Slashdot Mirror
Debian NetBSD for Sparc
Dan writes "Matthew Garrett has demonstrated his success in building a Debian operating system on the Sparc architecture on top of the NetBSD kernel. Additionally Joel Baker reported about significant work for the NetBSD/x86 port, such as dpkg and APT, that will work without additional patches. NetBSD runs on hardware unsupported by Linux. Folks working on the project say that porting Debian to the NetBSD kernel increases the number of platforms that can run a Debian-based operating system."
In the begining :
There was nothing
then God said
apt-get install light
Trolling using another account since 2005.
i thought debian was a linux distro. if they make a distro for something other than linux, does that mean its done by the same people, with the same principle behind it, or something like that
or am i jsut really missing the point of what a distro is?
NetBSD can run on more platforms than you can shake a stick at. Also with the ability to run IRIX binaries as well gives it a bit more depth/reach. Just shows what portable code can do. Anyway time to boot my Dreamcast :)
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
...for when I argue against "Debian sucks because it's Linux" *BSD people. Debian is a "universal" operating system (well, let's say "packaging system") -- it's is not strictly Linux. Debian != Linux
On this topic, I remember reading a while back about a Debian FreeBSD project. Anyone know the status of that?
Join Tor today!
So, would someone care to explain why you wouldn't just use NetBSD instead of trying to run a Linux environment with a NetBSD kernel? What benefit does this give you? One of the benefits of BSDs is that they're coherent systems and not a hodgepodge of kernels and userland apps. So again, what is being gained here?
I had debian installed on my UltraAXI and it ran pretty good. NetBSD ran pretty good on it too. Not to get off topic, but UltraSparcs lack variety. Not many linux distros still support Ultra ports well (Redhat stopped at 6.2, MDK stopped at 7.1?, Debian is current!, Gentoo doesn't support X on Ultra (WTF, Idiots) Slack stopped at 6.x? and Splack just isn't bleeding edge). Back on topic, I'm glad to see progress. I'm not into OS flame wars, but I do like things about Debian (apt, dur), and NetBSD (mad portability), so I'm definately going to have to play with this. :-)
Can all fish swim?
Fire up Bochs on your new Debian kernel on your NetBSD OS on your SPARC system and run an i386 system on which you may choose to run ... oh, I don't know, maybe a copy of FreeBSD? Which itself could run Bochs---but in Linux emulation mode? And that could run MS-DOS?
Whatever you do, don't start a Java app at this point!
It is great to see Debian running on everything known to man.. However I have never understood why they are so far behind other distributions?
Gnu/Debian BSD
Why God, Why!?
In related news, scientists for the dairy industry announced that pouring milk into glasses will increase the number of glasses which contain milk.
It would be great to be able to run *BSD on these machines, especially the older ones we have where hp-ux just doesn't hack it anymore.
Who the hell told Carrot Top he was funny?
Or maybe FreeBSD port based (oh wait Gentoo)...
not sparc - different things. The 'sparc' implies 32 bit whereas sparc64 are the 64 bit 'ultra'sparc based machines.
Debian is all about stability. The main branch, Woody, had old packages but they are know to work. You don't get a lot of crashes, things just work. You will find debian people put a lot of work into configs and such like, make sure things interact with each other.
For example say I install a new Apache Modules there are scripts that will automatically update my httpd.conf rather than just writing over it. To get a Debian system up and running is quick and easy as 99% of the tweaking has been done.
Even though things are old they do make sure they are secure. If there is an exploit you can upgrade your system by just doing
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade.
Thats it. Auto download and patch of affected programs
However there is also another unstable branch, Sarge IIRC, which has cutting edge stuff. Latest version of everything. However as implied by its name it could just get up and crash at any moment.
Hope that helps
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I was about to smack this poster down, but you did it with a condescending tone that I cannot match. Thank you!
Join Tor today!
Debian does Dallas.
One of Linux' big problems is a lack of modularity. Building an entire Linux system, from scratch, is an incredible pain; you have to buy books to explain how. This is particularly annoying when, say, you're building a Linux appliance and want to tweak things. You want to compile with -m686? On BSD you just change one setting, run one makefile and everything rebuilds. On Linux you have to configure a zillion packages independantly.
OTOH, one of BSD's big problems is hardware. I have a Hauppauge Nova-T DVB card. Is it supported under BSD? Need you ask? (Although, surprisingly, BT8x8-based TV cards are supported by OpenBSD.) I have a long-term project to build a PVR. If I could use BSD, I'd go for it like a shot --- it's just so much easier to configure. As it is, I have to go for Linux, which is so much of a pain that I haven't been able to muster the energy to get started yet...
However, then, it wouldn't be "Debian/NetBSD" but rather "Debian GNU/NetBSD" (Debian, at least, having already accepted the GNU/Linux moniker).
I really think there are practical advantages to distinguishing between 1) kernel, 2) "everything else", i.e. portable packages ported to run on that kernel, and with each other, and 3) who did the porting/distribution bundling.
Of course, when there is only one varient of one of those three components, i.e. the bits and pieces of what would be GNU, we tend to leave it out, as cumbersome, redundant, and unwieldly, RMS protests of the need to pay hommage (or at least use terminology that conveys GNU roots) notwithstanding. Thus, "Red Hat Linux": there is no other kind of "Linux" packaged by Red Hat (and since they did the bundling, they get to call it pretty much whatever they want (personally, I would have preferred "Up Yours, MS"/OS, but anyway...)), and no techical need for a "Red Hat GNU/Linux" designation.
RMS may want to see us embrace a phisosophical basis for free software, but, without the economic benefits that open source exemplifies, I doubt free software would have the contributions it does. Similarly, without a technical argument for "GNU/Linux", the moniker will likely not be popular. It would be nice, though, if the technical argument were there, so the philosophy and history could get some recognition and representation in common use.
I expect that might come in niche markets: where Linux is combined with severly scaled down portions of GNU, and non-GNU software, particularly in the embedded market: look at BusyBox -- a combination of utilities in a single executible for space reasons. We are seeing attempts to standardize "Linux" for the desktop (LSB), as well as for the embedded space. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing LSB (Linux Standard Base) become GSB (GNU Standard Base), with LSB dealing solely with a kernel standard, in this vein.
O.K. ObGNU/Linux rant over.
You could've hired me.
Come to think of it, on many levels GNU/FSF has led the charge. Look at how many GPL'ed programs already run on several OS'es. I mean, all that really matters is that nethack works on your os of choice, right?
I wonder how long before we see RedHat XVII for windows..
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
You will still get "Rock Solid, multi-architecture, Fast-as-hell TCP stack... All the things that make NetBSD the place to be!
" because its using the netbsd kernel, the difference is that you will have all the GNU tools and it will be in the format of a linux system, basicly your getting debian linux with the netbsd kernel replacing the linux kernel.
I mean, won't you people just let BSD die in peace?
Especially NetBSD. Everybody who's trying to run BSD on a Vic20 should just be shot. Really.
Apt is the reason why I switched from RedHat to Debian. Well, apt and availability of programs. There seems to be much more, much faster availability for Debian than any other distro. Yes, yes I know there is a port of apt for RH but in my opinion it isn't that good. Anyways, I wish apt would become a standard. Its great to see other unices adopting it.
Since when has Debian been ok with BSD licenses?
I'm still waiting for Debian GNU/FreeDOS. *g*
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
I inherited an old Alpha 3000 Turbochannel box a while back. Linux refused to boot. Most of the forums on the topic said "Won't happen. Go get NetBSD". So I got it and installed it and I gotta say I like it. It's easy and very capable. It's a great server platform.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Maybe this will make people stop and think about what "linux" actually is, and where else credit might be due. If you switch out that component, what do you have?
Of course the marketing machine likes the word linux quite a lot, it's catchy, it has panache, it sells, which is why people say things like "wow, how did you get that linux software running on MacOS?" when refering to things like bash, gcc or gnome apps.
Everyone always complains and bitches about what OS is better, whos has the l33ter OS, who is running the most current kernel, and then proceed to get in bitter flame wars over which OS is better.
This guy has created a product to satisfy one thing for him, which is his curiousity. Isn't that good enough these days? A project based on curiousity should be respected on general the general premise that something creative is being done in the name of innovation.
Maybe if we stopped wasting time arguing and insulting each other about what OS we run, and spend all that time doing something productive like this man has done, we will actually accomplish every goal we set.
Just a thought.
-kalle
the 'main' distribution is, when you add security.debian.org to your /etc/apt/sources.list, updated with backported security fixes and such. so you get the best of both worlds from an admin standpoint: stable software (as the OP said) known to work and work well, plus security updates. subscribing to the debian security list is also a nice, low traffic way to keep up on debian security things. the combination of these factors make debian a damned dream to run as a sysadmin if you have, say, a huge thundering herd of web and database servers to keep happy.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
One of the benefits of BSDs is that they're coherent systems and not a hodgepodge of kernels and userland apps.
.
If you mean what I think you mean then that's a bizzare idea. BSD distributions contain the same 'hodgepodge' of userland apps, they are not any more or less 'coherent'
You'll find quite a bit of GNU software on a default FreeBSD install (and not just gcc and related tools, more basic things like GNU versions of tar too).
There is nothing keeping one from building the entire GNU library on one of the BSD's.
Go into the ports directory, find what you want, and type "make install".
This is even better, in that you can just do the programs you are interested in.
Why not, indeed.
First, why reinvent the wheel?
Second, there may be good reasons to. Gentoo, for example, likely fills an interesting need: auditable, tuned distribution generation, for one. But, unless your personal distro is likely to have a wider audience, or your need is strong, why bother?
I do think the <packager> <raw source package set>/<kernel> naming convention is a good one, though I admit that <packager> and <raw source package set> might be redundant, together. I do see <raw source package set> evolving into a place holder for a standard for same, thus, "Red Hat GNU/Linux" would adhere to the same common GNU standard that "Debian GNU/Linux" and "Foo GNU/Linux" would. That is not the state of affairs today.
Furthermore, reducing the GNU moniker to a standards certification might not make RMS all that happy, unless the standard is one of all software being free. Unfortunately, that is not the purpose of the standardization in this context: one of features as opposed to freedom. It would also require the moniker to be trademarked, and used under license, presumably from the FSF, to have any teeth. Perhaps "GSB" (GNU Standard Base) would be a better monker in that case, leaving GNU free to be used by anyone chosing to express software freedom ideals.
As for the mayhem that would result from a plethora of distros using such a naming convention, I think such a fear is overblown: only a few would be popular, existing trademark law could be used to stem confusion, at least for commercial distros. Besides, the Sun hack of using.a.domain.name.as.part.of.a.distro.name.compo nent.mydomain.org could always be used, as ugly as that would get (hmm, the logical equivalent of CNAMES in product branding? /me smells a Bezos-style patent).
You could've hired me.
If Debian's support of NetBSD is because it can run on platforms Linux can't, when will we see
Debian GNU/NetBSD for Sega Dreamcast?
Debian is a group of people who have SOFTWARE distributions, including a bunch of software distribution tools like apt-get. Usually people use their Linux distros, and use apt-get to get Linux updates, but they've also been working on other Unix-like distros, such as their GNU/HURD package. Unix in general has been intended to be a portable operating system, with applications that are portable (and often get ported to other operating systems, partly because C is a relatively portable language and partly because the models for interacting with the OS can be packaged in a variety of libraries to match the underlying platform.) So this one's using a *BSD kernel, with most of the same GNU and X and other non-GNU tools that they also run on Linux and HURD.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
...Debian GNU/NetBSD?
Can't they take the heat from outraged FreeBDS developers?
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I think it's funny that people always complain about Debian stable being so old when the current packages in the RedHat "Enterprise" distros are using the same versions. RedHat 9 may have the latest Gnome and Xfree86, but their stable, supported, pay-for-update Enterprise editions are still using Gnome 1.4 and Xfree86 4.1.
If you want dependability you use well tested software. On that score Debian was way ahead of RedHat, who didn't figure it out until this year.
Where would we be if Wheel had hid her round rock in a cave instead of showing everyone how it rolls?
God, being a perfect being, must be using debfoster, the perfect package management tool. So assuming that the only fostered package is man, only packages man depends on should be keepers. If man were to no longer depend on lucifer, it would be automatically unfostered. So either man depends on satan, or God has fostered satan. (I think I've heard both arguments from modern theologists...)
since when do we care what RMS thinks about what we call our OS? At this point Linux is enough. GNU/Linux is just going to confuse the hell out of Joe Executive who is going to demand studies about how this is different from regular Linux.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
If you had bothered to read the Debian GNU/NetBSD home page (for which there is a link in the story), you would realize that is it.
So, I suppose the kernel will be kept in the non-free optional install section with mpg123 and other non-gnu programs?
(note to mods: debian users will get this joke)
Yeah, I bet the {Open,Net}BSD people would love to get their kernels infected by the GPL.