Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 4/19/16 7:39 AM, dan_partelly wrote:
>> What should not happen is that this incremental step forward be blocked
>> by those unwilling to hash out the next steps.
>>
>> -Alfred
>>
>>
> While incremental steps forward are great, how do you avoid situations
> like VNET, where a "good enough" enough implementation, usable in some
> scenarios lingered for years in kernel, but to this day it suffers from
> leaks and bugs. Once you go down the path of enabling it in this state,
> chances are that it will stay that way for more than half a decade.
>
>
>
>
>
We happened to use VNET at our last company with great success.  Had it 
not existed we would have been much further away from our goals. Maybe 
you picked a bad example? :)

Look, take a look at history and the Linux kernel threads story and its 
impact on FreeBSD.  If you'd like I can talk about it.

-Alfred