| |||||||||||
Widely ported, sure.Widely ported, sure.Posted Dec 31, 2005 9:31 UTC (Sat) by ncm (subscriber, #165)In reply to: Widely ported, sure. by danieldk Parent article: NetBSD 3.0
I recall, too, a topologically-sorted init process, in place of the baroque sysvinit scheme (with numbered symlinks in /etc/rc?.d) used in most Linux distros.
It seems worth mentioning that there's a Debian port with the NetBSD kernel underpinning a GNU userland, called Debian GNU/kNetBSD. This is no aberration; Debian has been intended to be kernel-agnostic from the beginning, originally to leave room for the Hurd. You can choose between exim and postfix to move your mail, between evolution and mutt to read it, between firefox and galeon to surf, and between Linux and the NetBSD kernel to operate the hardware.
(Log in to post comments)
Widely ported, sure. Posted Dec 31, 2005 9:52 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] Actually, topology-sorted init has been in SuSE since around 8.0, I believe. It is supposed to be part of the LSB since 1.3 but has remained widely unimplemented on other distroes (except, maybe, Gentoo).
Widely ported, sure. Posted Dec 31, 2005 11:53 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Gentoo does have topology-sorted init. I like it. But this kinda shows what's wrong with "*BSD vs Linux" comparision. Once you are comparing "*BSD kernel" and "Linux kernel" - comparision is more-or-less fair. But when you are trying to compare "*BSD" and "GNU/Linux" (and use just "Linux" to confuse everyone) - it becomes complicated. For every obscure feature found in *BSD you can find equally obscure GNU/Linux distribution where feature was "implemented for ages"! Not exactly fair comparision...
Widely ported, sure. Posted Jan 1, 2006 21:11 UTC (Sun) by samb (subscriber, #32949) [Link] Was Debian GNU/kNetBSD ever functional? It was basically a one-man show, and I believe it's defunct now.
|
|||||||||||