Linked by the_randymon on Fri 25th Jan 2013 09:21 UTC
Linux After about a year of work, the ArchLinux distribution now offers a variant running on the FreeBSD kernel. Says the developer, "Why would I do this? If like me, you enjoy FreeBSD and love it, but also like the philosophy behind Arch Linux, which is a fast, lightweight, optimized distro, I figured why not combine the both. Even though you could just do it on FreeBSD using the ports, not everyone wants to compile." This now puts Arch in the same category as Debian with Debian GNU/KFreeBSD, which offers a Debian userland on top of a FreeBSD kernel.
Order by: Score:
Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Fri 25th Jan 2013 09:30 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

If like me, you enjoy FreeBSD and love it, but also like the philosophy behind Arch Linux, which is a fast, lightweight, optimized distro

Because you can't optimize FreeBSD without using GNU
userland....

Even though you could just do it on FreeBSD using the ports, not everyone wants to compile

FreeBSD has binary packages....

He can do what he wants of course but I really fail to see the actual point in this.

Edited 2013-01-25 09:30 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: Comment by Soulbender
by Laurence on Fri 25th Jan 2013 11:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by Soulbender"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

While I do agree with you, as a user of both FreeBSD and Arch, I am quite excited by this.

The real question is whether Arch's full repos (baring stuff that ties directly into the kernel - for obvious reasons) and AUR are available. But with those combined, Arch has one of the largest collections of software available for it.

The only thing that stops me from running FreeBSD on the desktop more (I have done in the past, but mainly I use FreeBSD on servers) is because Linux has more software developed for it. (and while I could always port the rare few apps that aren't available for FreeBSD, I do that every for work - so cannot be bothered to do that for 'fun' as well).

This is all just my personal views though. I'm sure plenty on here will disagree. Particularly as there seems to be a lot of rivalry between Linux and FreeBSD (which I've never really understood as it's all just open source software with the same basic ideals anyway. But such is life).

Anyhow, I'm definitely going to give "ArchBSD" a play this weekend.

Edited 2013-01-25 11:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender
by joekiser on Sat 26th Jan 2013 03:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Soulbender"
joekiser Member since:
2005-06-30

While I do agree with you, as a user of both FreeBSD and Arch, I am quite excited by this.

The real question is whether Arch's full repos (baring stuff that ties directly into the kernel - for obvious reasons) and AUR are available. But with those combined, Arch has one of the largest collections of software available for it.

The only thing that stops me from running FreeBSD on the desktop more (I have done in the past, but mainly I use FreeBSD on servers) is because Linux has more software developed for it. (and while I could always port the rare few apps that aren't available for FreeBSD, I do that every for work - so cannot be bothered to do that for 'fun' as well).

This is all just my personal views though. I'm sure plenty on here will disagree. Particularly as there seems to be a lot of rivalry between Linux and FreeBSD (which I've never really understood as it's all just open source software with the same basic ideals anyway. But such is life).

Anyhow, I'm definitely going to give "ArchBSD" a play this weekend.


The selling point of Linux over other free UNIX clones is that it supports just about any hardware you throw at it. The selling point of Arch over other Linux distributions is that it is the most *BSD like of them all. Using the FreeBSD kernel removes the Linux hardware support, but doesn't add anything new that FreeBSD doesn't do. We have already have a binary package system in place, and it's not like pacman offers anything significant like delta binary updates.

As for the wide amount of software available for Linux, I fail to see how ArchBSD will rectify this. Developers code for what they know, and that is Linux. We've been complaining about the "Linux-ism" of free software since Gnome 1.x. Linux dependencies like HAL and PulseAudio or Wayland or don't get added and then deprecated overnight.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Soulbender
by Laurence on Sun 27th Jan 2013 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I run FreeBSD and ArchLinux on a number of systems and have done for a decade now. So I'm aware of the selling point of each OS. ;)

That said, I really don't agree with most of what you've posted (not saying you're outright wrong, I just see things from a different perspective):


The selling point of Linux over other free UNIX clones is that it supports just about any hardware you throw at it. The selling point of Arch over other Linux distributions is that it is the most *BSD like of them all. Using the FreeBSD kernel removes the Linux hardware support, but doesn't add anything new that FreeBSD doesn't do.


FreeBSD has good enough hardware support for the stuff that matters (eg networking controllers). Plus many of the UNIX's support features which Linux does not / or is not stable (not least of all, ZFS).

However, despite this, the appeal of Linux is usually more software support (which is a self-fulfilling prophecy as more people then write non-portable software for Linux).

You then also get users who learn Linux but refuse to learn other POSIX systems because it's "not quite Linux". ie Linux is what they know and what they're comfortable with.

We have already have a binary package system in place, and it's not like pacman offers anything significant like delta binary updates.

As for the wide amount of software available for Linux, I fail to see how ArchBSD will rectify this.

I'd already addressed that: AUR


Developers code for what they know, and that is Linux. We've been complaining about the "Linux-ism" of free software since Gnome 1.x. Linux dependencies like HAL and PulseAudio or Wayland or don't get added and then deprecated overnight.

Again, AUR.

If enough of the underlying Linux userland is ported, then hopefully we could see some of the Linux-dependant software ported over.

This is a big 'if' though. Equally there's a chance that there'd be less software available as it needs ported to support such a specific platform. And if that's the case then this is more of a "just because I can" exercise rather than one seeking any practical applications.

In either case, I think it's a little unfair just to dismiss it outright.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Soulbender
by lucas_maximus on Sun 27th Jan 2013 12:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Soulbender"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Even with the AUR you still got the problem that a lot of software has a lot of Linuxisms.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Soulbender
by Laurence on Sun 27th Jan 2013 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Soulbender"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Even with the AUR you still got the problem that a lot of software has a lot of Linuxisms.

And once again, I'd already addressed that.

Edited 2013-01-27 13:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Don't see the point
by BlackV on Fri 25th Jan 2013 09:36 UTC
BlackV
Member since:
2012-04-23

I don't really see the point for this.

If it is only using pacman instead of ports, then what the deal? Not like, there would be more software available compared to ports.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Don't see the point
by ggeldenhuys on Mon 28th Jan 2013 13:20 UTC in reply to "Don't see the point"
ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

Exactly, and ports is not hard to use at all!

make install clean

What is so hard about that?

I've switched to FreeBSD some months ago, and think FreeBSD is fantastic! Way more consistent, excellent documentation, fantastic backwards compatibility, ports is super easy to use. I wouldn't be switch back to Linux any time soon.

Reply Score: 3

Arch BSD, right?
by moondevil on Fri 25th Jan 2013 09:55 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

I fail to see how this can be called Arch Linux if is making use of a BSD kernel.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Arch BSD, right?
by Laurence on Fri 25th Jan 2013 11:42 UTC in reply to "Arch BSD, right?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I fail to see how this can be called Arch Linux if is making use of a BSD kernel.

It's not called 'Arch Linux'. It's called 'Arch BSD'. Just like Arch's Hurd variant is called 'Arch Hurd'.

[edit]

It might also be worth pointing out that the OSNews headline isn't the same as the linked article's, which reads: Arch BSD: Arch Linux Atop The FreeBSD Kernel

Edited 2013-01-25 11:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Arch BSD, right?
by the_randymon on Fri 25th Jan 2013 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Arch BSD, right?"
the_randymon Member since:
2005-07-06

Original submitter here. The title I'd originally proposed was, "What do you get when you cross ArchLinux and FreeBSD?"

As to the question, "why do something like this, when Arch has a limited number of followers and FreeBSD has a limited number of followers?" the answer is clearly, "to see if we can do it." It's the best answer for half of the cool stuff that hackers and tinkerers do, these days. Be glad we can tinker at all - the massive gadget/device lockdown isn't far off, I'd say.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Arch BSD, right?
by Laurence on Fri 25th Jan 2013 12:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Arch BSD, right?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Be glad we can tinker at all - the massive gadget/device lockdown isn't far off, I'd say.

Already happening. As of Saturday, it will be illegal to unlock phones in the US.

God bless the land of the free and inventors of the open market. <_<

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Arch BSD, right?
by Soulbender on Fri 25th Jan 2013 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Arch BSD, right?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

As of Saturday, it will be illegal to unlock phones in the US.


....say what? I can't really comprehend what I just read. It doesn't compute.
Are you sure you're not talking about North Korea or Cold War-era Eastern bloc states?

In some ways I miss the cold war. Sure, we almost blew ourselves up but at least there was some checks and balances and a "lets not be as bad as those guys" attitude.

(Edit: A Google search later and my brain just stops working. "This comes into effect under concerns of national security". WTF?? Did I just step into Orwell's 1984?)

Edited 2013-01-25 13:24 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Arch BSD, right?
by Laurence on Fri 25th Jan 2013 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Arch BSD, right?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Indeed. It's so completely over the top that it must be made up.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Arch BSD, right?
by moondevil on Fri 25th Jan 2013 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Arch BSD, right?"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Actually if I remember correctly in many European countries that is the same.

You can get prosecuted if you have a business that unlocks phones.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Arch BSD, right?
by Soulbender on Sat 26th Jan 2013 01:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Arch BSD, right?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Actually if I remember correctly in many European countries that is the same.


I can't find any hard information supporting this claim.
All I can find are vague claims like "some countries in Europe" so I'll call not true on that until someone actually provides hard evidence.
There's plenty of examples where carriers are required to provide an unlock service, free or at a charge, by law.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Arch BSD, right?
by moondevil on Sat 26th Jan 2013 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Arch BSD, right?"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Sure the carriers are obliged by law to unlock the phones, at least at end of contract.

What you cannot do (legally) is to go some IT shop and ask to get your phone unlocked.

These shops do exist but "no one" does it. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Arch BSD, right?
by Nelson on Fri 25th Jan 2013 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Arch BSD, right?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

People need to lobby their representatives right away. I think if as big a stink was made about this, as was made about SOPA, we'd get somewhere.

The DMCA is a terrible law that needs to be repealed, the spirit of it was respectable, but things like this are notoriously hard to implement in a manner which balances consumer freedom and intellectual property interests.

This speaks to a larger, lack of education in US politics surrounding technology as a whole. It is extremely dangerous given how we live in a more connected world every day.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Arch BSD, right?
by tylerdurden on Fri 25th Jan 2013 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Arch BSD, right?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Reality gets even weirder when you realize that the "librarian of congress" is the branch assigned by congress to enforce this.

The DMCA is turning out to be a magnificently awful piece of legislation as some predicted...

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Arch BSD, right?
by Nelson on Fri 25th Jan 2013 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Arch BSD, right?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The Librarian of Congress has also made Jailbreaking legal and ripping DVDs fair use, so its not all bad.

The DMCA is just terrible though.

Edited 2013-01-25 22:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Arch BSD, right?
by tylerdurden on Fri 25th Jan 2013 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Arch BSD, right?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

They got it right with the jailbreaking. However the librarian's exception, for ripping DVDs in the USA, only allows for educators and students not the general public.

Things are going to get weirder and weirder, as congress tries to regulate things they have the capacity to understand less and less.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Arch BSD, right?
by darknexus on Fri 25th Jan 2013 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Arch BSD, right?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

The Librarian of Congress has also made Jailbreaking legal

Only partially. Want to jailbreak your phone, go ahead. Want to jailbreak your iPod, your Tablet or, perhaps in the future, your PC? Too bad, you're a criminal! Plus, it's anyone's guess how long even the legal jailbreaking of phones will stand, seeing as how jailbreaking is usually the first step to third-party unlocking.

and ripping DVDs fair use, so its not all bad.

Not exactly. They've said that you are permitted, if creating a remix video or other artistic work, to rip clips from protected DVDs. The request for an exemption to rip entire DVDs and transcode them has been requested for years, and to this date, is still denied. Not that anyone actually cares, of course.

The DMCA is just terrible though.

On that point, we are in complete agreement.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Arch BSD, right?
by saso on Sat 26th Jan 2013 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Arch BSD, right?"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Are you sure you're not talking about North Korea or Cold War-era Eastern bloc states?

ex-Cold War-era Eastern bloc state here: please don't compare us to NK. The political system may have been thoroughly f'ed up, but I assure you we didn't pull crazy shit like systematically starve our own people to death. Compared to NK, Cold War-era Eastern bloc countries were free market democracies.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Arch BSD, right?
by nbensa on Fri 25th Jan 2013 15:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Arch BSD, right?"
nbensa Member since:
2005-08-29

Already happening. As of Saturday, it will be illegal to unlock phones in the US.


unlock like in "unlock carrier" or unlock like in "I want to run another kernel on this device"?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Arch BSD, right?
by Laurence on Fri 25th Jan 2013 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Arch BSD, right?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

unlock like in "unlock carrier" or unlock like in "I want to run another kernel on this device"?

Unlock. Not installing bespoke ROMs or even jailbreak / root hacks. Literally just unlocking for the sake of using a different carrier.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Arch BSD, right?
by jigzat on Fri 25th Jan 2013 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Arch BSD, right?"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

I live in Colombia (U know...South America) and it has become illegal to unlock cellphones since a lot of people were being killed just to steal a FreaKIN' cellphone (just in case they are brought illegally from other countries) but to balance things up the government forced carriers to sell unlocked cellphones, smooth move I have to say.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 25th Jan 2013 10:43 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

There aren't that many Arch Linux and FreeBSD (desktop) users, so the targeted audience for this ehm, operating system, is a small subset of these two combined groups.

To me it seems FreeBSD users use FreeBSD because they like FreeBSD and want to use FreeBSD. Same for Arch Linux users with Arch Linux. Just wondering why they'd give up any experience for opting for a less pure experience.

It's not like FreeBSD is slow or people don't love Arch Linux.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by lucas_maximus on Fri 25th Jan 2013 12:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

When I used to use BSD systems as a desktop, is because I didn't want to use Linux after a lot of it at the time was not particularly well documented compared to other systems like OpenBSD.

I've always preferred the OpenBSD ... if we say it supported it works, if we say it doesn't it doesn't or is likely to cause headaches.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 25th Jan 2013 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I've used FreeBSD for a while on the desktop, but I already had a few years Linux experience (which we had running on servers at work) and too many things were the same, slightly different or very different.

In the end I found it too confusing to be using both so I sadly had to let go of FreeBSD.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by Laurence on Fri 25th Jan 2013 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Personally I find switching between Windows and *nix more confusing than switching between Arch, Debian, SLES, Solaris and FreeBSD every day.

At least with the different *nix's, they're all largely POSIX and any terminal mistakes takes just a couple of seconds to spot (eg using ps ax in Solaris, forgetting I need to use the hyphened switches instead).

Switching between Windows and *nix, I'm confronted with not only a different type of terminal shell entirely (the number of times I type ls into cmd.exe is just embarrassing), but a completely different file system hierarchy and even a unique different.

Quite honestly, it almost always takes me 5 or 10 minutes of guess work before I've readjusted to Windows.

Edited 2013-01-25 12:49 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 25th Jan 2013 12:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Oh, I'm pretty cool with that, it's just I sometimes try to exit Notepad.exe by pretty <esc>wq.

The problem I had with Linux vs FreeBSD were mostly the command switches. Many I don't know, until I sit behind a Linux prompt and have to type them. On FreeBSD some are the same, some are not, some have different effects.

As it was my desktop OS it made more sense to switch back to Linux as its desktop development went much faster than FreeBSD's and I already knew how it worked.

Nothing bad to say about FreeBSD though.

BTW I'm tidying up my house and I found many more watches.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by Laurence on Fri 25th Jan 2013 12:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Oh, I'm pretty cool with that, it's just I sometimes try to exit Notepad.exe by pretty <esc>wq.

haha +1
I've done that in so many GUI editors I've lost track!


The problem I had with Linux vs FreeBSD were mostly the command switches. Many I don't know, until I sit behind a Linux prompt and have to type them. On FreeBSD some are the same, some are not, some have different effects.

Yeah. Funny enough i did edit my post (sorry about the ninja edit there) to talk about that a little more.

The changes in switches are annoying, I'll grant you that. FreeBSD tends to be pretty good in supporting a lot of Linux's standards though - or it might be GNU supporting BSD switches. I can't recall off hand. But switching to Solaris is even harder in terms of switch incompatibilities.


As it was my desktop OS it made more sense to switch back to Linux as its desktop development went much faster than FreeBSD's and I already knew how it worked.

Nothing bad to say about FreeBSD though.

I appreciate that. I wasn't intending to criticise you there so I hope my comments didn't read that way. ;)

I was just expressing my own anecdotal evidence to anyone who might be interested.


BTW I'm tidying up my house and I found many more watches.

Oh nice one. I'm still yet to find an affordable watch I like (and I'm not about to spend a lot on a watch that's going to be warn everyday and thus accidentally banged into things.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 25th Jan 2013 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12


I've done that in so many GUI editors I've lost track!


It's amazing this is the one habit that people apparently mistakingly apply at the wrong places.


I appreciate that. I wasn't intending to criticise you there so I hope my comments didn't read that way. ;)


Oh, I didn't think that. I think FreeBSD is great so I wanted to make sure lurkers knew I didn't switch it for Linux because anything was wrong with it.


Oh nice one. I'm still yet to find an affordable watch I like (and I'm not about to spend a lot on a watch that's going to be warn everyday and thus accidentally banged into things.


You could adopt my strange behavior and have several watches for several occasions.

Right now I'm wearing one I stole from the merchandise window of a bank, because I was well annoyed with them. So in a way I robbed a bank I guess. If you think about I paid for this watch several times already anyway.

We're planning to go to the jewelry shop this afternoon. I'm bring a few watches that need small repairs or a new battery. Also I'm bringing the Seiko UC-2002 pocket watch:

http://forum.pocketcalculatorshow.com/displayForumTopic/content/292...

I also have 2 keyboards to which it can dock, but the connection doesn't work so I'm hoping at the shop they might know some people who can fix it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by Morgan on Fri 25th Jan 2013 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Right now I'm wearing one I stole from the merchandise window of a bank, because I was well annoyed with them. So in a way I robbed a bank I guess. If you think about I paid for this watch several times already anyway.


Wow. So, the law enforcement employee in me is in shock right now, but in reality I'm laughing my ass off! ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by sorpigal on Fri 25th Jan 2013 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

FreeBSD tends to be pretty good in supporting a lot of Linux's standards though - or it might be GNU supporting BSD switches. I can't recall off hand. But switching to Solaris is even harder in terms of switch incompatibilities.

Oh my yes. Sometimes it's little things like the requirement that switches to e.g. ls go *before* and not after the file list. Why? Historical reasons, or something; GNU figures out what you meant, the more traditional versions rely on the order.

At last FreeBSD (and to some extend other BSDs) are willing to include improvements when they are improvements. My favorite example: You can use -print0 with FreeBSD's find, an extension that AFAIK originally came from GNU. Now I understand why a lot of the crazy GNU extensions don't get adopted everywhere, but the fact that the most modern find distributed with Solaris doesn't support -printf or -print0 is just plain ridiculous. Is it any wonder that most Solaris admins' first act is to install the GNU file utils?

A favorite gotcha of mine: Conflicting utilities! FreeBSD supplies a watch(1), but it's not the watch(1) you've come to expect if you've used Linux. Little things like this can be frustrating. Then there are the "I didn't know that wasn't standard" things that are pretty much the same across all Linux distributions but which are actually Linuxisms and not the same elsewhere--things like behavior and usage of ifconfig/netstat, or managing disk partitions.

FreeBSD is, compared to its commercial brothers, a modern and forward-looking *nix that is extremely straightforward and logical. If you're coming from the oddities of traditional UNIX I'm sure it's a breath of fresh air, where Linux would be a much scarier radical departure. That said, coming from the Linux side FreeBSD seems needlessly stodgy and Solaris and other commercial Unixen can be positively asinine.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by saso on Sat 26th Jan 2013 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Oh my yes. Sometimes it's little things like the requirement that switches to e.g. ls go *before* and not after the file list. Why? Historical reasons, or something; GNU figures out what you meant, the more traditional versions rely on the order.

It's because of xargs.

At last FreeBSD (and to some extend other BSDs) are willing to include improvements when they are improvements.

Solaris has for a long time included GNU equivalents in /usr/sfw. Modern Solaris and Illumos distros often include /usr/gnu/bin in your default PATH.

My favorite example: You can use -print0 with FreeBSD's find, an extension that AFAIK originally came from GNU. Now I understand why a lot of the crazy GNU extensions don't get adopted everywhere, but the fact that the most modern find distributed with Solaris doesn't support -printf or -print0 is just plain ridiculous. Is it any wonder that most Solaris admins' first act is to install the GNU file utils?

GNU tools are better in some respects (such as -print0 etc.) and only a fool would not use them. Many modern Solaris-derived distros (such as OpenIndiana) even install them by default (gfind).

A favorite gotcha of mine: Conflicting utilities! FreeBSD supplies a watch(1), but it's not the watch(1) you've come to expect if you've used Linux. Little things like this can be frustrating.

watch(8) was first featured in FreeBSD 2.1 from 1995, probably a lot sooner than the Linux watch was developed. If it's anybody's fault, it's probably the fault of the Linux guys for naming their utility by some conflicting name.

Then there are the "I didn't know that wasn't standard" things that are pretty much the same across all Linux distributions but which are actually Linuxisms and not the same elsewhere--things like behavior and usage of ifconfig/netstat, or managing disk partitions.

Well, disk partitions in particular were intimately tied to the hardware that the systems were developed on. Some people just have different ideas about how things should work - can't blame 'em, a lot of it really comes down to taste (such as ifconfig/netstat).

FreeBSD is, compared to its commercial brothers, a modern and forward-looking *nix that is extremely straightforward and logical. If you're coming from the oddities of traditional UNIX I'm sure it's a breath of fresh air, where Linux would be a much scarier radical departure. That said, coming from the Linux side FreeBSD seems needlessly stodgy and Solaris and other commercial Unixen can be positively asinine.

I'm a heavy Linux and Solaris user and I honestly can't follow your thinking here. Each system has its style and I consider neither inherently superior by design. So yeah, Solaris has some cruft that it has carried to implement such useless things as binary compatibility with older commercial software (who needs a stable ABI, eh Linux?), but on the other hand, some new stuff in Solaris was developed by people who put a lot of thought into it and it came out great: SMF, ZFS, FMA, DTrace, Zones, etc. Linux, at times, feels like a wild experiment of bedroom engineers, an asorted hodge-podge of "my pet project" ideas and really irrational design decision, but at times really great implementations and terrific performance (the networking stack has really matured and I find iptables' structure quite logical).

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by Neolander on Fri 25th Jan 2013 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Oh nice one. I'm still yet to find an affordable watch I like (and I'm not about to spend a lot on a watch that's going to be warn everyday and thus accidentally banged into things.

I have an old Hamilton automatic watch, which my mother gave me about 5 years ago, as she was buying herself a new one. The fact that this little thing has survived my careless daily handling for so long suggests that your fears are unfounded. For a comparison, I have a hard time keeping cellphones in good condition for more than a year.

I did have to replace the glassy windows from time to time though, basically anytime it fell on it from more than 1m above. It costs between €20 and €40, depending on the shop which does it.

Edited 2013-01-25 15:32 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by Laurence on Fri 25th Jan 2013 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I'm not scared of breaking it. I just wouldn't want to scratch anything that cost a substantial amount.

Think of it like clothes, I wouldn't wear a smart suit to do the gardening. But equally I wouldn't wear a cheap pair of jeans to a wedding.

So what I'm after is a watch that I'm not going to be too precious about rather than something more ornamental to wear for special occasions. I'm just yet to find a watch that's cheap, yet relatively sturdy and which reflects a little of my personality.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by tidux on Fri 25th Jan 2013 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

And that's why I use GVim in Windows. I usually stick with terminal-mode Vim on *nix, but cmd and powershell are just embarassingly bad terminal emulators. I mean wtf, a DOS-style environment that can't handle 256 colors? No UTF-8 support in 20 freaking 13?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by BluenoseJake on Fri 25th Jan 2013 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Neither cmd or powershell are terminal emulators, so I wonder why you are surprised.

cmd.exe is provided for running dos apps and batch files, neither of which supported UTF8. Powershell is a .net scripting runtime.

Edited 2013-01-25 23:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

might be more interesting the other way...
by MacMan on Fri 25th Jan 2013 16:05 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

With BSD userland running on the Linux kernel.

From a practical standpoint, the Linux kernel is quite a bit more advanced than the BSD kernel.

And with a BSD userland, maybe we could get rid of all this Stallman GNU/Everything BS.

On a side note, why is GNU user supposed to be all that much beter that BSD? Personally, everyday I flip between my MacBook (10.6), Ubuntu 12.10 and RHEL, and on all of them, I spend 90% of my time in emacs and gcc.

So, I guess even though emacs and gcc are GNU programs, Stallman does not feel the need to call MacOS GNU/MacOS even though one uses emacs and gcc. MacOS also has other goodies like GNU grep, bison, and so forth, but we still don't have to call it GNU/MacOS.

Now Linux on the other hand, we have to, according to Stallman, call GNU/Linux. Why? MacOS and Linux have the same suite of GNU programs. The differences I can tell, are that some other programs like ls as well as the c library were developed by GNU on Linux and the BSD folks on OSX. Thus brings up another question, MacOS uses BSD userland, so why don't we have to call it BSD/MacOS?

Reply Score: 3

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Oh the HORROR!

Reply Score: 2

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Because Apple marketing prefers OS X.

Reply Score: 2

MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

Because Apple marketing prefers OS X.


Yeh, of course, but why isn't Stallman pitching a b!@tch over OSX not being called GNU/OSX like he is with Linux?

Now that I think about it, emacs (which is a fantastic program) and gcc (also great) run just about everywhere, including Windows. So, shouldn't Windows with Cygwin also be called GNU/Windows according to Stalman?

Reply Score: 2

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Personally I don't care what Stallman thinks, even more so with regards to his relabeling preferences.

A name is just a way to easily refer to something. The way Stallman wants it is more like listing all components of a system in its name. Where do you draw the line?

It's easier to refer to Windows, Linux and OS X. Or if needed include the version: Windows 7, Redhat Linux, OS X Lion.

I don't think GNU adoption would explode or even rise if we'd stick it in front of everything. If GNU is the answer people will include it in their product anyway. In other words if you made your own kernel and see a commercial of GNU/Windows I don't think it would make you say, "Of course, I cam use GNU to complete my OS!".

Reply Score: 2

thetank Member since:
2009-09-03

I find it really difficult to explain to someone about Linux. I explained lately to my room mate that I don't really need unity, which is a desktop ui, and I can use the same base in elementary that uses ubuntu.. I made myself confused when trying to explain it all.

Reply Score: 1

jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Because of Mach??

Reply Score: 1

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


And with a BSD userland, maybe we could get rid of all this Stallman GNU/Everything BS.


Can you even compile the Linux kernel without gcc or gnu's c library(es)?

Reply Score: 2

MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19


Can you even compile the Linux kernel without gcc or gnu's c library(es)?


Yes you can:
http://llvm.org/devmtg/2012-04-12/Slides/Mark_Charlebois.pdf

And if I recall correctly, the first versions of Linux were developed on Minix.

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

It was developed on Minix, but using many GNU tools such as gcc.

Reply Score: 2

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Clang will build the Linux kernel, though it doesn't (yet) work well.
Intel's compiler works really well for building the Linux kernel, or at least used to be a few years ago. I'd be surprised if that has changed.

And, there are other C libs that work. For example, uClib is designed to have a tiny footprint.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by NuxRo
by NuxRo on Sat 26th Jan 2013 12:13 UTC
NuxRo
Member since:
2010-09-25

Debian FreeBSD, Arch BSD etc .. The FreeBSD project should take note and implement a proper binary packages system before they get lost into irrelevance even more.
FreeBSD needs a good "yum" or "apt" implementation.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by NuxRo
by Nulani on Sat 26th Jan 2013 20:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by NuxRo"
Nulani Member since:
2009-02-03

It already has one: pkgng.
https://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo
by NuxRo on Sun 27th Jan 2013 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by NuxRo"
NuxRo Member since:
2010-09-25

It already has one: pkgng.
https://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer

It's not clear from there if it can do a simple "yum update".

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by NuxRo
by darknexus on Mon 28th Jan 2013 06:26 UTC in reply to "Comment by NuxRo"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Debian FreeBSD, Arch BSD etc .. The FreeBSD project should take note and implement a proper binary packages system before they get lost into irrelevance even more.
FreeBSD needs a good "yum" or "apt" implementation.

No thanks. My FreeBSD installations have been perfectly free of dependency hell for years, and FreeBSD has one of the best package managers around. It actually compares to pacman in philosophy, as in, get the hell out of the way and let me install things. Apt and Yum, on the other hand: well, I've had more hell from those two than I ever had from Windows dll hell. Keep them out of my *BSD installations. We don't want them here.

Reply Score: 3