Re: Debian/GNU Freebsd
On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 09:31:59PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> [donning asbestos underwear]
Hopefully it's full-body :-)
> > But anyway, if there really is a problem with Linux compared to FreeBSD,
> > which I maintain there isn't, why not fix Linux? This would require far
> > less effort than porting a lot of Linux stuff to FreeBSD. We'd still
> > potentially get those people that were avoiding it, which would again mean
> > more diverse users.
> "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer"
> "One World, One Web, One Program"
> "One Community, One Operating System, One Kernel" ?
Und Ein Dummkopf. :-)
I never said nor implied that Linux would be the only OS of the future.
Notice how I support our Hurd development. Choice is good. But if you are
wanting some real competition, don't be looking to FreeBSD. Be looking to
something in the future -- Hurd, perhaps.
> Why is "Linux Everywhere" any better than "Windows Everywhere"? Don't be
> so quick to replace one oppressive system with another. Yes, I said
> oppressive. How many times have I heard in the last week alone cries for
Linux is not oppressive. Being GPL'd, it is no problem to split it if that
> Linux "World Domination"? Many people have said they don't believe
> anyone takes it seriously---look again, people ARE taking it seriously
> and they're acting like they are on a Jihad to take down the "Evil
> Empire" and replace it with Linux.
Well, replacing proprietary software with free is indeed good. What's wrong
> What happens when 90% of the computers out there are running Linux? I
> see a very grim future if that happens with the community in the state it
> is now. In the US at least, if you are talking about Linux in the press,
> you're really talking about Redhat. This is dangerous because most new
C'mon. Since when does the press run Linux? Linux developers, etc. have
always been largely oblivious to the press and the general public. We know
that the press is largely stupid (just see the Y2K coverage they have,
> users are by default Redhat users. Most Redhat users could care less
> about free software, all they want are binaries for free.
Yes, that's probably a problem. It's our job to educate them about how
they can get all that quality software for no cost.
> Redhat is not a Free Software distribution nor is it an "Open Source"
> distribution. Much of what they distribute we consider non-free and if
> the Open Source Definition is essentially equivalent to the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines, well...
I agree with you, though probably not to such an extreme extent.
> Linux is quickly being invaded by non-free software en masse from
> corporations that all want to make money, as much as they can, with
> Linux. They all want to see Microsoft taken down, but any one of them
> would like nothing more than to take the place as the company that
> controls the computer industry.
Again, I agree with the first sentence or two, but you then go a bit
> > I don't see how FreeBSD increases portability. It runs only on i386 (and
> > maybe Alpha by now).
> It increases portability to non-Linux kernels, that's a start.
You're not realizing my point. My point is not that we shouldn't branch to
non-Linux kernels. The point is that we shouldn't branch to that one in
Why are we talking about FreeBSD? Because somebody randomly suggested it.
Why not NetBSD? Why not more effort with Hurd?
> Creating a BSD kernel based Debian distribution may not do a thing to
> stop the above nightmare Linux could become from happening, but it's one
> small step closer to being ready, just in case things happen the way
> they're likely to at the moment.
I fail to see what it buys us. Really, what?
John Goerzen Linux, Unix consulting & programming email@example.com |
Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade) www.debian.org |
Visit the Air Capital Linux Users Group on the web at http://www.aclug.org