Submitted by Two new architectures based on the FreeBSD-kernel have been added to the Debian Archive. This makes Debian the first distribution, and probably the first large OS, to support two completely different kernels at the same time. “The two new architectures (well, better named OS i think, as they use a different kernel) are available in unstable and experimental. We do
start out empty, importing only what is needed to get a build running. For this reason you will not be able to directly use it
immediately. Please wait until they catched up, which I expect to happen soon.”
1. If FreeBSD supports DTRACE then will GNU/kfreebsd support DTRACE?
2. Can someone summarise why the Hurd has not yet taken off? Where are they at? What is stopping them progressing?
@1: DTrace and ZFS should be possible.
@2: Nobody works on Hurd.
Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is around since at least 2005. At least the wiki page http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD?action=info was created in 2005 (scroll down).
suppositly it’s now not just a port, but is strarting to look like it might be in the next release.
Naw, I hope this help all some what…….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD#Debian_GNU.2FkFree…
Seems like the NetBSD is coming alone very nicely. I hope they accept the OpenSolaris (Nexenta) soon too.
This is similar to Gentoo’s FreeBSD project, http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/bsd/fbsd/
Quite not similar actually:
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2009/04/06/debian-gentoo-freebsd-gnu-kfree…
I would like one covering:
-Installation – I read it needs a BSD disk partitioning utility meaning not many people would be able to install it.
-Hardware Support – Binary blobs have been removed according to Debian(should’ve used a free BSD kernel instead of a FreeBSD one :p). How many things do not work that would in FreeBSD?
-Desktop Environment and Software – Does anything work at all?
Edited 2009-04-06 23:05 UTC
Why are they using another kernel than Linux? Is it because of the many shortcomings in Linux? Linux is buggy, says Linux Kernel developer Andrew Morton:
http://lwn.net/Articles/285088/
For instance, Linux is not that good on file serving, says a storage expert:
http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/sans/features/article.php/374…
I dont think the short comings are the reason. Did they change Kernel just for fun?
Its just a matter of providing options. There is nothing wrong with either kernel, its just the ability to choose. Which is very good.
I really like this. It doesnt state when it will be available but I guess the installers need to be adjusted first in order to support ZFS.
Or this calls for a FS that supports both Linux and FreeBSD so you can boot between the two.
What makes FreeBSD different from Linux, or sets it appart, is it’s a complete OS, not just a kernel. What would be the real reason to use just the kernel in Debian? You can have the real thing complete in one package. Plus the SysV way of handling init scripts sucks horribly.
Why would I install Debian and use a FreeBSD kernel? I’d just install FreeBSD. Period.
its another free kernel for them to support, and they aim to be more than just a linux distro
I don’t get this too. What are the (possible) benefits over FreeBSD?