On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:33:40AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > kfreebsd is working at least as well as hurd. I would have said better, currently. Hurd's sat in the archive for almost a decade without without managing a release or, as far as I've seen, being a feasible alternative operating system that people will want to use for real work at all. I'm pretty disappointed by that, personally, and I'd rather put my effort, as a DD, as an ftpmaster, as DPL, or whatever, in areas where it's actually going to help users. > I think it's really strange > to include one of them and not the other. I can see making them both > second-class citizens in the archive until usage is proven, but including > hurd as an official port but not kfreebsd at this point makes no sense to > me. It's not a question of including either or both of Hurd or kfreebsd; it's a question of including kfreebsd or throwing out Hurd or both or neither. A new architecture being added should be significantly better than an old architecture getting removed. My impression, which isn't terribly informed and may be wrong, is that Hurd's been better supported and more valuable to our users in the past than kfreebsd is currently. I'd love to be proved wrong on kfreebsd's value to users and the project. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature