Re: Re: OT Re: Advantage of debs?
>Thats the same way freebsd packages contain configuration files, packing
>lists, installation scripts, etc. We weren't talking about dropping that,
>but adapting it into zips for compression and file access..
Zips compress not very well for many fils.
>>3) I agree that linux compat is the way to go for userland
>>programs. IMO, the whole point of debian/bsd is to create a
>>coherent debian system using the bsd kernel _along with_ the base
>>bsd system (newfs, fdisk, disklabel, fsck.ufs, various console
>>utilities, sysinit scripts, etc) being composed of debian
>>packages.
>
>Why debian packages? What is wrong with how it is now?
There's nothing wrong with FreeBSD. But I would prefer the Debian way.
I don't want to switch to FreeBSD, I want to switch to Debian with a
FreeBSD Kernel. So I could use Debian/BSD for servers and Debian/Linux
for my desktop machine.
Debian is not a Linux-only distribution (see Debian/Hurd). What is
wrong to use the FreeBSD for Debian?
But I wonder why we should not use the NetBSD or OpenBSD kernel. I
don't know the differences and what kernel ist more stable or performs
better, but NetBSD and OpenBSD have portable kernels. This would make
it more interesting.
Of course, a FreeBSD port is much simpler, if you can use many
Debian/Linux packages as they are.
Smoerk
P.S.: Is there someone activly working on the Debian/BSD port?
Reply to: