On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 10:32:25PM -0700, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>
> At 17:30 on 06/28/2001 -1000, Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I thought the point was BSD with a packaging system that doesn't
> > suck (tm)
>
> Then this would be a "freebsd-apt" mailing list, and not a "debian-bsd"
At 17:30 on 06/28/2001 -1000, Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought the point was BSD with a packaging system that doesn't
> suck (tm)
Then this would be a "freebsd-apt" mailing list, and not a "debian-bsd"
one. Make no mistakes- this should be treated as debian port, not a bsd
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 09:56:13AM -0600, ray p wrote:
> What would be the point? If you want the userland that the flavor of BSD that
> you like comes with why not just use it? After all they all tend to be at
> least as "free" as Debian in any case. I would think the whole point of this
> proj
Trying to support ext2 at this point would be a big waste of time/effort,
UFS works, use it. If people still want ext2, it should be worked on
later. Very later, like when the whole system is up and running. Having
ext2 support is, IMHO, a nicety feature - ie. it's not needed, but it
would be nice.
Guten Abend, Erich,
> First thing is that i (but i'm no insider) just don't believe that
> the difference between UFS and ext2 is so much; if it were, i believe
> that Linux hacker's would already have implemented big UFS support in
> the Linux kernel as well, just to get that better fs.
Yes, an
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 12:53:26PM -0400, Dan Papasian wrote:
[[[ ]]]
>
> > Now can we go back to _how_ to do things?
>
> Isn't that what we're discussing?
>
> You do have to plan before you act...
>
I think as much earnest discussion as is reasonable is
warrant
> All I'm trying to do is save you folks the trouble
> of wasting your time doing something, well, stupid. Things
> that would be really stupid are:
>
> -Using ext2fs as your filesystem
> -Using GNU libc
>
> And, in my opinion, the following aren't wise decisions either:
> -Going through and rem
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 07:36:25PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dan, would you please just go away if you don't want to help? You seem to only
> want to ensure that no Debian-BSD ever happens, and you try to discourage
> anyone who is interested in it. That's not constructive.
All I'm trying
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 06:17:45PM -0700, Nathan Myers wrote:
> - using any particular Debian utility means we need to port it to work
>with a BSD kernel and utilities, and maintain the port.
I don't think the Debian utilities are so much dependent on a specific
kernel. :) A port to BSD libc
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 07:00:51AM +0800, Nero wrote:
> > > BSD tools have been upgraded and kept modern as well- and
> > > considering, especially in NetBSD, their proven robustness
> > > and portability, it seems almost backwards to be replacing
> > > the BSD toolset with the GNU toolset.
>
> If
If you don't want to help then don't but for those of us who do just leave us
alone what skin is it off your nose?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:52:47PM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Dan, would you please just go away if you don't want to help? Yo
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dan, would you please just go away if you don't want to help? You seem
I agree with Dan's comments.
As for choosing which packages to begin with -- just start with dpkg and
apt-get.
Get dpkg and apt-get to work under a normal BSD.
Over the past co
Dan, would you please just go away if you don't want to help? You seem to only
want to ensure that no Debian-BSD ever happens, and you try to discourage
anyone who is interested in it. That's not constructive.
As for the need for this project, _I_ think if it is successful, the need for
FreeBSD an
> > BSD tools have been upgraded and kept modern
as well- and
> > considering, especially in NetBSD, their
proven robustness
> > and portability, it seems almost backwards to
be replacing
> > the BSD toolset with the GNU toolset.
If this is true, and those tools provide
pretty-much the same functi
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 09:43:21PM +0200, Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 03:30:34PM -0400, Dan Papasian wrote:
> > I sense that a lot of the need for this project is imagined;
> > BSD tools have been upgraded and kept modern as well- and
> > considering, especially in NetBSD, th
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 03:30:34PM -0400, Dan Papasian wrote:
> I sense that a lot of the need for this project is imagined;
> BSD tools have been upgraded and kept modern as well- and
> considering, especially in NetBSD, their proven robustness
> and portability, it seems almost backwards to be re
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 03:30:34PM -0400, Dan Papasian wrote:
> I sense that a lot of the need for this project is imagined;
> BSD tools have been upgraded and kept modern as well- and
> considering, especially in NetBSD, their proven robustness
> and portability, it seems almost backwards to be re
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 02:22:15PM -0400, Adam Goode wrote:
> > 2) What userland
> > c) mostly GNU utilities + some very system dependent userland
> > utilities.
> >
>
> GNU is great! I need 'df -h' !
Supported by FreeBSD since December 1999.
NetBSD has had a similar feature (-m, display
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 04:49:46PM +0200, Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> This is a vote what system that we should take as basis for our project.
>
> 1) Which kernel?
> c) FreeBSD kernel
It's the most common kernel, so more peoples can help to build/maintain the
debian system. FreeBSD is the onl
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 04:49:46PM +0200, Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> This is a vote what system that we should take as basis for our project.
> 1) Which kernel?
> b) NetBSD kernel
> 2) What userland
> c) mostly GNU utilities + some very system dependent userland
> utilities.
Nathan Myers
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 04:49:46PM +0200, Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> This is a vote what system that we should take as basis for our project.
>
> 1) Which kernel?
> a) OpenBSD kernel
> b) NetBSD kernel
> c) FreeBSD kernel
> d) Darwin kernel
make it as much kernel independent as possible
t
Hello!
> b) NetBSD kernel
> c) FreeBSD kernel
I'd take one of these two. NetBSD because of it's portability and
FreeBSD because of speed and the support of SMP.
But NetBSD will get SMP, too, so it is probably the better choice.
> c) mostly GNU utilities + some very system dependent user
Im just a user who would like to say what i think :)
1:
b) NetBSD kernel
It does not have as many features as the FreeBSD kernel
has but i like it better. FreeBSD feels more like a bloat.
Darwin is alot of FreeBSD and NetBSD + NetBSD userland, that is not
the choice here. If we choose NetBSD we ca
1: c) FreeBSD kernel (most features)
2: c) use GNU utilities
(if you don't know answer, fill in c :)
Kind regards,
Arjen Krap
Andreas Krennmair writes:
This is a vote what system that we should take as basis for our project.
1) Which kernel?
a) OpenBSD kernel
b) NetBSD kernel
c) FreeBSD kernel
d) Darwin kernel
c, a, or b in that order of preference. FreeBSD seems to be the most
featured for i386, which is the m
Note: I'm just a user; not a Debian contributer.
1) Which kernel?
a) OpenBSD kernel
b) NetBSD kernel
c) FreeBSD kernel
d) Darwin kernel
On this issue I'm mostly neutral, although if I had to choose I'd lean
towards FreeBSD, for no particular reason other than I get the
impression it's t
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 04:49:46PM +0200, Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> This is a vote what system that we should take as basis for our project.
>
> 1) Which kernel?
> b) NetBSD kernel
>
NetBSD has similar goals to Debian, at least when it comes to multi-
platform compatibility. Debian will do we
Disclaimer: I am not a Debian contributor in any way, merely a
loyal user.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 04:49:46PM +0200, Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> This is a vote what system that we should take as basis for our project.
>
> 1) Which kernel?
> a) OpenBSD kernel
> b) NetBSD kernel
> c) FreeBSD
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 04:49:46PM +0200, Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> This is a vote what system that we should take as basis for our project.
>
> 1) Which kernel?
> a) OpenBSD kernel
> b) NetBSD kernel
> c) FreeBSD kernel
> d) Darwin kernel
b), NetBSD seems to have less of an attitude aga
It does not make as much sense to me to make a Debian distribution around
the FreeBSD or Darwin kernels, as they are fairly platform specific. That
said, both the OpenBSD and NetBSD offer similar portability as the rest of
the Debian GNU/Linux currently does.
I would put forth that starting with t
(Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 04:49:46PM +0200) Andreas Krennmair :
> This is a vote what system that we should take as basis for our project.
>
> 1) Which kernel?
> a) OpenBSD kernel
> b) NetBSD kernel
> c) FreeBSD kernel
> d) Darwin kernel
(b) or (c)
I really don't think (a) and (d) is suitable
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 09:56:13AM -0600, ray p wrote:
> What would be the point? If you want the userland that the flavor of
> BSD that you like comes with why not just use it? After all they all
> tend to be at least as "free" as Debian in any case. I would think the
> whole point of this project
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 11:52:35PM +0800, Nero wrote:
> 1) either B or C - NetBSD for the portability
> factor, FreeBSD for speed.
>
> 2) C. This would make it pretty much Debian, with
> a BSD kernel.
>
1) -> AFAIK FreeBSD is by far more widespread than the others.
2) -> Definit
Den 26 Jun 2001 16:49:46 +0200 skrev Andreas Krennmair:
> This is a vote what system that we should take as basis for our project.
>
> 1) Which kernel?
> a) OpenBSD kernel
> b) NetBSD kernel
> c) FreeBSD kernel
> d) Darwin kernel
>
b
I think NetBSD would be a good start.
But why limit to
What would be the point? If you want the userland that the flavor of BSD that
you like comes with why not just use it? After all they all tend to be at least
as "free" as Debian in any case. I would think the whole point of this project
would be to get the GNU toolset with a BSD kernel and the D
1) either B or C - NetBSD for the portability
factor, FreeBSD for speed.
2) C. This would make it pretty much Debian, with
a BSD kernel.
Begin Original Message
From: Andreas Krennmair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 16:49:46 +0200
To: Debian-BSD Mailinglist
Subject: vote
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 03:56:31PM +, David Dorgan wrote:
> > 1) Which kernel?
> > a) OpenBSD kernel
> > b) NetBSD kernel
> > c) FreeBSD kernel
> > d) Darwin kernel
i vote for netbsd, but theres no reason why they cant all be
supported later..
> > a) only the userland that came wit
vote
>- Original Message -
>From: Andreas Krennmair
>To: Debian-BSD Mailinglist
>Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 12:49 AM
>Subject: vote
>
>
>This is a vote what system that we should take as basis for our project.
>1) Which kernel?
> a) OpenBSD kernel
> b) NetBSD kernel
B (tick)
1) OpenBSD kernel. AFAIK or can tell on all other fronts they are about the
same but the OpenBSD people have been over their's with a fine toothed comb.
2) c The main reason I'm interested in this at all is to get the tool set that
comes with Debian GNU/Linux with a BSD kernel. This seems to me t
> 1) Which kernel?
> a) OpenBSD kernel
> b) NetBSD kernel
> c) FreeBSD kernel
> d) Darwin kernel
Well I use them all daily, I am using openbsd as a desktop for a year and a
half now.
Basically I think openbsd could be a little more compact, easier to change.
The install process, with our c
40 matches
Mail list logo
