Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!swidir.switch.ch!scsing.switch.ch!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!felix.junction.net!okjunc.junction.net!michael From: michael@okjunc.junction.net (Michael Dillon) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: FreeBSD social event Sept. 2/3 Date: 15 Aug 1995 00:40:13 GMT Organization: Okanagan Internet Junction, Vernon B.C., Canada Lines: 93 Message-ID: <40oqdd$8en@felix.junction.net> References: <DD6HuH.HEA@bonkers.taronga.com> <40mb4i$aei@masala.cc.uh.edu> <40mmgh$cuo@agate.berkeley.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: okjunc.junction.net In article <40mmgh$cuo@agate.berkeley.edu>, Jordan K. Hubbard <jkh@violet.berkeley.edu> wrote: >In article <40mb4i$aei@masala.cc.uh.edu>, >Woody Jin <wjin@hermes.cs.uh.edu> wrote: >>I suggest that the name FreeBSD be changed to a better one. >>I understand that most FreeBSD users are unix experts, and they understand >>what is going on. However, majority others are not, and they don't bother >>to be. > >Sorry, Woody, but that's just too impractical. We've already been >through this before, and all that the various anti-FreeBSD folks >could say was that we needed "a better name." When pressed for >actual SUGGESTIONS they either shrugged and said "I don't know, >something better than FreeBSD" (really big help, thanks) or suggested >something even worse, like "OpenBSD." > >People who pick an OS based on its name will always be people >who pick things for the wrong reasons, and I'm not really much >inclined to go out of my way to support people with such poor >judgement. What would be the point? You think we want to deal >with the kind of questions we'd be likely to get from someone who picked >"WowBSD" just because it had a cool name? I think there is a middle ground here that is worth exploring. It is related to the middle ground between people who hate NT/VMS registry and those who want GUI config. Fundamentally, there are two camps here and there always will be two camps. Over time the ease-of-use camp is likely to dominate in terms of sheer numbers while the under-the-hood camp is likely to be doing the majority of development on the system So it would be good to find a middle ground that can resolve the struggle between these two groups. I believe that this can be resolved by moving towards two official FreeBSD distributions over time. The first one will be the FreeBSD core distribution with no GUI config and minimal apps and frills. For instance, the core would not include Xfree, nor PERL, nor TCL/Tk, nor INN, etc... It would be directed to the set of users who roll their own systems and add the pieces they want or need. Person X will add MGR as their GUI, person Y will put on Xfree and OpenWin, Person Z will have Xfree and mwm. This core distribution should retain the name FreeBSD. But I think there is a lot to be said for developping a second fuller distribution of the system that is focussed more on the masses with ease-of-use as a major goal. This distribution would include "standard" components. Xfree with fvwm and TCL/Tk would form the GUI environment. There would be no twm, mwm, olvwm support at all. Perhaps PERL might not even be included. Or if it is included it will be configured for dynamic loading and will come with the GIF, Curses, and Tk modules. The exact layout is something that would need to be decided over time. This distribution could very well have a new name like Sumatra or Visual Gateways or something. A user who chooses the Sumatra boot diskette would be presented with a full GUI install from the start (probably text-mode GUI to begin with), while a user who picks up FreeBSD will get something a little more malleable. Under the hood, of course, Sumatra would merely be FreeBSD with a standard set of packages added on and and integrated GUI admin system that is as powerful and as flexible as the NT/VMS registry. Hold those screams of anguish! The fundamental concept of NT's registry is that there is a single admin utility that can administer everything. They have chosen to implement this with a single binary admin database but there is no reason why this should be so. FreeBSD could very well have a central admin utility that adminsiters the exact set of existing config files in exactly the same places. This means that when your neighbour asks for help with his Sumatra system, you can plow in under the hood and fix things the way you know how, and your neighbour can look in the registry utility to see what you have done. It would be an interesting challenge to build a scriptable general purpose admin utility that can handle DNS zone files and INN's newsfeeds file and /etc/netstart including comments and commented out sections of real config stuff, but I don't think it is an impossible task. >I'm fully aware that marketing is important, but rather than spend >months debating a new name for FreeBSD I'd much rather put the energy >into _improving the product_. Sorry, I'm just kind of silly that >way.. :-) Good point. An easy to use O/S with a fancy name is no good unless it is built on a strong core. FreeBSD is well on the way there, but it's not done yet. However, the skill set required for much of the existing work is not the same as the skill set required for DESIGNING and building an easy-to-use killer O/S package. There is room here for a parallel track. A nice side effect of doing it that way is that the parallel track either gains developpers and proceeds, or it fades away due to lack of interest while not interfering with the core development track. It's not like this hasn't been done before. Look at SCO UNIX and Open Desktop or Open Server. There are still people buying plain SCO UNIX but the marketing effort is focussed on the other named products. -- Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com