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

Re: Voting template

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Wartan Hachaturow wrote:

> So, I am wating for any possible add-ons or improvements to the
> poll questions.

Another poll question:

What general utilities/tools (such as ls, netstat, who) should we use?

   (_) GNU
   (_) BSD

Some points to think about:
 - some utilities may be specific to the kernel or other OS
   specific configurations
 - many utilities have different options/arguments
 - many utilities give different results (or different formatted results) 
 - BSDs already do use some GNU software
 - Debian already does use some BSD-type software

I'd vote for BSD. I only see Debian/BSD as a regular BSD that uses Debian
package system (dpkg, apt) for contributed software.

I have more comments below ...

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Brian McGroarty wrote:

> 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.

As a BSD (primarily NetBSD) user, I don't see how NetBSD's goals are any
closer to the goals of Linux compared to OpenBSD or FreeBSD. They all want
a stable, clean/properly-coded, well-running, high-performance,
easy-to-use operating system that works on a variety of
hardware. (Each OS could argue on which of these points are most important
for the other operating systems.)

> 	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.

Interesting point.

> 	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.

Mac OS/X (Darwin layer) uses a lot (or more) of NetBSD's code.

> 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.

I can't see that.

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

OpenBSD (as it is) doesn't have the time to truely audit its ports
(packages) collection.

> > 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?)

But some BSDs do use a /etc/rc.d scripts which are a little similar to
SysV. They don't have the same type of runlevels, but it may be a good
idea to use the /etc/rc.conf for some basic configurations but also use
/etc/init.d/ scripts.

(Speaking as a Debian user/administrator of a few years:) If Debian/BSD is
Debian then I believe it should be usable by a Debian user, i.e. a user
should be able to do things like:
  /etc/init.d/exim reload

As for the Mac OS X structure: it uses an entirely different configuration
and file system layout compared to a Linux or BSD. For example, it uses
netinfo (a system/tool used by Next) for a variety of configurations (and
administration) including users and dns. (Nevertheless, I believe it can
be forced to not use the netinfo system and to use the normal Unix-like
configurations; but this may be a lot of work.)

(The other points I agreed with.)

(I think I may write an opinion piece article about this for BSD Today; it
should result in a lot of feedback. This article will briefly tell BSD
users what Debian is and means; and it will tell Debian users what BSD is.
Plus I'll share the questions and the situations that are being discussed
to figure out which angle to go with. Feel free to email me privately or
on-list if you have any thoughts or points that you believe I should
publish in the article; please let me know if I can attribute your
thoughts/ideas to your name.)

In my opinion, I can't see how this project can really be Debian/BSD. When
it's done, it won't really be Debian; and when it's done it won't be BSD.

  Jeremy C. Reed
  http://www.isp-faq.com/    -- find answers to your questions

Reply to: