD" is nowadays, which I think is the problem. What 
> is BSD now? Yet another Linux wannabe?

It is what we want it to be... I don't think there is any intention of
being yet another linux distribution... we certainly cannot compete with
the resources behind that juggernaut.

> Conservative approach to system development? That used to be the case, 
> but I think not anymore. Now we have different tiers of hardware, 
> because we want to develop faster and more agile, and can't be bothered 
> with getting all systems updated, nor then take into accounts that some 
> solutions really don't fit well with the approach of portability. 
> 

No, we have tiers because there are some platforms that it seems nobody
cares about.  The tier a platform is on is not fixed, if someone steps
up to the plate to ensure a platform is tested, maintained and has a
port master that cares about this then the tier a platform is on can be
changed.  There is no use complaining about the tier a platform is on,
it needs active commitment to change this the tier a platform is on
reflects the amount of commitment the developers see for that platform.

> 
> I see growth, but not much else. XML, property lists, PAM, kernel 
> auth... It grows a lot of warts, but almost none of that actually means 
> my systems work any different than 20 years ago. Only slower.
> 

The fact they work at all is nice - you could just pick a release that
works and stick to it though this may limit your ability to run some
modern 3rd party software.

> 
> Already have that, thank you. And yes, I find pleasure in playing with 
> old hardware.
> Others should be concerned about the fact that current software have 
> become so much less useful on those systems, since they are a good test 
> of the progress of development. Things are so much more painfully 
> showing when there are issues, on some of those old systems. By getting 
> rid of that "baggage" you are actually throwing out your best testing 
> grounds. But hey! I guess some call that progress.
> 

The problem we have is that modern systems are far far more complex than
the old hardware, processors that have multiple cores and lots of them,
hardware that can attach & detach at any time and lots lots more which
complicates things.  To support the modern stuff we have to move
forward knowing that this may impact the older architectures somewhat
standing still would be death.

-- 
Brett Lymn
"Warning:
The information contained in this email and any attached files is
confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
attachments is expressly prohibited.  If you have received this email
in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
sender's responsibility.  It is your responsibility to ensure virus
checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
your computer."