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
Keep in mind that a lot of the porting work has already been done
by the BSD ports collections, they should not be ignored. Also, a lot of
work was done on this in the past (read the archives of debian-bsd) - it
will probably pay off if we take notes from their effort.
Maybe another vote should be
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
As for my prefs, even tho I've used FreeBSD since 2.0.5, I
would vote to use either the Open or Net distributions, make
use of the BSD libc where it makes sense, and glibc for
everything else.
What's wrong with having a /usr/ucb/{bin,lib,include} ? Non-k
> 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 syste
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
>
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 in
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
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.
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
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 hav
Debian GNU
utilities.
-j
-Original Message-
From: Andreas Krennmair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Andreas Krennmair
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 10:50 AM
To: Debian-BSD Mailinglist
Subject: vote
This is a vote what system that we should take as basis for our project.
1) Which kernel
(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 thi
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
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 16:49:46 +0200
> To: Debian-BSD Mailinglist
>
> 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 ke
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
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
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..
> &
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
eems to me the best way to
do it. It I wanted the native userland I would just use OpenBSD after all. :)
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) OpenBS
> 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
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
2) What userland
a) only the userland that came with the chosen kernel
b) "native" userland + some GNU utilities
41 matches
Mail list logo
