i think it's not too soon for the bsd community to become less
reactionary. (yes, i know that's ironic coming from me.)
https://nomadbsd.org/
i'd like freebsd to be fit for a lot of purposes. a complete OS is one
of those that i will use the most. but not the only one for me, and not
the
FreeBSD (and BSD Unix in general) has a rich history of being a “complete” OS –
kernel and userland. If there was really a demand for a minimalist version of
FreeBSD, why have people not forked FreeBSD and created it by now? There is
also nanobsd, as an option, for those that want minimalist
Today Michael Sierchio wrote:
There is an argument to be made that all such components of the "base"
system should be packages, and managed that way. That would
facilitate removal or addition of things like MTAs, Route daemons for
various protocols, etc. and permit them to be updated
There is an argument to be made that all such components of the "base"
system should be packages, and managed that way. That would facilitate
removal or addition of things like MTAs, Route daemons for various
protocols, etc. and permit them to be updated independent of the base
system. Too much
I use RIP all the time. Removing it would be a pain. What is the justification?
Moving it to ports is an option, but now we have to compile, distribute, and
install it.
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 15, 2024, at 07:40, Tomek CEDRO wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Scott wrote:
>>>
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Scott wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote:
> > (..)
> > i'd like to submit a patch to remove both of these daemons from src. if
> > there's some concern that people still want to use the BSD
> > implementation of routed/route6d,
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote:
> [note: this is a copy of a mail i sent this to arch@, but someone
> suggested also asking net@ about this.]
>
> hello,
>
> currently FreeBSD ships routed(8) and route6d(8) which implement the RIP
> resp. RIPng routing protocols.
>
>
