RE: bind9-chroot (was: questions on ITP)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Starner [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf
> Of David Starner
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 10:12 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: bind9-chroot (was: questions on ITP)
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:53:22AM +0200, Anders Jackson wrote:
> > > Sorry you think so. I genuinely did not see your explanation as to why
> > > a partial solution (2.4.x only) would not be better than the current
> > > solution. In fact, I genuinely cannot believe that there is such
> > > an explanation.
> > Not all Debian distributions will run Linux as a kernel.
> And? An optimal chroot on Hurd would use something similar, tailored to
> Hurd. It would be better to have two slightly different implementations
> for the Hurd and Linux, rather than one weaker implementation. In
> reality, it's not much of an issue if it's Linux-only, as there aren't
> many nameservers running the Hurd.
> Debian BSD and Lose32 are still vaporware, and a bunch of stuff won't
> work on them already. I plan to lose no sleep worrying about what will
> and won't work on them until they actually exist (and probably not even
> then for Lose32).
> David Starner - email@example.com
> Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
> "I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each
> one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less."
> - "Disciple", Stuart Davis
What is Lose32? Is that suposed to be a windows clone or something... and is it really in the future of debian... I dont think even debian can sort out windows... I am just curious.