The first Live-CD based on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD has appeared. Its name is Ging (for Ging Is Not Ging) and it includes a GNOME 2.10 desktop, Abiword, and a complete toolchain with gcc 4.0.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:---
yes, it can. http://glibc-bsd.alioth.debian.org/doc
Member since:
2005-07-18
Member since:2005-06-29
And because they can. :-)
Member since:2005-08-27
I agree with questioning "why". FreeBSD has ports and most of the "GNU" tools can be installed this way. Divergence away from the core FreeBSD means that this probably probably won't last.
I use NetBSD and am happy that there are no truely official "distros" of the OS. Also the "because we can" statement is true. Read the end of comments from Debian's bastardized NetBSD project:
http://www.us.debian.org/ports/netbsd/why
Personally, the linux userland is not something I want on my system, for home or production.
Member since:---
Member since:
---
Thanks a lot for publishing this!
Please note that the first LiveCD is the one provided as part of the official install process of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD (http://glibc-bsd.alioth.debian.org/livecd/). It is less complete and just provides a minimal console environment.
(Ging is the first distribution derived from Debian GNU/kFreeBSD)
Member since:
---
Member since:---
Member since:
---
Isn't all of this (this being Open Source software development) to encourage freedom of choice? Why do people ask these inane questions? Anytime a new os or a new distro or a new app comes out, trogolodytes complain that they're not needed.
More choices are ALWAYS a good thing. I swear, some people would be happy under the Micro$oft model. *shudder*
Member since:
---
When I use Free/Net/OpenBSD I do so because I like the unified base system and the ports collection. But I usually don't use Free/Net/OpenBSD because hardware support isn't up to par. So why not doing it the other way around?
And why is Debian taking up projects like this? I was under the impression that they were already short handed and were losing users and developers in droves because they couldn't keep their system up-to-date.
Member since:2005-07-02
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-24
why is Debian taking up projects like this? I was under the impression that they were already short handed
Simply, because Debian doesn't have a management that decides what developers have to work at. Luckily, some developers are drawn to fixing whatever needs fixing most. Others on the other hand like to do obscure-but-fun projects like this one. And I think it's gread that Debian supports them, too.
and were losing users and developers in droves because they couldn't keep their system up-to-date.
These reports sounded greatly exaggerated and loosely founded to me.
Member since:
2005-07-07
First, on a volunteer project, whatever people want to spend their time doing is what gets done. If you believe that developer time would be better spend on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution rather than side projects, contribute to the main distribution (yourself). For those that want to work on other things, they are free to do that with their time.
But there are plenty of reasons to want a Debian GNU/kFreeBSD system. The FreeBSD kernel is a good bit cleaner; the FreeBSD kernel can support binary only drivers - LEGALLY; diversity is always good. . .
But I guess we should tell Apple to quit using KHTML since there is something more popular and we should shut down the KDE project since RedHat and Ubuntu use GNOME and forget about Gossip since Gaim does Jabber and more. . . In fact, Apple should just close its doors since Microsoft's Windows is used more. Sure, kernel stuff isn't as glamorous as Win vs. Mac issues, but they are different pieces of software.
Member since:---
Then It is no more LINUX COMMUNITY.
How do you feel when one person in your home is spending time on watching TV 24/7 and doing nothing productive when you are sweating 16 hrs a day work to maintain family and hopes of development.
It looks like linux community desperately needs a leader with strong vision and solid directions(almost a dectator like bill gates, and not a consultant)
Member since:
---
Member since:---
Member since:---
There are two reasons why this is awesome:
1) FreeBSD Kernel
2) GNU userland toos
Nuff' said.
Except that the BSD userland tools are so much better than the GNU tools. If the GNU tools removed --the --annoying --need --for --long --arguments, --then --maybe --they --would --be --worth --using.
Like everyone else asking why, I don't understand why you would purposely remove the excellent integration between the BSD userland tools from a BSD kernel.
Member since:
2005-07-07
The FreeBSD kernel is not a particular advantage to the faster, more featureful, and apparently less bug plagued, according to Coverity, Linux kernel.
The only value I can you can gain from using this system is the potential for non open-source drivers, which may not be a value depending on your point of view. Which may be a moot point because FreeBSD does not benefit from many proprietary non-opensource drivers, in practice.
Member since:2005-07-07
Coverity found 985 software defects in the Linux kernel and 306 software defects in FreeBSD.
Is anybody here going around shouting that the Linux kernel, since it has *more* defects - and thus, *more* potential security problems - is inferior?
No.
And not only because in the "defects per lines of code" the positions are switched, given the bloat of the Linux kernel (5.7 million lines of code against 1.2 million lines of code for FreeBSD).
But above all because the Coverity people, who probably are reasonable professionals, and who probably understood that their data would be picked and misused by flaming zealots on discussion boards, said:
"We want to emphasize that the Linux code base is larger and has more driver support than FreeBSD. Coverity is releasing research results in an open manner to help the open source development community, not as a direct comparison of Linux and BSD."
Here's the full text
http://www.coverity.com/news/news_06_27_05_story_9.html
Member since:2005-08-27
"GNU/Linux is a superior product, in liscense, in features, in security, in correctness, and in speed"
To FreeBSD or SkyOS? :-)
Which linux has more features?
Which one is more "secure"?
Which is more correct (though this can only be subjective)?
FreeBSD 5+ can equal liunux 2.6 in application speed so no question to ask there.
Once you are done answering those questions take a look back at the answers and notice that there is no single Linux Distro to fit the bill.
Member since:2005-08-28
Coverity found 985 software defects in the Linux kernel and 306 software defects in FreeBSD. And not only because in the "defects per lines of code" the positions are switched
Correct. 48% higher defect rate per million lines in the FreeBSD kernel compared to the Linux kernel.
given the bloat of the Linux kernel (5.7 million lines of code against 1.2 million lines of code for FreeBSD).
Bloat as in supporting far more device drivers? Many more file systems? Many more architectures? The kind of bloat that in addition to running on big iron it is also runs on a number of hand helds?
The Linux kernel simply has a far more diverse group of users and contributors than what the FreeBSD project has, and as a result it's a kernel that can be used in far more diverse situations than the FreeBSD kernel. Bloat indeed.
How big is your kernel anyway? Mine is 1.7MB.
Member since:---
>> given the bloat of the Linux kernel (5.7 million lines of code against 1.2 million
>> lines of code for FreeBSD).
> Bloat as in supporting far more device drivers? Many more file systems? Many more
> architectures? The kind of bloat that in addition to running on big iron it is also runs
> on a number of hand helds?
Bloat as in stuff I have no use for.
Of course the definition of bloat is subjective. Many people consider KDE/Gnome bloated, not because they don't actually have more features than Fluxbox, but because they have "features" one might not give a damn for.
Of course it might well be that Linux also uses more code to support the same features: I have no evidence for this though. It's not unlikely, given the reputation of Linux development for being more chaotic and less organized than FreeBSD - and for a good reason, of course: Linux, much more than FreeBSD, tries very hard to be all things to all people. Nothing wrong with it: it's Linux's "job", and it does it well.
> How big is your kernel anyway? Mine is 1.7MB.
I'm not on FreeBSD right now (sadly..).
From the FreeBSD FAQ:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/kernelconfig.h...
"Most kernels tend to be around 1.5MB to 2MB."
The kernel size is greatly affected by the drivers/peripherals you're using.
Moreover, I don't know if Linux and kFreeBSD have the same compression rate.
Too bad you (and, apparently, some mod) missed the point of my post, that was to underline that Coverity openly discouraged the interpretation of those numbers as a direct comparison (i.e., what you and the original poster are doing).
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
So many opinions; yet no facts. Honestly, your time would be better spent (instead of trolling):
1) Defraging your HD
2) Running a virus scan
3) Running several spyware scans
4) Patching your system
5) Downloading the latest software crack or warez.
6) Lather, rinse, repeat.
I tell you, that the loss in productivity associated with this whole microsoft thing is just getting ridiculous.
Member since:---
Member since:
---
boho there are products out there that i dont want to use
some one has to stop it. if you dont like it dont use it
and stop bitching. there are however people that would ba affected if it dissaperard if absolutly no one had a use for this it would not excist.
and btw making code more portable often removes bugs and is a good thing.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:
2005-07-06
Projects such as this, whether you ever use them or not, help keep the present and future from being all about you and everyone else being forced to use only one or two operating systems on only one or two hardware platforms with what you do and how you do it dictated by a few people in charge of a corporation who are acting to protect their 'interests' (read: 'profits' here).
Member since:
---
You all seem to miss the point.What if FreeBSD is getting popular and some manufacturer in Taiwan makes FreeBSD lighters who explode right in your face.You can deny it or not but people will tend to associate that with the OS so indirectly the OS where all is about will get a negative drag.
Not very difficult to read Linux where i wrote FreeBSD.
Member since:---
You cannot switch to Linux and expect to do everything the MS way. If you switch it can be for a number of reasons (me, I was uncomfortable using illegal copies of Windows), but you still have to learn a bit about Linux and its software. It's a different product.
That being said, Linux on the desktop becomes easier and easier. The betas of Suse in particular look especially userfriendly.
Member since:2005-07-30
Don't forget that open source is mostly "By programmers, for programmers..." Of course I am greatly simplifying things, but essentially things do work in this manner,, with the exception of a few projects (e.g. Mozilla after starting to focus on Firefox). The thing is that you cannot really demand anything from open source programmers, if they want something to be hard for the sake of being hard, it's going to be that and there is nothing you can do about it since they invest their own free time into their projects and they should do what they consider fun. That is true freedom I guess. No need to listen to the market, code the way it suits you.
The world isn't only Linux, there are loads of other projects that have a more user-orientated focus. In my (relatively modest experience) Linux just doesn't have the foundation to start targeting the Windows Desktop. Consider Firefox vs Mozilla Suite. Mozilla Suite was great featurewise but would any average joe use it? Many windows power users wouldn't use it because of the bloat and the "everything and the kitchen sink" attitude. On the other hand Firefox quickly took the windows power users market and that in turn can be considered a step towards getting average joe.
Member since:---
Well, I agree that some developers/projects have the "fuck the users"-attitude, but most don't. There are many projects that try to be as user friendly as possible, because they inted to have their product used by normal users. Take a look at distros like Mandrake or SuSe or projects like Gnome or KDE. What are they doing "harder for the sake of being hard"?
And if you don't like the "everything but the kitchen sink", rejoice, for this is Linux with two mayor desktop enviroments, where the focus of one of them is simplicity 
.
Member since:2005-07-30
I guess didn't express myself correctly, its not that there aren't user-orientated, its more lack of user orientation on overall global level (DE/KERNEL/SHELL). The first thing that firefox did was attract technical windows users and this wasn't done by simply by presenting them with feature complete but complex browser, it was done by allowing a great deal of familiarity with IE (Alt+d for location bar). It was done by adding extensions, themes, pop-up blocking. Things technical users on windows wanted.
IMHO, there aren't enough projects in the Linux world that are able to think 'outside the box' to attract potential windows users. its not even a matter of simplicity or features ("Just use GNOME"). It's lack of suiting to the needs of Windows power users.
Why isn't there a single a "easy distro" (Gobo linux doesn't qualify) that implements a new filesystem structure to make more logical for windows users? Apt-get style application management is ok, but self contained installers are still important. Why not combine them to make the best of both worlds. Have some sort of package management system like in PC-BSD but with dynamic library support (similar to Gobolinux), autoupdate support (with binary patches).
I've used Mandrake/KDE (and I've read quite a few SUSE reviews) and while its an easy to use Linux distro, but IMHO it's still doesn't "look outside the box". I don't just want something thats similar to windows, I want something that combines the best of both worlds. Something like SymphonyOS (in the sense that it is non-standard) but for win power users. And this applies to every aspect of the OS.
There is loads of wanabe innovation (different/hard for the sake of being hard/different):
OK/Cancel positions in some GNOME dialouges
Package management in most Linux distros
Filesystem structure (like unix compatibility is really important for me)
Copying MS/OS X Stupidity:
Static libs
hype with widgets
standard MS Desktop (its a dumb idea to have icons, you constantly have application coving them, isn't it more productive to have auto-hide toolbars?)
Even other projects/OSs have these issues. Like although Zeta has file attributes (which is the correct way to go), it can't interchange IDv3/ogg comments with these attributes.
I guess I should simply learn to code and write my own OS. I just wanted to explain that it isn't just a matter of simplicity or ease of use. Its taking computing (both desktop and the backend) to a new level for a target group (and this target group has to be windows power users if linux is ever going to become a desktop player).
Member since:2005-07-14
Why isn't there a single a "easy distro" (Gobo linux doesn't qualify) that implements a new filesystem structure to make more logical for windows users?
Because no one gives a damn about converting Windows users (besides Linspire/Xandros...and those projects don't do it because it would break many things). They just care about getting users. Linux could be a double digit desktop without converting a single Windows user. Most of the world has not a PC yet. Those people are not so picky as most Windows users are.
Member since:---
"Because no one gives a damn about converting Windows users"
Thanks for such an enlightened attitude.
People who do not yet have PC's also do not have access to much, besides, "Windows" training when they try to learn...Microsoft wins again, the computer schools in Third world countries , I'm an American living in Cambodia, almost ALL teach, guess what?...WINDOWS....MS gets 'em while they are young and KEEPS 'em, So who cares?....LOTS of ordinary folks who need help from the wonderful programmers that DO spend so much of their own time to work on OS that could "FREE THE PEOPLE" Please remember that WE the PEOPLE ARE counting on you, our heroes, to come up with something that we "little folk" CAN use, in our limited mental capacity, and WITHOUT having to be RAPED by MICROSOFT!
Once again, a SINCERE "THANK YOU" to ALL the wonderful people out here who are working so hard, and I hope having much fun.
PLEASE CONTINUE, and remember those of us who, for whatever reason, are NOT as gifted as you and would like you to consider the thought that FREE is not just "cost" free, but a freedom from the quicksand of MICROSOFT.
Thank you all so much for your comments, millions of non programmer, user types, have gained from all your good comments and suggestions.
Member since:
---
I'm not a programmer either, and I also need to be able to interact with non *nix-people and standards and so far Ubuntu with OpenOffice, FireFox, Thunderbird and Gaim have allowed me to do so. I can't say I've spent more time on hardware/software maintenance, in fact all my hardware worked out of the box and software installing/updating is far easier with synaptic.
I installed Ubuntu, installed the extra programs I wanted , added a couple of extra repositories in Synaptic and installed support for some proprietary formats and then started using the system.
Concerning the usefulness of this project, well, it's not really up to us to judge. What developers want to do is up to them and nobody else.
Member since:
---
More screenshots:
http://www.hup.hu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9558
Member since:
---
I think this is open source software heading in the wrong direction ...... just a waste of time cross-breeding several systems and see if it works.
FreeBSD in itself is awesome and already uses a lot of the GNU stuff. Why you want to fuck up that carefully crafted Operating System and create a clone like this is completely lost on me.
I always thought the Linux distro proliferation was bad enough ..... offering so many versions that new would-be users are deterred just by the choice. And now the distro breeders start to include FreeBSD in this mess, too.
All the people here claiming that is just 'cool' are talking utter nonsense.
Ewout
FreeBSD user since 1998 after having left distro chaos.
Member since:---
I have been using Linux since 1997 and I know about the urge to test a 1000 different distros (exageration), but at the end of the day you do not know any of them well. I guess all I can say that after I had one to many apt-get catch 222's happen. Out of pure frustration, I have given FreeBSD a go via PC-BSD. You know what, I have done more with FreeBSD than Linux over that time period. I honestly feel I have a better understanding of the foundations of the FreeBSD OS as there is clear concise documentation. Heck I went through the complete upgrade from the FreeBSD 5.4 kernel to 6.0 Beta 2 to get my ath DWL-G520 NIC working, with out a hitch. And on that note, I have never managed to successfully get a wireless card working under linux myself. Reason, documentation was soo poor, various methods and drivers... madwifi, wi etc. and different commands for each one, that I gave up.
So Summary, I love FeeBSD, clear concise and easy to use. Simple network configuration and I still can use all the GNU software, KDE 3.4... yes.... I have the best of both worlds..
Member since:---
>"I have been using Linux since 1997 and I know about >the urge to test a 1000 different distros >>(exageration), but at the end of the day you do not >know any of them well. I guess all I can say that >after I had one to many apt-get catch 222's happen. >Out of pure frustration, I have given FreeBSD a go >via PC-BSD. You know what, I have done more with >FreeBSD than Linux over that time period. I honestly >feel I have a better understanding of the foundations >of the FreeBSD OS as there is clear concise >documentation. Heck I went through the complete >upgrade from the FreeBSD 5.4 kernel to 6.0 Beta 2 to >get my ath DWL-G520 NIC working, with out a hitch. >And on that note, I have never managed to >successfully get a wireless card working under linux >myself. Reason, documentation was soo poor, various >methods and drivers... madwifi, wi etc. and different >commands for each one, that I gave up.
>So Summary, I love FeeBSD, clear concise and easy to >use. Simple network configuration and I still can use >all the GNU software, KDE 3.4... yes.... I have the >best of both worlds"
I agree entirely. Recently I have installed an NFS/ftp server in work here via SUSE and it does work very well (I want to learn linux more as I plan leaving soon....), but when I go to the Suse sites and more general linux sites I do not seem to get any transparancy in the development process and support. Is there any free Linux distro which has as many mailing lists and a good general technical overview such as a release engineering outlook and good documentation like there is in www.freebsd.org? I am not trying to be funny here. I would really like to know.
regards
Stephen Lumsden
Member since:---
You are absolutely correct. The FreeBSD people should stop copying UNIX. Look at all the trouble and confusion is has caused. It split the UNIX world into fragment custom OS's and drove UNIX into the backwaters of use and allowed such inferior OS's like M$ to grow.
Shame on you FreeBSD for pursuing your own goals and not thinking about others who now have to think and chose about what they install.
Member since:
---
This really does FreeBSD no justice at all. Normally, FreeBSD is quite fast. I'm typing ls at this very moment and I'm litterally waiting for output. I don't know if the Live-CD just doesn't like my machine or what. FreeBSD doesn't normally act like this. Normally, FreeBSD is blazingly fast. Something must be wrong. Maybe I did something wrong. I don't know.
I hate making comparisons, but the NetBSD live CD is much snappier. It's a joy to run off KDE off of it. Let's try booting into GNOME on this Debian FreeBSD Live-CD and see what happens. Here it goes, I'm gonna type startx and see what happens. On a side note, I wonder if I can get the NVidia driver working.
For those of you that think this project is a waste of time, who are you to say what other people should be doing with their time? I think this project is a very interesting experiment. At the very least, perhaps new bugs (either in the FreeBSD kernel or in GNU userland) could be found and corrected by using the FreeBSD kernel on top of a complete GNU userland. That makes it worth it.
Anyway, I'm going to keep playing with this until I get too frustrated with it and go back to the real FreeBSD.
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
DragonFlyBSD moves too fast for any Debian project to catch up. Besides some of the most interesting features will only be usable with DF's userland.
Debian/kFreeBSD is interesting in the sense that they can test the userland with different kernels. Practical use? Not much. No FreeBSD user is going to give up the BSD userland and the whole community surrounding FreeBSD in order to play with this Frankenstein that will be broken every other week.
