Re: about debian bsd

[Dan Papasian <bugg@bugg.strangled.net>]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:38:24PM -0200, Carlos Laviola wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 09:12:28AM +0200, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, John Galt wrote:
> > 
> > > <hammer>  What kernel should we aim for first? </hammer>
> > 
> > netbsd?
> > 
> > This would give us so many platforms, it would simply hurt.
> 
> I agree. NetBSD's platform support rules. FreeBSD is very limited.
> OpenBSD has almost the same platform support as Debian, so we could
> choose between:
> 
> NetBSD - more platforms then we currently have
> OpenBSD - almost the same number of platforms we currently have, more
> secure
> FreeBSD - much less than the number of platforms we currently have

Your evaluating all three OSes by the number of platforms
that they run on is truly insulting.

By doing so, you brush aside all work in subsystems such as SCSI,
VM, driver support and architecture, code cleanliness, etc.

It's certainly nowhere near as cut-and-dry as you make it; if it was,
there wouldn't be three separate OSes.  (Oh, and all three can
be considered "more secure")

Also, someone in this mailing list said I was for FreeBSD/more discussion.
This is not true; my offical stance is that I'm not for any such repackaging
for the reasoning that it won't achieve much.  What I do think would
be interesting is Debian involvement with OpenPackages.

-- 
      Dan Papasian
  (bugg@bugg.strangled.net)

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
simpler.
	--Albert Einstein