2011/6/15 Darko Hojnik <email@example.com>:
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
So for me it's not interesting to deploy it on a Desktop. Because
FreeBSD/KfreeBSD leaks on support with mainstream-consumer like
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
way to simplifying the Power of the FreeBSD-Kernel with an good
As an example Netapp is for storage one of the well known backbones on
cloud. Would it be not better for the world if Debian kFreeBSD would
this part? Both has got the same kernel. Typical Desktops and
of today begins to be outdated.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
demand just in time!
But the clock ticks and ticks...
Debian and all another opensource-projects has to realize whats
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
on Software only, on every part of life would be controlled on some
My self is using more then 10 years Debian. Some years ago I could
say that debian ships mass with class. But in some cases currently it's
only instead class...
I think it will be nice if this project would set more focus on
Debian-installer supports only a basic install on ZFS. They is no
install it on subvolumes. Also to handle compression, DEDUP and other
features of ZFS. So you have still to choose debootstrap for an install
Thanks for your input Darko. I understand your concern but one often
to balance the benefit against the cost, and IMHO providing HEAD
kfreebsd-9 has significant benefit with a very small cost (updating the
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
When it comes to giving back, having a readily available staging area
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
currently not present problems?
As for D-I, writing complete ZFS support would require significant
which we don't have. Unless you want to help, of course.
Which other open problems did you have in mind?