More questions and qualms
email@example.com wrote on Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:57:00 +0100:
>Zips compress not very well for many fils.
Compression wasn't what JKH was looking for, moreso the ability to have
descriptions in the file, and a bunch of other features.
Again, search the mailing lists for details.
>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.
I'll understand that if you can explain what the difference between
the "Debian way" and the "FreeBSD way" is.
Why BSD only on servers?
>Debian is not a Linux-only distribution (see Debian/Hurd). What is
>wrong to use the FreeBSD for Debian?
Linux and afaik HURD are not OSes, instead they are kernels.
"What is wrong" is covered with in my essay, http://bugg.strangled.net/debbsd.txt
>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.
FreeBSD has an alpha port and the very early stages of a PPC port
is underway. FreeBSD users like to think that on x86 hardware it
runs faster than Net and Open, but neither side of the fence has
much proof one way or the other.
It isn't that the FreeBSD kernel isn't very portable, its just that
it hasn't been ported to as many OSes.
>Of course, a FreeBSD port is much simpler, if you can use many
>Debian/Linux packages as they are.
Why would it be simplier?
>P.S.: Is there someone activly working on the Debian/BSD port?
I'd like to know that. I haven't even heard a unique agreement
on how Debian GNU/FreeBSD should be, so I doubt work is being done.