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 and NetBSD might become imaginary. After all, the Debian way is clearly superior. Now can we go back to _how_ to do things? On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 05:06:40PM -0400, Dan Papasian wrote: > 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, their proven robustness > > > and portability, it seems almost backwards to be replacing > > > the BSD toolset with the GNU toolset. > > You don't want to start a flamewar, do you? :) > > I did not mean to let any personal beliefs about either toolset > leak through, but what I simply mean is that the BSD toolset and > the BSD kernel are a proven combination; mixing and matching various > toolsets with other kernels probably wouldn't be disasterous, but > it would probably be counterproductive. > > I'd have a same negative response to anyone who wanted to do > the exact opposite- it's too much effort for not enough result. > > > Anyway, the Debian utilities are usually assuming a GNU system, with > > bash and all the GNU utilities with their "proprietary" extension > > (proprietary in this context means not being in any standard; free > > software defined like the FSF does can never be proprietary). > > Many of these extensions exist in modern BSDs as well. > > -- > Dan Papasian | ICQ UIN- 1240015 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM- bugg42 > > A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a > statistic. > --Josef Stalin > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
