Re: A few observations about systemd
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 02:00:40PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes ("Re: A few observations about systemd"):
> > What's more, neither of the 'ports' to other kernels increases hardware
> > support.
>
> What they do provide is healthy competition for Linux. There are
> reasons why some users prefer the BSD kernel to Linux. Talking as if
> increased hardware support were the sole criterion to prefer one
> kernel to another is to miss those reasons.
>
> There are some serious problems with the Linux kernel. I still run it
> but I am much more comfortable that there is a choice.
>
> > I fundamentally disagree with the idea that all our packages must avoid
> > relying on certain features because some developers want to experiment
> > with FreeBSD (which already has a Linux emulation layer) or Hurd (a
> > long-running joke) and they are lacking these features. This doesn't
> > serve users, it serves those developers.
>
> I don't know how many Debian kFreeBSD users there are. But neither do
> you.
Popcon suggests there are 1000+ times less kfreebsd users than amd64+i386
users, and that there are more users of the old arm port (the one
deprecated in favour of armel) than of both kfreebsd ports together.
The number of popcon submissions for kfreebsd tripled at the squeeze
released, but went down since then, now at roughly twice the amount it
used to have before squeeze release. So people installed it when it was
released with squeeze, and some of them kept using it.
(Not implying anything about what we should or shouldn't do about these
ports, merely giving references)
Mike
Reply to: