Re: Init system deba{te|cle}

[berenger.morel@neutralite.org]

Le 05.11.2013 15:32, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 03:10:31PM +0100,
> berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:
> > As simple Debian users, we indeed do not mind about portability
> > stuff. But for Debian's maintainers, using systemd as default means
> > that they'll have to maintain other systems for Debian Hurd and
> > Debian KFreeBSD.
> Debian Hurd is not a release architecture so the project is not 
> hobbled
> by its requirements (yet). That's certainly the case for KFreeBSD, so
> long as it remains a release architecture for jessie. Quite 
> separately
> from the init discussion, I believe some of my fellow developers have
> concerns regarding its readiness (and did so for wheezy too).
>
> > But, indeed, almost nobody mind about that, because linux is
> > probably the most used kernel in free software world, and not with a
> > small difference. Linux is like the windows of free software world
> > (in term of adoption, not about other aspects).
> Yes, in Debian the amd64 variant of the Linux kernel is more popular
> than the two KFreeBSD variants combined by a very large margin.
To be very honest, I have no idea about differences between the kernels 
from end-user point of view. Except that it seem you can use windows' 
drivers natively, of course (but that single point really sounds 
interesting in itself).
The lack of informations about those differences is the only one thing 
which made me not switching, and I do not know how longer my prudence 
will refrain my curiosity. And since I really trust Debian developers 
for doing quality work, I do not have a lot of concerns about it being 
ready.
From the developer point of view, the fact that FreeBSD can be compiled 
with other compilers than GCC is a strong argument for switching. My 
opinion is that being able to compile something with more than one 
compiler is a proof of quality.