On 2012-03-21 15:57:23 +0100 (+0100), Josselin Mouette wrote:
> This is a reasonable position to take, but if it is the general
> position of kFreeBSD developers, it completely dismisses the
> shrieks of all those asking to not choose a solution that
> currently doesn’t work for kFreeBSD.
I've been following this and all related threads to date and never
saw anyone pipe up with, "As one of the kfreebsd/hurd/whatever
porters, I refuse to work on implementing a solution to support a
new init system." Most of the detractors appeared to simply be using
non-Linux ports as an excuse not to switch away from sysvinit, but
weren't necessarily the ones who would be taking on that work
anyway... and that lead to heated arguments in which these
experimental ports got caught in the crossfire for no good reason.
Attacking the usefulness or viability of those projects as a means
of discrediting the vocal opposition seems to me to be doing more
harm than good, as does using them as a scapegoat to avoid
introducing new technologies. I have a few machines running kfreebsd
and hurd ports (for testing some decidedly useful technologies
missing from Linux), and the various non-Linux porters have done a
commendable job implementing necessary features to support other
previously Linux-only reliance in Debian. I see no good reason to
expect that they wouldn't continue to do so.
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); PGP(43495829);
WHOIS(STANL3-ARIN); SMTP(fu...@yuggoth.org); FINGER(fu...@yuggoth.org);
MUD(kin...@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); IRC(fu...@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); }
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120321175433.gl...@yuggoth.org
