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, and if ext2 were better than UFS, the BSD kernel hackers would already have implemented big ext2 support, wouldn't they? The point is that, for the moment, we're trying to get a system running with a BSD kernel - and the BSD kernel happens to have much better support for UFS than ext2. So I'd say let's go UFS. > But most user's will want to run Debian/BSD as well as Debian/Linux. The interesting question is, will they want to run it on the same partition? While that would certainly be a very admirable long-term goal, I'm sure it's not going to happen anytime soon, even if we try to bend the BSD kernel over to ext2. > As UFS support is still "experimental" (it's read-only, isn't it?) > people might prefer to use ext2 as their root fs for Debian/BSD - so > they can boot their Linux and access the data from there as well. > Sure, you could install *BSD as well to your existing Debian Linux... > It's just that people might prefer. If we're going to be so pessimistic as to plan for people wanting to access their data with more than read-only support from another OS, we might as well drop the project, IMHO. > But i believe that people will _expect_ to run glibc "by default". > They expect a "Debian" System, which means "as compatible to > Debian/Linux as possible" - so i will expect all my programs (unless > they are kernel-specific) to compile in the exactly same way, to > behave in the same way etc. Actually, a "Debian" system means just that - a system which conforms to the Debian Policy. For some people, myself included, one of the points of this project is to prove that Debian is more than just Linux. I'm not sure what you mean by compatibility here - do you mean binary compatibility? If so, it's already been done. And I, for one, don't just want a BSD system that can do everything Linux can and does everything like Linux does. I want a BSD system that has the advantages of a BSD system with the ease-of-maintenance and consistancy of Debian. If you ask me, the disadvantages of using glibc far outweigh those of using BSD libc. glibc would be a pretty big porting effort - sure to get this project stuck at stage 1, if you ask me. The disadvantages of BSD libc will be very small, as far as I can tell. You want everything to compile exactly the same as on a GNU/Linux system - well, I have news for you, it's called GNU autoconf... > Debian/BSD should NOT become FreeBSD+dpkg. > i think it's intended to become Debian with a BSD kernel. > But still 99.9% Debian. Keeping in mind that Debian != Linux. MfG, Michael ===== Save the internet! Join the fight against the tyranny of ICANN! http://www.media-visions.com/icann.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
