Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian: kFreeBSD 9.0 Kernel Competing Against Linux 3.2

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    Maybe because Ubuntu propagates Debian's way when comes to few things like apt, debs. Ubuntu and Linux kernel (and kernel related things like systemd) are far more important for Debian than bsd crap. I don't like Debian cares about crap like kfreebsd and llvm as GCC replacement which just makes things more complicated. They're free to do what they want, but they do stupid things sometimes.
    Don't get me wrong, I don't think caring about an experimental GNU/FreeBSD is better or worst than caring about another GNU/Linux distro (in fact, if they care for Ubuntu, better for me, since it's my main distro), nor about switching the main compiler. But I really don't understand why would they care about Ubuntu. Even when they propagate their way in such things, I don't think that following up Ubuntu decissions (like switching to systemd) can make sense from that point. If they do that, they're in fact following the Ubuntu way now, not the other way around like you suggest.
    With that criteria, Debian should start using Unity for default, so Ubuntu can benefit of the manpower...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
      But I really don't understand why would they care about Ubuntu. Even when they propagate their way in such things, I don't think that following up Ubuntu decissions (like switching to systemd) can make sense from that point. If they do that, they're in fact following the Ubuntu way now, not the other way around like you suggest.
      With that criteria, Debian should start using Unity for default, so Ubuntu can benefit of the manpower...
      In my first comment I didn't say they should care about Ubuntu and you can ignore my second one, because I was thinking about something else. I read somewhere it will be easier to Ubuntu to go for systemd if Debian will switch to this init system. While Debian ships kfreebsd which doesn't support systemd it can may some impact on their decision about switching or not. I'd love to see systemd in Ubuntu, but they say something like there's no reason to switch yet etc. So it's not that Ubuntu have impact on what Debian does, but it's clearly opposite in my opinion. If Debian will switch it will influence Ubuntu to do the same, because they will have less work than go alone with Upstart.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        In my first comment I didn't say they should care about Ubuntu and you can ignore my second one, because I was thinking about something else. I read somewhere it will be easier to Ubuntu to go for systemd if Debian will switch to this init system. While Debian ships kfreebsd which doesn't support systemd it can may some impact on their decision about switching or not. I'd love to see systemd in Ubuntu, but they say something like there's no reason to switch yet etc. So it's not that Ubuntu have impact on what Debian does, but it's clearly opposite in my opinion. If Debian will switch it will influence Ubuntu to do the same, because they will have less work than go alone with Upstart.
        Sorry, I misread. I missunderstood and thought you meant Debian devs actually could take that into account at the time of making a call. Now that you clarified it, I can say I agree with you :P

        Comment


        • #19
          Windows reference

          Sometimes it would be nice to have Windows in there as a reference ..

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by brunis View Post
            Sometimes it would be nice to have Windows in there as a reference ..
            That's not relevant here. The point of the benchmark is not to make an objective speed scale, but just to compare kFreeBSD with Linux kernel (even though there are some doubtful conditions and such), so the Windows reference is unneeded here.

            Comment


            • #21
              good test. i was curious on this. i tryed kfreebsd then, but it was very broken for me. but expected more difference for linux.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                I hope Debian will get rid of kfreebsd kernel and simply focus on Linux and systemd, so it will be easier to Ubuntu to switch. The benchmark results are great. It's good to see the same GCC version was used.
                I don't care for kfreebsd, but as long as it gives a reason to stick with sysvinit, I'm all for it.
                init should be init, that's it.
                I don't wan't chroot upgrades failing, I don't want to recompile init if early stages need fixing, I don't need snapshotting, and DISK TOOLS DON"T BELONG IN INIT!
                I can get 32 MB used with sysvinit and a ton of services, on debian; and chroot stuff works without any magic. I can't tell how a comparable systemd setup would be, but it beats Upstart, and systemd seems to have more of that garbage.

                By the way, kfreebsd is not "experimental". It's officially supported.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Ibidem View Post
                  I don't care for kfreebsd, but as long as it gives a reason to stick with sysvinit, I'm all for it.
                  init should be init, that's it.
                  I don't wan't chroot upgrades failing, I don't want to recompile init if early stages need fixing, I don't need snapshotting, and DISK TOOLS DON"T BELONG IN INIT!
                  I can get 32 MB used with sysvinit and a ton of services, on debian; and chroot stuff works without any magic. I can't tell how a comparable systemd setup would be, but it beats Upstart, and systemd seems to have more of that garbage.

                  By the way, kfreebsd is not "experimental". It's officially supported.
                  sysvinit is damn slow and terribly simple crap that should die long ago. It does nothing, but starts services and doesn't give you any power to control them. If you want to stick in 80's you're free to do so. That's the problem kfreebsd is officially supported in Debian and I hope it will be dropped soon. It's the same joke as sysvinit.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Interesting conversation that was going on here. I for one obviously only saw it now.

                    Personally, I like kFreeBSD, it opens up a few choices for the Linux world. At the same time I wasn't aware that it was keeping Debian from going with systemd ect, but I must say, after playing with Debian/kFreeBSD for a while, I perrsonally am falling in love and will probably switch a few of my pcs at home over.

                    To add to that, I like seeing these benchmarks, they are informative to me at least, who doesn't have time to do them myself.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      There is a bad interaction between the FreeBSD kernel and GCC 4.4 and later. It forced the Debian developers to compile the FreeBSD kernel with -O1, which gives Debian GNU/kFreeBSD a handicap.

                      We had the same issue in Gentoo FreeBSD. We partially solved it by adopting Debian's patch and modifying it to support -O2 with Clang. Here is the Gentoo bug:

                      https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408019

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X