Guillermo:
>> OpenBSD
>> =======
>>
>> [...]
>> There are an awful lot of limitations to OpenBSD, [...]
>>
> How funny it is that this summary and the WWW page echo the sentiments
> in skarnet.org packages' source files comments and commit messages :D
>
We didn't collaborate. (-: I don't actually know what M. Bercot has
said on the matter. It's not unexpected that two projects sharing
several design principles will hit the same problems with OpenBSD, though.
The more interesting things to consider are other operating systems.
For starters: Ubuntu on Windows NT would possibly be a less problematic
port than OpenBSD. Whilst it, too, has obstacles with pseudo-terminals,
framebuffers, and the system manager; what it doesn't have, that OpenBSD
has, is the difficulty with the package management. Ubuntu on Windows
NT has APT like Debian, of course. I've said before, elsewhere, that one
could probably successfully get nosh service management, UCSPI support,
and log management working on Ubuntu on Windows NT; although obtaining
an actual daemon context is still problematic.
(
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11416376)
Moreover: UbuntuBSD and Debian FreeBSD shouldn't have the obstacles with
the pseudo-terminals, framebuffers, and the system manager; these, after
all, being things that the FreeBSD operating system kernel provides in
largely suitable form. (
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11326457)
Incidentally: I wrote a while ago that UbuntuBSD probably wouldn't use
Mewburn rc. It doesn't. UbuntuBSD 16.04, released this month, uses
BusyBox init and (the Debian port of) OpenRC rc.
Received on Tue Aug 16 2016 - 04:50:12 UTC