Debian/kFreeBSD

[R3v0lut10nary]

This is a spinoff from a discussion that started in the "what distro" thread.

What is the "why" (overall objective) of Debian/kFreeBSD?

The "what" is clear enough.... the GNU Userland with the FreeBSD kernel.

But why? FreeBSD is compatible with Linux binaries.

From the FreeBSD Handbook:

FreeBSD provides binary compatibility with several other UNIX® like operating systems, including Linux. At this point, you may be asking yourself why exactly, does FreeBSD need to be able to run Linux binaries? The answer to that question is quite simple. Many companies and developers develop only for Linux, since it is the latest “hot thing” in the computing world. That leaves the rest of us FreeBSD users bugging these same companies and developers to put out native FreeBSD versions of their applications. The problem is, that most of these companies do not really realize how many people would use their product if there were FreeBSD versions too, and most continue to only develop for Linux. So what is a FreeBSD user to do? This is where the Linux binary compatibility of FreeBSD comes into play.

[CrimsonKing]

From the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD FAQ:

Why would you prefer Debian GNU/kFreeBSD to FreeBSD?

• If you like the Debian package system (or its package set) more than FreeBSD ports (just a matter of preference).
• If you like GNU userland more than BSDish one (again, just a matter of preference).
• If you don't have anything against GPL or other copylefted free software licenses, you'll appreciate that useful kernel modules like ext2fs driver, the upcoming reiserfs and xfs, or the upcoming ethernet driver for Xbox are (or will be) compiled in on the default kernel.
• If you're concerned about running a 100% free system, our commitment to the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) guarantees that Debian GNU/kFreeBSD doesn't contain any non-free software. In fact, we have removed some non-free binary-only drivers that are contained in the upstream FreeBSD tree (see 903_disable_non-free_drivers.diff in kernel sources for a list).

I guess the first point is one of the most interesting parts. FreeBSD (yet) has nothing like apt, a decent application for that (pkgng) is not quite ready yet. Package management on FreeBSD hurts if you come from Debian or RHEL/Fedora.

[R3v0lut10nary]

And in reply to Crimson King -

Originally Posted by CrimsonKing

Because they can. Simple. This is precisely the reasons why most IT inventions have been made.

FreeBSD (and its distributions) can run most ELF binaries natively if the particular kernel module is active, yes. You can also compile most GNU tools with the built-in toolchain. But if your point is "FreeBSD can do it anyway", you can also say "Why do we need more than 1 Linux distribution? Slackware can - technically - also run Synaptic." (OK, bad example, Slackware does not use apt. But I am pretty sure you get my point.)

Yes they can, but wouldn't anyone interested in using the FreeBSD kernel just use FreeBSD? If so it's just a frivolous waste of Debian's resources, unless they have some other long term goal with the project. Maybe they could split off from Linux altogether and become DebianBSD? But the BSD license seems incompatible with their philosophy of mandating that all code is shared.

There are - in my opinion - an overabundance of Linux distributions, but some make sense. Slackware is unique in many ways. I used it for a while and liked some things about it, but quite honestly I don't know what it teaches you other than stubborn persistence. You just end up "bloating" your system the hard way by running down libraries and building or installpkg'ing.

---------- Post added at 12:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 PM ----------

Originally Posted by CrimsonKing

From the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD FAQ:



I guess the first point is one of the most interesting parts. FreeBSD (yet) has nothing like apt, a decent application for that (pkgng) is not quite ready yet. Package management on FreeBSD hurts if you come from Debian or RHEL/Fedora.

Damn, how did I miss the FAQ?

Anyway, what % of folks really give a damn about FOSS to the extent that Debian does?

It seems the biggest advantage might be ZFS, but again I come back to "then just use BSD."

[CrimsonKing]

Originally Posted by R3V0LV3R

But the BSD license seems incompatible with their philosophy of mandating that all code is shared.

That's why the GPL is not "free" at all.

Originally Posted by R3V0LV3R

Damn, how did I miss the FAQ?

It took me a while to find it too.

Originally Posted by R3V0LV3R

Anyway, what % of folks really give a damn about FOSS to the extent that Debian does?

I know some Linux user who changed from Ubuntu to Fedora quite just because Fedora is (almost) FOSS. Linux users live a philosophy. (A pity that they can't distinguish between "free as in freedom" and "free as in free beer", thinking the force to make derivative works free is freedom.)

A Debian system with BSD licensed core parts is a very attractive offer to companies IMO.

Originally Posted by R3V0LV3R

It seems the biggest advantage might be ZFS, but again I come back to "then just use BSD."

BSD's file system wars (HAMMER vs ZFS vs UFS2 vs ...) are amusing... the FreeBSD kernel has performance issues compared to Linux when it comes to desktop applications, and I am curious if the Debian team can work them out.

[R3v0lut10nary]

Originally Posted by CrimsonKing

BSD's file system wars (HAMMER vs ZFS vs UFS2 vs ...) are amusing... the FreeBSD kernel has performance issues compared to Linux when it comes to desktop applications, and I am curious if the Debian team can work them out.

This is the part where we get over my head. Other than some very high-level concepts, I don't understand the performance implications of filesystems and kernel design.

That's why I admit that my original question could have an obvious answer to someone with in-depth knowlege of software & hardware engineering. I'm sure there's something. I don't pretend to know nearly as much about these things as the Debian devs.

You've pointed out some areas that may be beneficial.

[CrimsonKing]

Phoronix's benchmarks could give you a hint.

[RupertPupkin]

Originally Posted by R3V0LV3R

From the FreeBSD Handbook:

Um, Linux has been around since 1991. I think it's past the "latest hot thing" stage by now. When was that part of the FreeBSD Handbook written, 1996?

Originally Posted by R3V0LV3R

Wow. You know, something tells me those companies will manage to survive anyhow.

[R3v0lut10nary]

Hah....

Well the main point of that paragraph was in the first sentence.

"FreeBSD provides binary compatibility with several other UNIX® like operating systems, including Linux."


The rest was commentary, obviously.