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.
Permalink for comment 550469
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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