Debian Gets FreeBSD Kernel Support

mu22le writes "Today Debian gets one step closer to really becoming 'the universal operating system' by adding two architectures based on the FreeBSD kernel to the unstable archive. This does not mean that the Debian project is ditching the Linux kernel; Debian users will be able to choose which kernel they want to install (at least on on the i386 and amd64 architectures) and get more or less the same Debian operating system they are used to. This makes Debian the first distribution, and probably the first large OS, to support two completely different kernels at the same time."

Comments

Re:ZFS support

[evilviper]

Bash and ksh are quite on par feature-wise, so pick whichever one you prefer

I see you repeatedly dismissed any points you can't argue with. Nicely done.

if anything, you should be comparing bash against tcsh which is the default shell in FreeBSD.

Why TCSH? What makes the FreeBSD defaults representative of all of BSD land, all of a sudden?

Is there such a thing as a BSD shell anyway?

Well, since what's now MKSH couldn't even be compiled on any platform other than OpenBSD for many YEARS, I think, yes, it qualifies if anything does...

This clashes with POSIX standards.

Name more than one Unix system that follows that particular POSIX standard then. POSIX is most definitely not the be all end all of how a Unix system should act. You're clearly stretching to justify the pointless, useless, incompatible, and annoying behavior.

It doesn't do that when you pipe into it, which is all that matters in practice.

Gee. Thanks for telling me how I'm supposed to use my computer. Much appreciated.

And every time I need to do some quick math, do I have to write a script for it now? Because that's "all that matters"?

I don't see how that's to do with anything other than how the binaries were compiled?

Well then, you apparently know absolutely nothing about any form of programming... This does explain quite a bit, really.

GNU make is a great example, because it's obviously immensely superior to all other implementations of make.

Actually it's pretty horrible. It merely works most of the time because it's been around since before Linux, and used on so many systems where the proprietary version of make was horrendous, that EVERYTHING is coded with GMakes bugs and quirks in-mind.

Have you noticed that cdrtools always complains when you use GMake, and recommends the use of anything else? Not to say that BSD make should be used... smaller target audience and all that...

Besides, you've proven pretty well you know nothing about programming at all. And you've not bothered to list a single reason why gmake is supposedly superior, at all.

Try comparing manpages side by side and let me know when you find a single *feature* in a BSD tool that is not in a GNU tool.

That's almost funny. Pretty much the only thing a GNU man page has ever told anyone about anything, is that they should be using "info" instead, if they want to get ANY information on the program...