On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hello, Freddie.
You wrote 23 февраля 2014 г., 22:31:48:
FC The main developer for systemd is very anti-portability and
anti-!Linux. He
FC had actively rejected patches that made his projects work on non-Linux
FC systems. In order to port systemd to a non-Linux system, he wants you
to
FC first implement every Linux feature that systemd uses.
FC systemd is a non-starter, and not with considering.
The problem is, next (or N+2) GNOME, KDE and X.org itself will depend on
systemd, and, maybe, X.org will be discontinued at all for Wayland
(or-what-is-name-of-this-technology), which will be even more
Linux-centric.
It is topic for other thread, but this chasing Linux in system features
(hal/udev/systemd/whatever) needed for desktop environment is painful, and
FreeBSD without decent modern DE will fail to attract new users :(
--
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
The convoluted hierarchy of Linux makes it a pain when working on software
porting between Linux and any BSD system. There is more similarities
between the BSD setup than between various Linux distributions.
Take, for example, sound. It is a layer that has kernel access in FreeBSD.
Even OSS has kernel level modules.
In Linux there is sound, and alsa, and pulse, and bits of esound to make
the system work. A bit of difference, eh?
Look also at the implementation of NFS on Linux. They would have saved a
lot of time doing an exact porting to Linux but that was ignored. NFSv3 is
more common than NFSv4 because the latter in Linux is still in the
developmental and porting stage.
--Actually, it is easier to see the similarities between the NFS
implementations and see the exact similarities than working with comparing
sound between the systems.--
It is Linux chasing to be on an equal plane and it is the wrong way to do
things. Recently CLang and GCC developers decided to forego the silliness
proposed by Stallman and work together. A bad analogy no less but, it is
still relevant. Why would anyone want to lock a system into a single piece
or set of software unless they did not want development to continue in
other areas.
I, like other enthusiasts, prefer a system that is simple, stable, to the
point, and easily configured.
If one wants to use the idea as an alternative then by all means do so;
but, do not make it a requirement, keep it as an option for those who want
it.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
