:> 1) There is a mini install image thats about 200MB which I guess is the
:> minimum you need to get a working system.
:> 2) There is the full install thats about 800MB so split over two disks,
:> 1st is 600MB second is 200MB
:> I can't find a definitive readme explaining whats the difference
:> between these two installs.
: The second one has some common packages on it, the first does not.
:> Question - why not just make one set of disk the*being 200MB and is
:> the mini-instal and the second being 600MB with everything else on it.
: That wouldn't be particularly useful. People who download the 600MB ISO
: do so because they want a single ISO containing both FreeBSD and the
: common packages.
Personally, I'd prefer a disk that's just like the mini, except it
includes one extra package: cvsup-bin. I build everything from
ports, but cvsup is needed (ok, you can use raw cvs, but why?) to
"boot strap" ports.
The result is if I'm installing a new system, I basically am
downloading 400MB extra simply to have cvsup available in the
install. Am I alone in this?
Of course, it's not often I install FreeBSD, as the only real reason
to do so is when setting up a new machine.
Z R /\ _ _ _ _
E H / \ | | |_ | _ | /\ |\ | / |_
I P "The Greatest Game You Never Played"
N S www.AllegianceHQ.org