The FreeBSD kernel maintainers are pretty conservative. I don't think they would apply radical patches or architectural changes readily. So I think it's safe to say their way is different than replacing parts by unfinished software just to see how it works without much forethought.
>>Yes, and hitting CPU with a hammer helps to halt the system. It spans even greater variations.
On most systems one can use
for that. It's something that should work on most unixes (and somewhat comically, happens to be part of the sysvinit package).
>>Simple. It offers real tangible advantages by using features specific to one platform.
And ignores all the other ones. Hence my example of a mail-server. If anyone would propose a new default mailserver for any unix that would be non-portable, the proposal would at best be ignored. But now it's an even more important subsystem for linux, and for some reason it's okay to be sloppy and take shortcuts, viz "The hard parts of programming (like portability) are easy; you just have to leave out the hard parts."
I'm fine with someone trying to do things differently, but as soon as it's pushed as "the one true way", I get wary; especially if there are holes in the approach that are simply being papered over by pronouncing it "sticking to old principles".