Re: Debian BSD.. cool idea!
I recall waay back on Jan 30 when Jerry Alexandratos wrote:
> See, this makes no sense to me. Having worked on more than a fistfull
> of UNIX's, I still cannot fathom why Linux does it different from the
> rest.
>
> I also don't see why the main hierarchical tree (/, /usr, ...) should be
> polluted with code that doesn't come from and isn't maintained by the
> distributor.
Ahh, but that's just the thing! ;-) All that stuff in the main tree _does_
come from the distributor -- which in this case is Debian. This is
probably one of the big differences I've seen between Linux and FreeBSD.
Linux's system binaries (init, ps, etc) are all just GNU versions of
standard Unix utils that have been specialized for Linux in the Debian
packages. Some of them specialized beyond porability, admittedly.. =) but
still just specialized. FreeBSD's basic binaries all seem to be part of
the OS itself (i.e., "FreeBSD" means the kernel plus all the system
binaries).
So under FreeBSD, having only FreeBSD code in the basic tree is more
correct, and under Linux, having everything vendor-provided (deb's, rpm's,
etc) under the main tree is probably better.
Well, that's how I see it anyway.. maybe *I'M* the one that's weird here =)
--
Experience is a good teacher, but she sends in terrific bills.
-- Minna Antrim, "Naked Truth and Veiled Allusions"
Reply to: