Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Debian Gets FreeBSD Kernel Support

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the types-like-this-kept-me-out-of-good-schools dept.

Debian 425

mu22le writes "Today Debian gets one step closer to really becoming 'the universal operating system' by adding two architectures based on the FreeBSD kernel to the unstable archive. This does not mean that the Debian project is ditching the Linux kernel; Debian users will be able to choose which kernel they want to install (at least on on the i386 and amd64 architectures) and get more or less the same Debian operating system they are used to. This makes Debian the first distribution, and probably the first large OS, to support two completely different kernels at the same time."

cancel ×

425 comments

I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (4, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469145)

But with FreeBSD doing Linux apps, and Debian able to run the FreeBSD kernel, things are getting kinda weird in UNIX-land.

I think I need to lie down now.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (1)

edivad (1186799) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469197)

Not really. People mostly care of userspace apps they daily use, and as long as those are working fine, the kernel underneath is not really important. I'd still pick Linux over FreeBSD any day of the week, 365 days / year, but others might not care at all.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (5, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469317)

FreeBSD
*is more secure (apparently, i don't know enough to be sure but they're development model and security results do tend to suggest this)
*has zfs,
*etc

  while linux has other advantages,
*hardware support for many newer devices,
*faster boot (i think),
*lvm (imho when snapshot merging merges, i think it can compete with zfs)
*etc

So while I think the biggest difference though is the licensing, there are some pretty big differences that affect users.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469765)

ZFS is nice, but thus far FreeBSD's port [freebsd.org] isn't.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469787)

FreeBSD's ZFS support is pretty buggy still.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (5, Insightful)

metamechanical (545566) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469797)

*faster boot (i think)

As an honest question (from someone who, not that it matters, runs both slackware at home and xp at work), what's with the obsession with boot time? Can anyone explain why the free software community is so obsessed with this metric? I understand that embedded devices are better when they boot immediately - nobody wants to have to wait to make toast - but to boot a computer? Don't most people just sleep or hibernate their computer these days anyway? I think that before yesterday, the last time I rebooted this machine was a couple months ago. I don't mean this as a slight - it's an honest question.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (2, Interesting)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469871)

I'm confused by it myself. My machines don't even go to sleep or hibernate. Sure, we don't want stupidly long boot times when we do need to reboot, but that's what, once a month, once a year, once a decade if your server is in good health?

I'd say forget fast boot times unless it's a netbook or embedded device.

Once a decade? (4, Funny)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469945)

Whippersnappers. I haven't rebooted my Multics machine since the 60s!

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (3, Insightful)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469891)

At the risk of burning some karma, I have to agree with you. Now, it's cool w/ the Linux BIOS [coreboot.org] that supports quite a bit of main boards, but really when I have to turn on my computer, after I restarted it or whatever, I use that time as I would a commercial on TV. Go take a leak, get a coffee, something like that. I can understand some times where a non-embedded system would want an instant-on type boot. Like a computer I want to install in my Jeep to run my mp3's and GPS. I don't want be driving and not have it booted until I get to my destination. Unless we're looking at the boot part wrong and people refer it to once the computer is started, and then all the programs that automagically start take a long time?

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469895)

Mod parent flamebait.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469973)

Up until recently, I had so many problems with sleep/hibernate on every computer I put linux (whether it was fc, gentoo, debian, ubuntu, etc) that I never turned them on. I also didn't want to leave most of them running when I didn't need them so I turned them off to save power. I'm not sure about anybody else, but to me in the above scenario, boot time equated to whether or not I actually booted to linux, or just let it sleep/hibernate in windows.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (1)

concernedadmin (1054160) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469821)

FreeBSD
*is more secure (apparently, i don't know enough to be sure but they're development model and security results do tend to suggest this)

Citation needed. Also, their not they're.

*has zfs,

Btrfs, the response to ZFS, was merged into 2.6.29. If you really want ZFS, there is ZFS via FUSE, but since the start I've read of complaints regarding the slow performance.

*etc

If your other points aren't substantial, then you "etc" is meaningless.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (4, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469241)

Not to mention Android using the linux kernel with a netbsd userland. I guess google don't want to mess with GPLv3.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (1)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469867)

Not to mention Android using the linux kernel with a netbsd userland.

And the Debian/Ubuntu package repositories are full of openbsd-derived packages, many of which I run on servers due to my familiarity with them. Apple runs a modified FreeBSD kernel (XNU [wikipedia.org] ) with a mixed userland [apple.com] , and OpenSolaris has almost all pure SysV-derived apps just to add to add to all of the confusion.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (5, Funny)

thedrx (1139811) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469385)

"This makes Debian the first distribution, and probably the first large OS, to support two completely different kernels at the same time."

Two kernels? At the same time? I'll be in my bunk.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (5, Funny)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469399)

You know what I'd do with a million bucks?

Two kernels at the same time.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469513)

damn you, now I feel the urge to watch it again [imdb.com]

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469761)

We knew what movie that was from without you pointing it out, you know.

ATTENTION SLASHDOT READERS: EXPLAINING A JOKE RUINS IT!

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469567)

That's just wrong. I swear, one of these days I'm going to start a site dedicated to the funniest damn comments on Slashdot.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469627)

Now you've Seen Seen On Slash [seenonslash.com] On Slash.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (1)

Lobster Quadrille (965591) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469653)

Wow. Meta-meta humor. My head is spinning.

On an unrelated note, Tonic water tastes funny without gin, but gin tastes fine without tonic.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469745)

Hence why gin-and-tonic became popular amongst the British in tropical colonies. You need the tonic water for the quinine, but you also need the gin to make it palatable.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469665)

You should wait until someone makes one.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (1)

gollito (980620) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469779)

Ummmmm.... seenonslash [seenonslash.com] ?

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469611)

I really want to upmod this comment more, but its already at +5.

Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (5, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469651)


You know what I'd do with a million bucks?

Two kernels at the same time.

Just 2??? For a million bucks? You're aiming to low. Imagine a beowulf cluster of them!

So in other words... (3, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469659)

Debian is dead. Netcraft confirms it.

Gentoo Did This Years Ago (5, Insightful)

MaskedKumquat (522312) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469191)

Gentoo managed to get this kind of setup working years ago, didn't they?

Re:Gentoo Did This Years Ago (4, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469221)

Perhaps, but I'm not sure if it's done compiling yet to test.

Re:Gentoo Did This Years Ago (5, Interesting)

disi (1465053) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469405)

I tested it myself, for a server with no fancy Desktop it compiles very well. Many packages are already tested and get the ~x86-fbsd keyword for installation. Also Sparc+Gentoo+FreeBSD is possible :) disi@disi-desktop ~ $ cat /usr/portage/www-servers/apache/apache-2.2.* | grep bsd KEYWORDS="alpha amd64 arm hppa ia64 ~mips ppc ppc64 s390 sh sparc ~sparc-fbsd x86 ~x86-fbsd" http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-freebsd.xml [gentoo.org]

Re:Gentoo Did This Years Ago (5, Informative)

niskel (805204) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469483)

Tag this article gentoodiditfirst. I saw this in gentoo long ago.

Re:Gentoo Did This Years Ago (5, Informative)

JonasH (183422) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469575)

Gentoo managed to get this kind of setup working years ago, didn't they?

So did Debian. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD as the port is poetically named has existed for a long time (see mailing list archives [debian.org] ). This story is just about it being accepted as an official part of Debian. Who got there first? Who cares.

UbuntuBSD? (1)

Hes Nikke (237581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469195)

Given that Ubuntu is down stream from Debian, does this mean that I can run the FreeBSD kernel on my Ubuntu install now?

Re:UbuntuBSD? (2)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469239)

Given that Ubuntu is down stream from Debian, does this mean that I can run the FreeBSD kernel on my Ubuntu install now?

No, just like you won't have Ubuntu for PA-RISC architecture (even if you have Debian for it).

Re:UbuntuBSD? (4, Informative)

Sonic McTails (700139) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469407)

Actually Ubuntu has supported PA-RISC/HPPA for ages:

https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty/hppa [launchpad.net]
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ports/daily/current/ [ubuntu.com]

(these are the links for the in-development release Jaunty, but HPPA has been a part of Debian since Breezy).

Re:UbuntuBSD? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469259)

Probably not ubuntu only support a subset of what debian supports.

Gentoo was there first (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469213)

Gentoo has supported the FreeBSD kernel for a while now, afaik

Re:Gentoo was there first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469231)

Not really; FreeBSD supported the FreeBSD kernel before Gentoo :)

Re:Gentoo was there first (-1, Flamebait)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469307)

Technically, it hasn't, as Gentoo is a source distribution system not a distribution, and does not officially 'support' anything. ebuilds, maybe.

Re:Gentoo was there first (4, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469495)

Actually Gentoo has for quite a while had the option of installing all binary packages from a standard LiveCD.

Re:Gentoo was there first (1)

arodland (127775) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469997)

Debian has supported it for a while now too (since 2007, at least) -- it's just that misleading summaries are mandatory on slashdot.

So it it Debian GNU/Linux/FreeBSD (1)

zonky (1153039) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469219)

or Debian GNU/FreeBSD or.....? Enquiring minds must know!

Re:So it it Debian GNU/Linux/FreeBSD (5, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469253)

GNU/FreeBSD. FreeBSD kernel (and libc?) + GNU userland (instead of the BSD userland). There's no linux involved (except perhaps the linux syscall emulation)

Re:So it it Debian GNU/Linux/FreeBSD (1)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469297)

GNU/FreeBSD. FreeBSD kernel (and libc?) + GNU userland (instead of the BSD userland). There's no linux involved (except perhaps the linux syscall emulation)

So what is the part of the gnu userland that makes it important enough to use in the title of the OS? Compiler?

Re:So it it Debian GNU/Linux/FreeBSD (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469335)

GNU C library

Re:So it it Debian GNU/Linux/FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27470007)

GNU C library

Which has included stuff from 4.4BSD for over a decade (for example). So we really should call it (BSD/GNU)/Linux.

/usr/bin/pride, /usr/bin/ego, /etc (-1, Troll)

r00t (33219) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469417)

So what is the part of the gnu userland that makes it important enough to use in the title of the OS?

Linux people have been asking that for years. Join the party!

It all comes down to a jealous man with an ego. At this point, I no longer even want to give him credit where he actually earned it.

Re:/usr/bin/pride, /usr/bin/ego, /etc (4, Informative)

norton_I (64015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469577)

Compiler and toolchain, and all the 'standard' UNIX tools: the shell, the text utils like cat, grep, awk, etc.

Basically, back in the 80s, the FSF, reimplemented what was at that time nearly the entirety of what was called UNIX except the kernel (which was what the HURD project was/is). It was to be the GNU OS. While the kernel was in development, the userspace tools were developed and ported to other UNIX systems like sunos as a replacement for the often deficient historical versions supported by the UNIX vendors.

So when Linus came along and wrote a UNIX-like kernel using gcc, he could load all those programs on and have a mostly functioning UNIX environment. This was the reason RMS objected to calling it just Linux, at that time the majority of the code running on the system was GNU. It was probably a legitimate point at the time. And even if there were a different compiler, without a set of userspace tools that people could freely get and use it is unlikely Linux would have been able to take off.

Now, of course, a huge part of the user experience is provided by X11, the desktop environments, and various graphical appliations. GNOME is part of the GNU project but X.org, KDE, and most of the applications are not. So it isn't really true that GNU software is still the majority of the OS. Of course, the kernel is even less important in terms of the user environment, and despite all the other software around it, GNU utilities are what makes it (not) UNIX.

Re:So it it Debian GNU/Linux/FreeBSD (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469687)

So what is the part of the gnu userland that makes it important enough to use in the title of the OS? Compiler?

It's not a matter of "what part", it's a matter of "most of the parts". There's no "seat of the soul" for an OS...

Re:So it it Debian GNU/Linux/FreeBSD (2, Funny)

leprkhn (1344959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469669)

I'm calling it GNUBSDEBIAN... or nubs, for short.

Late to the party, Slashdot. (2, Informative)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469223)

Debian has had an unofficial kfreebsd-i386 port for years. It is still an unofficial port.

Re:Late to the party, Slashdot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469433)

I'm still waiting for an official release of Debian GNU/Hurd [debian.org] .

Re:Late to the party, Slashdot. (4, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469475)

It just became an official port. That is what is news.

God, I never thought I'd see the day (5, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469229)

when this image [cryptohax.com] was actually an on-topic response to a Slashdot story.

I love what that symbolizes! (5, Funny)

r00t (33219) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469451)

FreeBSD fans created that image, but...

1. It shows that FreeBSD is gay.

2. It leaves no doubt why FreeBSD is represented by Satan.

Clearly, this is why we must stay away from FreeBSD.

Re:I love what that symbolizes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469529)

It's not gay if you're pitching, or so I've been told.

Re:I love what that symbolizes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469533)

Clearly, this is why we must stay away from FreeBSD.

Come on, you know you want it.

Re:I love what that symbolizes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469553)

1. It shows that FreeBSD is gay.

Tux is the one who's catching...

Re:God, I never thought I'd see the day (1)

pdabbadabba (720526) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469619)

What are you talking about? That is an on-topic response to slashdot stories all the time! ;)

And by "support" you mean.. (-1, Offtopic)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469235)

Oh, I guess you mean that same kind of "support" that is offered to Debian users using the Linux kernel ;)

So, err, Darwin doesn't count? Mach + BSD .. sounds like 2 kernels to me.

Re:And by "support" you mean.. (1, Offtopic)

DECS (891519) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469419)

Darwin is a hybrid kernel that uses low level elements of Mach paired with higher level elements of BSD, not two different kernels.

However, NeXT developed OpenStep as a universal operating system environment that actually ran in production on Solaris, the Win NT kernel + OS, as well as the Mach/BSD kernel ported to various hardware.

Apple planned to port that layer on top of the Mac OS too (providing a Yellow Box that could run like Java anywhere), then realized it made more sense to use Mach/BSD and port the Mac appearance on top of OpenStep, and ended up making enough modifications to kill any backward compatibility with the OpenStep specification.

That's what Mac OS X is.

Why OS X is on the iPhone, but not the PC [roughlydrafted.com]

This is just really cool (4, Interesting)

CestusGW (814880) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469245)

It's one thing to sit and think about a beautiful system. To daydream wistfully about interfaces so well-thought that you can swap kernels and userland implementations without the world coming to an end. It's another thing entirely to see it happen with a full featured OS like Debian! Congrats are in order for the Debian team for tackling this and (apparently) going all the way.

for performance? (2, Interesting)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469271)

TFA doesn't give much information. It would be interesting to know whether there are some practical reasons to want this. One possibility I can imagine is that if you have a particular task that you want a server to do, you could measure its performance with both kernels. If one is 10% faster than the other, you pick that one. Another possibility would be if you want to test your software to see if it's likely to be portable, or if it contains hidden linuxisms; however, I would expect most of the incompatibilities to be in things like shells and command-line utilities, not the kernel.

Re:for performance? (1)

psnyder (1326089) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469531)

It would be interesting to know whether there are some practical reasons to want this.

Why do people want to climb mountains? Because they're there.
Now we can figure out what there is to see from the top!
Congratulations Debian team!

APT? (2, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469273)

What exactly does it mean to be running Debian with a FreeBSD kernel? Is it essentially just FreeBSD with APT and gnu userland instead of ports and bsd userland?

Re:APT? (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469345)

It's hard to say. I imagine it might be possible to run the same userland on top of two separate kernels, but there are certain packages in addition to drivers would need to target specific kernels - namely, Xorg packages, I think. Other than that, as long as the packages are built on the same libraries, and the libraries work with either kernel (or more accurately, there'd be multiple library versions per OS) it should be pretty straight forward.

Re:APT? (4, Insightful)

pablomme (1270790) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469441)

Is it essentially just FreeBSD with APT and gnu userland instead of ports and bsd userland?

It's FreeBSD with the entire Debian userland. AND it's Debian with a FreeBSD kernel. Pretty much like a centaur is a man with a horse's body AND a horse with a human head.

The best description depends on what part you focus on. To me it's Debian with a FreeBSD kernel.

Re:APT? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469583)

It means you're running Debian GNU/FreeBSD instead of Debian GNU/Linux. The kernel is just a package. If the FreeBSD can do the things the linux kernel can do, at least well enough to run the userland, then there's no reason the package shouldn't simply satisfy the "system-image" requirement or whatever, and conflict with linux-image.

Re:APT? (4, Funny)

glwtta (532858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469587)

Is it essentially just FreeBSD with APT and gnu userland instead of ports and bsd userland?

So they went from being the Linux with the best package manager to being the BSD with the worst package manager?

Re:APT? (1, Interesting)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469753)

So they went from being the Linux with the best package manager to being the BSD with the worst package manager?

They didn't go from anywhere to anywhere. It was the Debian operating system, and it remains the Debian operating system. They now support a different kernel for whatever reasons (some kernels support some hardware or some applications better than others), but as the kernel is a fairly small and minor part of an operating system, it's an interesting bit of news, but they remains the same OS they always were.

BTW, what OSes with BSD support also have a package manager? I take it from your comment that FreeBSD does, but do any of the others? I've used both NetBSD and OpenBSD, and neither had a package manager, just a "ports" automatic source-compiling system. And if, unlike any of the other BSD's I've tried, FreeBSD actually has package management, what makes it better than APT?

Some more info (5, Informative)

Talla (95956) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469287)

Is available at http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ [debian.org]

There isn't much, but a little bit in the install notes.

Now if FreeBSD just had ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469291)

some sort of decent virtualization software. And by decent I mean something like the current version of VMware Workstation. I suppose VirtualBox would do and I think they're working on that but really nothing is mature as VMware (I'm talking about Workstation here, not that free crap).

That and good nVidia drivers are really the only things keeping me from using FreeBSD more often. I can't say that I would use it as my primary OS but it would be really nice to be able to run ZFS the proper way without having to resort to crap like Solaris or FUSE in Linux. As far as nVidia, for some bizarre reason they only have x86 drivers (come on, get with the times nVidia!).

This has been a problem for a long time though. I think the first time I said this was at least 7 years ago. Same problems, need virtualization (that can run Windows) and need good nVidia drivers.

Re:Now if FreeBSD just had ... (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469827)

I'm talking about Workstation here, not that free crap

I've found the free server product to work extremely well. What's your beef with it?

Unofficial ports (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469301)

As someone else has mentioned, the kFreeBSD port has existed unofficially for some time...

You can also run Debian with a HURD kernel. I did that years ago. It was kind of unstable, but an interesting thing to try out for fun. And it largely worked. :-)

Impressive! (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469315)

This will also help application interoperability, as fa as such help is still needed...

Switching kernels for one install or? (4, Interesting)

kasperd (592156) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469325)

So can I install just one system and choose between the two kernels at boot time? Or do you have to make a completely different install with executables build separately for each kernel?

Re:Switching kernels for one install or? (2, Informative)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469443)

It's probably an either/or proposition*, since the system calls and basic libraries aren't the same across the platforms.

*FreeBSD has a kernel level Linux binary compatibility layer, so I guess with enough pain and suffering you could make things switchable, at least with userland stuff.

Re:Switching kernels for one install or? (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469641)

Pain and suffering? You mean editing the linker config so that the compat libraries are loaded first?

this is great news! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469347)

finally you linux fags will have something to chatter on about.

Re:this is great news! (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469511)

finally you linux fags will have something to chatter on about.

Excuse me? You have that backwards. Linux does not appear to have given consent:

http://www.cryptohax.com/humor%5Ctux.jpg [cryptohax.com]

FreeBSD however...

ports-- (0)

bagawk (925499) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469387)

I think this is really pretty cool. My freebsd experience was pretty bad mainly due to the poor package management. Even getting a decent lamp server fully setup is a chore under freebsd. Hopefully debian/apt can breath more life into it!

Re:ports-- (5, Funny)

jps25 (1286898) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469565)

Even getting a decent lamp server fully setup is a chore under freebsd. Hopefully debian/apt can breath more life into it!

I couldn't imagine why...

ZFS support (2, Interesting)

Beve Jates (1393457) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469463)

Hmmm, I think this would be an interesting way to finally get real ZFS support in a Linux-like system.

Unfortunately FreeBSD is much more limited in terms of modern software technologies like virtualization, hardware drivers, etc. Linux is way ahead there so I guess this is still not that great. Interesting though.

Re:ZFS support (1, Insightful)

smash (1351) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469729)

Most hardware supported by linux is supported. JAILs mean less requirement for virtualization.

Personally though, I can't see the point.

The unified FreeBSD userland is what makes it so great, rather than some cobbled together collection of GNU shit, written by a hundred different people who decide that manpages aren't good enough, to use info instead and hence, there is never any current documentation.

"OMG but you can apt-get stuff". Who gives a shit. pkg_add -r does basically the same thing anyway, and "cd /usr/ports/xxx/foobarport && make package" makes a lot more sense to me than the commands required on linux to build packages...

Don't get me wrong, as far as LINUX goes, its debian for me. I just don't see the requirement to have a shitty GNU userland on the FreeBSD system.

Re:ZFS support (4, Informative)

pablomme (1270790) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469899)

I just don't see the requirement to have a shitty GNU userland on the FreeBSD system.

What do you mean? Every GNU tool I've used is far better than its BSD counterpart (if it exists). Some manpages do suck, but I've never failed to find the information I need for any command that is remotely complicated.

In any case, if the Debian maintainers shared your opinion of the BSD userland, they would try to get that into their standard Linux-based distribution, rather than wait to have the FreeBSD kernel to do that there.

Boring... (4, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469485)

I'm waiting for Windows kernel support to be added. I prefer blue screens over seg faults. :P

Re:Boring... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469757)

Actually it would be useful if Vista's unix subsystem had Debian's package repository, so get on that you masochistic nerds

What about Netcraft? (2, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469519)

Does this mean Netcraft no longer confirms it?

I believe I speak for everyone when I say .. (2, Interesting)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469557)

ZFS, woohoooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

I think you mean 3 kernels (1)

stonemetal (934261) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469579)

Debian also has a hurd distribution.

Re:I think you mean 3 kernels (2, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469777)

Lies. RMS hasn't ever gotten Emacs to boot successfully.

Re:I think you mean 3 kernels (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469951)

Not an official architecture.

blah blah blah linux. blah blah blah faggot. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469727)

who gives a fuck about this faggot shit? not me.

This is new? (2, Interesting)

insane_coder (1027926) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469791)

I must be missing something. I have a Debian FreeBSD Live CD from 2006. Here [osnews.com] it was reported that Debian imported the FreeBSD Kernel over 4 years ago. What exactly happened now that is new?

Re:This is new? (2, Informative)

insane_coder (1027926) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469837)

Okay, summary is definitely wrong, Debian already supports four completely different kernels. See here [debian.org] .

Re:This is new? (1, Redundant)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469975)

What is new is that Debian/FreeBSD is now an official architecture.

Yes, but what does it really mean? (3, Informative)

ivoras (455934) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469843)

There are at least two things that need consideration here, in a sort-of general aspect:

  • Sure, you can replace tools like 'ls' and 'rmdir' with GNU equivalents, and BSDs already use gcc so it's not that hard to get it going, but BSDs are also full of utilities that are tightly integrated with the kernel. Trivial examples: you can't replace GEOM utilities with md* utilities - they simply cover different things (here's a simple example of what GEOM can do [sharanet.org] ). Utilities like "top" and "netstat" operate on completely different data structures. The Linux "free" utility, for example, cannot have an equivalent in FreeBSD with exactly the same output because the interpretation of what is "free" memory is different.
  • FreeBSD can execute Linux binaries natively. This means exactly what it says, within reason. Pick up a "ls" binary from any Linux distribution (actually, pick an older one that doesn't use fancy new 2.6 features - 2.6 will only be supported in full in 8.x), copy it and the libraries it needs to a FreeBSD system with Linux ABI enabled and simply run it. You can, in fact, run a completely Linux userland, except for the administrative utilities. With some effort (because nobody made it automated yet) you can run Debian under FreeBSD natively, packages and all. (explanation: it's simply a matter of remapping Linux syscalls to FreeBSD syscalls; for example: Linux's open() to FreeBSD open(), etc. with no visible performance impact - people are running Oracle this way, though completely unsupported of course)

There's little documentation about the Debian project but it doesn't say which route they've chosen, and what about possible issues with it (mostly: admin utilities).

And besides, a very large number of BSD users will agree that its userland is what's most important - the consistency of development and behaviour, the ease of administration. The kernel features are just icing on the cake :)

Nexenta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469981)

It would be interesting to see the Solaris kernel included as well; Nexenta's already done some of the heavy lifting (OpenSolaris kernel with Debian userland).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...