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.
Thread beginning with comment 550545
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Soulbender
by Laurence on Sun 27th Jan 2013 11:29 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 Parent Score: 2

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 Parent Score: 2