Millan has released a LiveCD of GNU/kFreeBSD. You can try it out directly booting the CD. The software can also be very easily installed to harddisk. You can find more about the GNU C Library with FreeBSD kernel here.
Please read the 00README and INSTALL for additional notes. If you have questions, suggestions or any feedback, please direct it to the [email protected] mailing list or through IRC (#gnu-kbsd).
Debian GNU/kFreeBSD
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Ok, I’m probably dense here, and not trying to start a flame, but why would you want to do this? What am I missing about the GNU userland, rather than using *BSD’s? Is it more the philosophical point of GNU’s “free”dom, but then isn’t that contradicted by using *BSD? Please ‘splain.
Thanks.
The goal is to make debian a platform in and of itself. This would allow you to change lots of things about the system like the platform it’s running on, the kernel it is running, etc and still be using debian.
Nah, the flame would be to say they want Linux with a stable and secure kernel.
Joke apart, I think the aim is to use the GNU userland with about any kernel. While I personally don’t like the GNU userland, I can understand their motives. As a NetBSD developer, I can’t really blame anyone for aiming at portability.
I don’t think the freedom issue is the most relevant part here. It might be the apparent motive, but the underlying one is always the same: I want to use My Tools That I Like anywhere.
One system two different licenses? I can’t understand what the advantages of having GNU/BSD perhaps someone who is up on this project could enlighten us? I use NetBSD/Alpha on my webserver and was under the assumtion that alot of the tools/utilities were GNU. It is a cool idea to have choice in kernels HURD/Linux/BSD and maintain userland commonality.
Per the above, if they show how wonderful debian can still be regardless of the kernel it is running on, perhaps they can get people over to Hurd as well. Completing GNUs control of the desktop. Okay, a bit far fetched maybe, but you know you needed to read some conspiracy theory today to get by.
The freebsd kernel was designed to run with FreeBSD and NOT with GNU.
Why don’t they do something productive instead like participate in the development of the FreeBSD operating system OR the GNU-system. supid morons.
the debian system is amazing. maybe it’s just because i’m used to it but i find the file system layout, the packaging, the control of system services and, above all, apt amazing to use. there is nothing else that comes close. so why not use a different kernel with it?
alot of people really like the “debian way” but they may not be so enamoured with the linux kernel. why not use the freebsd one instead?
afaik, the debian system is meant to be platform independent. check out the debian page for a better explanation:
http://www.debian.org/ports/
Looks really nice. Now all I wont is a Debian GNU/kSolaris wen/if Sun make’s Solaris free and a Debian GNU/ReactOS/Cygwin system; a native Windows-system with the super powers of Debian *NIX
Ok, I’m probably dense here, and not trying to start a flame, but why would you want to do this? What am I missing about the GNU userland, rather than using *BSD’s? Is it more the philosophical point of GNU’s “free”dom, but then isn’t that contradicted by using *BSD? Please ‘splain.
Thanks.
Perhaps they just like to type things like this:
commandlinethingie –some-rediculous-string-to-do-simple-thing (the GNU way)
instead of:
commandlinethingie -x (the BSD way)
I’ve heard of crazier things.
“People never seem to blow my mind with there stupidity.”
Where stupidity? There stupidity!
And your mind may not seem blown, but maybe you’d better check. 😉
I know they did it because they wanted to – my question is what does it do better than before? What’s the overall point to it? Did they do it because they CAN, or because it solves a nagging need that hasn’t been taken care of?
Is there such a thing as a “pure” FreeBSD “Live CD” distribution?
I’ll definitely try this Debian one, but now my curiosity is up.
…that every other thread on this site deteriorates into a few idiots drooling at each other, and then insulting each others’ drool?
Is there such a thing as a “pure” FreeBSD “Live CD” distribution?
Yup. It’s CD #2 on their ftp site, but it’s not graphical. It does have a complete base system however.
DragonFly BSD only ‘ships’ in the form of a single live CD as well, which is also a complete base system.
It’s not that they ask why, it’s that they ask it as if the idea is stupid or pointless.
You’d think they would have learned to stop after they bashed our response to the QNX challenge, from which embedded Linux was born.
“I’ve heard of crazier things.”
sure because you hang amoung them always.
enlightenment
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_toc.html
Cool! I’ll get ‘hold of it. Looks like a great learning tool!
“Ok, I’m probably dense here, and not trying to start a flame, but….”
I forgot to say:
I didn’t mean any offense to you, Dan. You were not the sort of person I was referring to in my snide remarks. There are definitely cases where people ask for the reasoning behind a project in a respectful way that shows curiosity rather than insult.
Personally, I don’t know the “why” behind the project yet, but I will definitely find out. It’s amazing what you can learn by watching people do this sort of thing!
Go to http://www.freesbie.org/
It doesn’t startup graphically, but just type ‘xinit’ and you have X — autodetects most video and mouse hardware just fine.
Thanks, though I did respond improperly to adapt’s comment, but if you sound the idiot, then you must be.
As you pointed out, I’m simply interested in understanding the point of it. Whether it’s useful or not is not my call – I just wanna understand it. If *I* don’t find it useful, then I won’t need to use it. OTOH, if it’s like sliced bread, then I need to research it more – once I get a clue!
The inconsistent, poorly documented, patched together, ugly GNU userland on the BSD kernel !
/sarcasm
They said some FreeBSD developers were interested in porting glibc to freebsd to have in the ports collection as a replacement for linux binary emulation. Would that really eliminate the need for binary emulation?
It’s funny to see all kind of statements here which are clearly answered by the FAQ.
http://www.nongnu.org/glibc-bsd/
And other websites. Hope that helps.
“By Anonymous coward (IP: —.telia.com) – Posted on 2004-07-01 20:17:38
The freebsd kernel was designed to run with FreeBSD and NOT with GNU.”
Work is under the way to get Debian GNU/KnetBSD working as well. And it’s not only Debian GNU/KnetBSD, it’s also GNU/KFreeBSD, GNU/KNetBSD, Debian GNU/Hurd, GNU/Hurd (aka GNU).
If you have a problem with that, or with the licensing, you have a problem. Not the authors. Not me. FYI not everything in Free, Net, OpenBSD is non-GNU either so if you hate GNU or GPL and want to be free of it and it’s projects, you do run it as well with the BSDs.
Debian just isn’t a Linux or GNU/Linux distribution. Debian GNU/Linux is one.
Debian has always been about platform-independence; this project is according to that aims. It is not dependant on a part of Debian believed vital for it. It could therefore also be seen as a twist
To argue the people developing this “should work on Hurd” is imo arrogant, and shortsighting. These people are doing _this_, they enjoy _this_ and you are in no position to demand they should be working on something else. It is their choice to work on _this_; afaik all voluntary. It also leaves aside wether these people are interested, have the qualities to work on the other project (whatever it is).
yea its sounds fair, but need i be the picky one and note OpenBSD is trying to remove as much GNU stuff as possible if i remember correctly. 😉 Just so you know. I still dont see why i would want Debian on BSD though. Their utitilies are cool but GNU and Linux are the one and the same it seems now a days and Debian is the ideal free community player. The entire point of BSD is to be free to everyone so everyone can use it and not force their distributed derived works to be GPL
are there any architectures that FreeBSD runs the Linux doesn’t? or maybe to use GNU tools in a FreeBSD jail? Or just when you need to modify the kernel with a driver that you can’t GPL b/c of an agreement or something… I won’t use it but thats not to say there aren’t other ppl who will. I wonder how easily it would be to replace it with the DragonFly kernel.
Linux with a BSD userland would be more interesting if you ask me. It as least would stop all the FSF fanatics going on about GNU/Linux. I know of at least one distro (an old a.out instead of ELF one) called Mastodan that tries to use BSD tools more then GNU ones.
There is also uWoody which is Debian Woody built with uclibc instead of Glibc (though it still usese GNU userland)
http://www.uclibc.org/dists/uwoody/
dpi:
>Work is under the way to get Debian GNU/KnetBSD working as well.
>And it’s not only Debian GNU/KnetBSD, it’s also GNU/KFreeBSD,
>GNU/KNetBSD, Debian GNU/Hurd, GNU/Hurd (aka GNU).
Hence the last one would be… GNU/GNU, right?
I know that “words are very important” (I write for a living) but that sounds a tad bit ridiculous, doesn’t it? 😉
nda
“yea its sounds fair, but need i be the picky one and note OpenBSD is trying to remove as much GNU stuff as possible if i remember correctly.”
True (regarding base). And they’re getting better at it. But it has afaik never been 100% BSD licensed and the compiler is still GCC.
“Just so you know. I still dont see why i would want Debian on BSD though. Their utitilies are cool but GNU and Linux are the one and the same it seems now a days and Debian is the ideal free community player.”
Non-dependance on Linux (“do we really want a uniform platform on the Internet or do we want diversity”). SCO or SCO-like lawsuits.
If it is is stable, i’ll run it,on at least 2 machines. For the simple reason that i like APT _and_ PF very much. Much more than either Ports or IPTabes. YMMV.
“The entire point of BSD is to be free to everyone so everyone can use it and not force their distributed derived works to be GPL”
(Regarding GPL, one is only forced to distribute the source of a derived work when one decides to distribute a binary based on that derived work.)
The point is irrelevant to me. It’s also not true regarding the base of the BSD’s with the biggest point being the compiler. YMMV.
The GNU operating system was originally just named “GNU”. It included “Hurd” as kernel. Hurd wasn’t finished. Then “Linux” came. It used the GNU userland. Hence GNU/Linux. So one can name GNU userland + Hurd GNU/Hurd even though GNU is also a correct name. This is also mentioned in the GNU/Hurd or Hurd FAQ. I don’t see why you’d name it “GNU/GNU” but i’m interested into why you think so.