On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 07:21:06AM -0600, steve ulrich wrote: > On 12/17/07, Florin Iucha <florin at iucha.net> wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Josh Paetzel wrote: > > > > > > > A linux distribution is an independantly developed kernel + a bunch of > > > > independantly developed 3rd party userland tools + an independantly > > > > developed package management system + an independantly developed > > > > installer released as an operating system. > > > > > > > > In FreeBSD (and the other BSD projects follow this model as well) the > > > > installer, package management, userland, and kernel are all developed > > > > together by the same project. > > > > And that is an advantage because...? Microsoft follows the same > > model. > > it's an advantage for the end user because he knows that he has > consistency and coherence across the kernel and the critical elements > of user space. What is this consistency and coherence that you are talking about? The fact that all the user-space apps included on the CD run properly with the kernel and libc included on the CD? > not necessarily from the perspective of making things > work, although in my experience it certainly does, but because the end > users get a consistent system with a _known_ suite of elements. Again the word 'consistent'. And about _known_ - that's no big deal: you have the source code, you can _know_ what you are running, should you care to look at it. Do you review the source code deltas before upgrading your machines? > on a *BSD system i know that i'm going to have a certain well defined > set of libraries, utilities and a well honed upgrade path. it doesn't > vary from distribution to distribution. things just work. i got a > baseline OS and i could layer applications onto it in an entirely > separate mode of operation. I would still say that Debian system takes better care of upgrades, preserving or updating configuration as necessary, than the *BSD pkg. > setting aside the relative merits of the kernel and such, it's simply > a matter of operational preference. Now you are talking, and I understand and respect that. > as a guy who would get paged for > something (mercifully no more) i wanted to have a well established > baseline with known system elements and commitments to backport > features or bugs or security issues. i got that w/freebsd. the > community is very good about backports and addressing _system_ bugs > and security issues. while in the linux world that responsibility > falls upon the distribution to take care of. While in the FreeBSD world that responsibility fails upon the distribution too, except that is a different role assigned to the same group. It is not necessarily better, just different. Can you point me to a security patch for a distro supported linux application or library that would have been done 'better' if performed by the upstream rather than RedHat, Debian, SuSE/Novell, etc? If not, then your original point is shaky. > > > > Take for instance the split in development between gnu libc and the > > > > linux kernel. At one point in the past it was a difficult enough > > > > situation that the linux kernel crowd forked gnu libc so they could > > > > maintain their own, and only their inability to keep up with feature > > > > development sent them back to using straight gnu libc. > > > > References? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_C_Library - see the section called "a > temporary fork" Well, I read the reference and I have to object to your interpretation. The Linux kernel developers forked the GNU libc so they can have a more efficient integration (sort of what you argue as being so good in FreeBSD) between the kernel and the libc, not "so they could maintain their own". Read Linus' concerns regarding the GNU Libc here (referenced from the article you cited): http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2002-01/msg00079.html > having lived through that it wasn't pretty and pushed me to freebsd > for production boxes pretty quickly. i simply didn't have time for > that. > > fwiw - i don't care about the politics and such associated with this, > i just need to have stuff that works and works with a minimum of fuss. > i'm trying to make money. i'm kind of mercenary like that and > diversions like this are wasted time for what i'm usually trying to > accomplish. I'm fine with that. But don't extrapolate from your personal comfort to a general 'goodness' measure. > clearly this situation has been fixed in linux and we're all moving forward. :) OK. I'm glad that you've seen the light 8^) florin -- Bruce Schneier expects the Spanish Inquisition. http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/163 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20071218/0ec0b00e/attachment.pgp