On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:05:56PM +0000, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> I think the important question is whether portability to other kernels
> is or should be a "project's goal", and how much else you're willing
> to lose for the sake of that goal. I know I would personally be a lot
> happier with a Debian that supports systemd functionality than with a
> Debian that can run on a BSD kernel.
I ran GNU/kFreeBSD on a server of mine for over a year because it had
pf. pf makes OS fingerprinting automatic and a lot easier (at the time,
Debian's Linux kernel did not have the osf module) and traffic shaping
is much, much easier as well[0]. The Linux kernel has only recently had
ipset functionality merged upstream, which pf has had for years. The
FreeBSD kernel also had a much, much more responsive scheduler as well
(it may still, I don't know). It also supports ZFS, which is very
important to some people. The reason I left is because pf stopped
working. I agree that GNU/kFreeBSD is not a great desktop platform, but
it is an excellent server platform.
Also, I've installed systemd on my laptop and it logs almost nothing to
the console ("verbose" on the kernel command line does not help).
Logging to syslog is not helpful when the system won't come up to the
point of starting syslog. What it *does* log (to syslog), however, is a
message that /usr as a separate partition is obsolete, even though this
has no effect on systemd at all, other than offending the upstream
author. Last I checked, The Unix Way did not involve having important
system programs prattle on about irrelevant details.
I'll side with supporting GNU/kFreeBSD over systemd any day.
[0] Extremely limited bandwidth for incoming Windows SMTP servers,
anyone?
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature