[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: about debian bsd

That someone is me: 

Message-ID: <20001021141051.A37287@moe.c705742-a.htfdw1.ct.home.com>
dated 10/21
By the way: I'm a FreeBSD fan (and minor contributor) but
to claim that it's the "most improved kernel" is a bit
of a stretch.  You can't make any harsh judgements
between NetBSD and FreeBSD, because they're very close
in a lot of ways.  For example, FreeBSD takes the cake
in SCSI and SMP, but NetBSD may still be faster at
certain computational tasks.  To say that one is "better" than
the other is crazy.     


If I misrepresented your views, I am truly sorry, but the issue at this
point is not WHETHER we are going to.  That is already decided, and is not
up for discussion: we WILL go through with it, with or without you.  The
issue at hand is WHAT kernel we're going to concentrate on.  Your message
looked to me as if you leaned toward Free if a choice had to be made, so I
called it as I saw it.  I stand corrected: I will remove you from the

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Dan Papasian wrote:

> 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.

<a mailto:galt@inconnu.isu.edu>Who is John Galt?</a>

Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
	-- Ferenc Mantfeld

Reply to: