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

Re: Voting template

On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 05:33:42PM +0300, Wartan Hachaturow wrote:
> At last, I've got some spare time to create some pages devoted to the
> Debian/BSD project, and also a voting.
> They are not yet availble to the public, but I'll get them online 
> in one or two days, if you guys decide that the poll questions is ok.
> So, I am wating for any possible add-ons or improvements to the 
> poll questions.
> Here is the current version:
>                            Debian/BSD Project Voting
> What kernel should we use for Debian/BSD?
>    (_) OpenBSD
>    (_) NetBSD
>    (_) FreeBSD

The advantages I see are as follows. Please correct me where you know

OpenBSD: A good, secure base. Beneficial in establishing a Debian
distribution as the ultimate secure OS. Ported to a wide variety of

NetBSD: Ported to even more platforms, more Linux-like
development. Where OpenBSD has a focus on being secure above all else,
NetBSD strives for a wide variety of features on a wide variety of

FreeBSD: Speed is its single strongest asset, followed by rigidly
"correct" structure and a measure of commercial backing. The least
portable of the three - it is designed to be the fastest x86 OS. An
Alpha port is nearly as complete as the x86 port, and also runs
exceptionally well. A PPC port exists, or is in the works - maybe
somebody else knows about this.

Given the above, NetBSD seems the least likely choice. It is an
excellent OS, but its goals are the closest of the three to those of
Linux. *For the purpose of Debian/BSD*, it would be a poor choice if
the goal is to bring Debian into new territory.

OpenBSD and FreeBSD seem the most logical choices.

To explore the options of OpenBSD and FreeBSD:

If broadening Debian's acceptance among non-developers is important,
FreeBSD has two points in its favor:

	1. FreeBSD has commercial backing. BSDI stands behind FreeBSD,
and it's not at all unreasonable to expect that they would embrace and
support Debian/BSD.
	2. FreeBSD is the most like Mac OS/X. Indeed, Mac OS/X uses
many pieces from FreeBSD. The jump from Debian/BSD to Debian/MacOS/X
could be quite nearly free. This could mean tens of thousands of new
Debian users and a logical way for Debian to become a mainstream
desktop distribution.

If enhancing the quality of Debian in its present form is the most
important factor, as opposed to widening its use, OpenBSD has two
strong points in its favor:

	  1. OpenBSD's developers
	  2. OpenBSD's secure base

The secure base speaks for itself. As to the developers: if Debian/BSD
offers a superior ports system, it's entirely reasonable to assume
that many/most OpenBSD developers will be quick to adopt it.

This means that eyes which have been trained to look for security
flaws will have Debian's port system and most common ports under

> What libc should we use?
>    (_) BSD
>    (_) Port a glibc

BSD. Hands down.

Whichever base is chosen, the libc included is going to be well-tuned
for that OS, and that OS for the BSD libc. The top half of the kernel
and libc are pretty well blended.

> What configuring style should we use?
>    (_) BSD
>    (_) SysV

BSD would be more widely accepted by existing BSD developers. (Can
anyone comment on Mac OS/X structure?)

> Should we run native binaries or under linux-compat?
>    (_) Native
>    (_) Linux-compat

Native will perform better and will be more readily accepted and
therefore supported by developers affiliated with the chosen BSD base.

There's no reason to preclude Linux binary /support/, but it would be
nice if these were flagged as such and could be relegated to their own
tree, as non-free is now.

Reply to: