Re: kfreebsd-9 in experimental?
2011/6/15 Darko Hojnik <hojnik@virtualizing.org>:
> Please tell me what makes KfreeBSD for you interesting to use? What does
> KfreeBSD to makes the World a little bit better? It's a philosophical
> question.
>
> So for me it's not interesting to deploy it on a Desktop. Because
> FreeBSD/KfreeBSD leaks on support with mainstream-consumer like hardware.
> Accept it because it is like is. The Slogan of FreeBSD is the power to
> serve... Thats the real focus of FreeBSD. On a server FreeBSD is in many
> cases better then Linux. And Debian GNU KfreeBSD is the logical pragmatic
> way to simplifying the Power of the FreeBSD-Kernel with an good
> package-management.
> As an example Netapp is for storage one of the well known backbones on the
> cloud. Would it be not better for the world if Debian kFreeBSD would takes
> this part? Both has got the same kernel. Typical Desktops and Workstations
> of today begins to be outdated. And within ten years they will haves no
> future anymore. And that would be great! Everything in the Cloud usable on
> demand just in time!
> But the clock ticks and ticks...
> Debian and all another opensource-projects has to realize whats currently
> happen. I think they haves a good chance to win this game. If it will be
> lost then it will lost everything. Democracy and generally every Freedom not
> on Software only, on every part of life would be controlled on some
> company's.
>
> My self is using more then 10 years Debian. Some years ago I could every day
> say that debian ships mass with class. But in some cases currently it's mass
> only instead class...
> I think it will be nice if this project would set more focus on quality. The
> Debian-installer supports only a basic install on ZFS. They is no support to
> install it on subvolumes. Also to handle compression, DEDUP and other
> features of ZFS. So you have still to choose debootstrap for an install in a
> datacenter.
Thanks for your input Darko. I understand your concern but one often needs
to balance the benefit against the cost, and IMHO providing HEAD snapshots via
kfreebsd-9 has significant benefit with a very small cost (updating the package
takes very little effort).
> If you are hacking on the FreeBSD kernel so also you hack for an better
> KfreeBSD too. Don't take everything only, give something back. Debian is not
> Ubuntu.
When it comes to giving back, having a readily available staging area that
tracks HEAD makes it easier for patches to be merged upstream.
> I'm looking very interested on this project. But I see very much open
> problems. Why merge unnecessary stuff they will need to much time to solve
> currently not present problems?
As for D-I, writing complete ZFS support would require significant manpower,
which we don't have. Unless you want to help, of course.
Which other open problems did you have in mind?
--
Robert Millan
Reply to: