Slashdot Mirror
Debian Gets FreeBSD Kernel Support
mu22le writes "Today Debian gets one step closer to really becoming 'the universal operating system' by adding two architectures based on the FreeBSD kernel to the unstable archive.
This does not mean that the Debian project is ditching the Linux kernel; Debian users will be able to choose which kernel they want to install (at least on on the i386 and amd64 architectures) and get more or less the same Debian operating system they are used to.
This makes Debian the first distribution, and probably the first large OS, to support two completely different kernels at the same time."
But with FreeBSD doing Linux apps, and Debian able to run the FreeBSD kernel, things are getting kinda weird in UNIX-land.
I think I need to lie down now.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Gentoo managed to get this kind of setup working years ago, didn't they?
Given that Ubuntu is down stream from Debian, does this mean that I can run the FreeBSD kernel on my Ubuntu install now?
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Gentoo has supported the FreeBSD kernel for a while now, afaik
or Debian GNU/FreeBSD or.....? Enquiring minds must know!
Debian has had an unofficial kfreebsd-i386 port for years. It is still an unofficial port.
when this image was actually an on-topic response to a Slashdot story.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
It's one thing to sit and think about a beautiful system. To daydream wistfully about interfaces so well-thought that you can swap kernels and userland implementations without the world coming to an end. It's another thing entirely to see it happen with a full featured OS like Debian! Congrats are in order for the Debian team for tackling this and (apparently) going all the way.
Too much repetition my too much repetition!
TFA doesn't give much information. It would be interesting to know whether there are some practical reasons to want this. One possibility I can imagine is that if you have a particular task that you want a server to do, you could measure its performance with both kernels. If one is 10% faster than the other, you pick that one. Another possibility would be if you want to test your software to see if it's likely to be portable, or if it contains hidden linuxisms; however, I would expect most of the incompatibilities to be in things like shells and command-line utilities, not the kernel.
Find free books.
What exactly does it mean to be running Debian with a FreeBSD kernel? Is it essentially just FreeBSD with APT and gnu userland instead of ports and bsd userland?
Is available at http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/
There isn't much, but a little bit in the install notes.
some sort of decent virtualization software. And by decent I mean something like the current version of VMware Workstation. I suppose VirtualBox would do and I think they're working on that but really nothing is mature as VMware (I'm talking about Workstation here, not that free crap).
That and good nVidia drivers are really the only things keeping me from using FreeBSD more often. I can't say that I would use it as my primary OS but it would be really nice to be able to run ZFS the proper way without having to resort to crap like Solaris or FUSE in Linux. As far as nVidia, for some bizarre reason they only have x86 drivers (come on, get with the times nVidia!).
This has been a problem for a long time though. I think the first time I said this was at least 7 years ago. Same problems, need virtualization (that can run Windows) and need good nVidia drivers.
As someone else has mentioned, the kFreeBSD port has existed unofficially for some time...
You can also run Debian with a HURD kernel. I did that years ago. It was kind of unstable, but an interesting thing to try out for fun. And it largely worked. :-)
This will also help application interoperability, as fa as such help is still needed...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
So can I install just one system and choose between the two kernels at boot time? Or do you have to make a completely different install with executables build separately for each kernel?
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
I think this is really pretty cool. My freebsd experience was pretty bad mainly due to the poor package management. Even getting a decent lamp server fully setup is a chore under freebsd. Hopefully debian/apt can breath more life into it!
Darwin is a hybrid kernel that uses low level elements of Mach paired with higher level elements of BSD, not two different kernels.
However, NeXT developed OpenStep as a universal operating system environment that actually ran in production on Solaris, the Win NT kernel + OS, as well as the Mach/BSD kernel ported to various hardware.
Apple planned to port that layer on top of the Mac OS too (providing a Yellow Box that could run like Java anywhere), then realized it made more sense to use Mach/BSD and port the Mac appearance on top of OpenStep, and ended up making enough modifications to kill any backward compatibility with the OpenStep specification.
That's what Mac OS X is.
Why OS X is on the iPhone, but not the PC
FreeBSD fans created that image, but...
1. It shows that FreeBSD is gay.
2. It leaves no doubt why FreeBSD is represented by Satan.
Clearly, this is why we must stay away from FreeBSD.
Hmmm, I think this would be an interesting way to finally get real ZFS support in a Linux-like system.
Unfortunately FreeBSD is much more limited in terms of modern software technologies like virtualization, hardware drivers, etc. Linux is way ahead there so I guess this is still not that great. Interesting though.
I'm waiting for Windows kernel support to be added. I prefer blue screens over seg faults. :P
finally you linux fags will have something to chatter on about.
Excuse me? You have that backwards. Linux does not appear to have given consent:
http://www.cryptohax.com/humor%5Ctux.jpg
FreeBSD however...
Does this mean Netcraft no longer confirms it?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
ZFS, woohoooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
Compiler and toolchain, and all the 'standard' UNIX tools: the shell, the text utils like cat, grep, awk, etc.
Basically, back in the 80s, the FSF, reimplemented what was at that time nearly the entirety of what was called UNIX except the kernel (which was what the HURD project was/is). It was to be the GNU OS. While the kernel was in development, the userspace tools were developed and ported to other UNIX systems like sunos as a replacement for the often deficient historical versions supported by the UNIX vendors.
So when Linus came along and wrote a UNIX-like kernel using gcc, he could load all those programs on and have a mostly functioning UNIX environment. This was the reason RMS objected to calling it just Linux, at that time the majority of the code running on the system was GNU. It was probably a legitimate point at the time. And even if there were a different compiler, without a set of userspace tools that people could freely get and use it is unlikely Linux would have been able to take off.
Now, of course, a huge part of the user experience is provided by X11, the desktop environments, and various graphical appliations. GNOME is part of the GNU project but X.org, KDE, and most of the applications are not. So it isn't really true that GNU software is still the majority of the OS. Of course, the kernel is even less important in terms of the user environment, and despite all the other software around it, GNU utilities are what makes it (not) UNIX.
Debian also has a hurd distribution.
Debian is dead. Netcraft confirms it.
I must be missing something. I have a Debian FreeBSD Live CD from 2006. Here it was reported that Debian imported the FreeBSD Kernel over 4 years ago. What exactly happened now that is new?
You can be an insane coder too, read: Insane Coding
There are at least two things that need consideration here, in a sort-of general aspect:
There's little documentation about the Debian project but it doesn't say which route they've chosen, and what about possible issues with it (mostly: admin utilities).
And besides, a very large number of BSD users will agree that its userland is what's most important - the consistency of development and behaviour, the ease of administration. The kernel features are just icing on the cake :)
-- Sig down
http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Whippersnappers. I haven't rebooted my Multics machine since the 60s!
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
It would be interesting to see the Solaris kernel included as well; Nexenta's already done some of the heavy lifting (OpenSolaris kernel with Debian userland).
For a number of years now I've been going the other way. I have a Linux kernel but a large portion of my userland is from the BSDs.
For the most part, BSD tools build quite well on Linux (or more precisely, with glibc). I've had to create a small portability library to bring in functions that glibc lacks, but for the most part I've just been able to pull stuff from FreeBSD's libc with little modification.
I have replaced GNU coreutils almost completely with BSD versions (I wrote my own du and df because the BSD versions are too chummy with its kernel, and I've brought over heirloom sort because it doesn't have the size limitations of the BSDs'). I've got BSD gzip, tar, yacc, among others. I even have (Net)BSD's /sbin/init and related tools, and it works great.
I have some local patches to various programs that assume a GNU environment, but for the most part, the BSD tools work as drop-in replacements. What's more, they have man pages that do more than say "see info", which is fantastic.
Some things have to stay GNU for now, but I keep replacing as I can. I hope one day to replace glibc with a BSD-based version, but that's wishful thinking for the time being: while a lot of stuff could directly be used, a lot would have to be written expressly for Linux, and I haven't had the time to deal with that. I'm crossing my fingers about clang, so that I can replace gcc with another compiler some day.
Yeah, we all know the excuses. Stallman even tries to excuse his lack of desire to credit X11 and so on, saying that X11 is part of his GNU system and thus credited by "GNU"!!!
Truth is, nothing irreplacable was provided by the GNU project. At the time when Linus was writing his kernel, the legal cloud hanging over BSD (AT+T lawsuit) only concerned the kernel. The BSD tools were perfectly suitable and ego-free.
Remember that even glibc and gcc were nothing special in 1991. The modern versions were built via the efforts of Linux hackers, including major funding from Red Hat. The FSF did not create what you see today. It is unjust for "them" (Stallman really) to be claiming much credit.
As for "fundamental" stuff like "cp" and "ls", well that's just trivial.
Debian added:
Hurd kernel port in ? 1999 ? (may have been earlier, wasn't later)
Netbsd kernel port in 2002
And there was an unofficial port of the Open Solaris kernel to Debian a couple years back.
http://www.debian.org/ports/
Can you imagine having a LINUX kernel and a BSD userland?
Kudos Debian for keeping this bizarre kid from the world.
Why not just run FreeBSD with a real BSD userland and ports system? I'm just curious why you would use a BSD kernel but keep a Debian userland when it would probably be more reliable to just use FreeBSD's userland too.
I realize that a few people have asked variations of this question, but I have yet to read a convincing answer. Why? I understand that there are benefits to both the userland and kernel of FreeBSD as well as Debian, but if you desire certain features of the Debian userland on a FreeBSD system or features of the FreeBSD kernel on a Debian system, why not work with the developers of the relevant project to implement the features? This seems like kind of a roundabout way of reaching whatever goals this is intended on achieving. I'm open to arguments for the value of this project, but I have yet to see a convincing one.
Apple's mkLinux (Wikipedia) was based on the Mach 3.0 microkernel. There was a howto to make it work with the standard monolithic kernel. It doesn't really count as "shipping with 2 kernels" but it did run on top of two kernels. It's been pretty much dead since 2002.
OS/2 from IBM also shipped in both monolithic and microkernel flavors. The ill-fated but technically shipped PowerPC version was microkernel-based, but not in the same installable package as a monolithic kernel based OS. This was in about 1996.
I wouldn't be surprised if back in the day, some experimental OSes shipped with both 32-bit and 16-bit kernels.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Apparently whoever wrote the 'news' isn't aware that Debian already supports the NetBSD and Hurd kernels.
When I switched my company's lamp servers to florescent, uptime went up but most end users are still not used to the differences between that and the old tungsten servers.
Now corporate is telling me to prepare a migration plan to the newfangled led technology. I'm all on board with the energy savings but the help desk is going to have their hands full for a few months.
Well, it's job security.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Whatever happened to the project to make a Debian distro using the OpenSolaris kernel instead of the Linux kernel?
--
make install -not war
I don't understand the "ego" criticism of calling the system GNU/Linux. No one's demanding that anyone call the system "Stalmanux" are they? It's about ethics/ideology, not about ego. The concern is that "Linux" as the name for the system encourages people to adopt the apathy the Linus and a lot of kernel developers share about issues concerning software freedom. If you care about software freedom and you think people should be able to do whatever they want with the software they use that is on *their* own machines, then call it GNU/Linux. If you opt for this pseudopragmatism instead, just call it whatever you want.
Ultimately, the name isn't the most important thing, is it?
So how long does it take that centaur to login?
but that's what, once a month, once a year, once a decade if your server is in good health?
You seem to make the assumption that people keep their computers on 24x7.
I imagine *many* consumers want their computer to turn on instantly during a cold boot. That's obviously unrealistic for now. But even more certainly, *more* people would prefer it.
Now, I know you may not care much -- but if given the chance -- wouldn't you want faster boot times if possible? Why not? So if yes, why not try?
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
does it run linux?
Excuses, excuses. It's not about ethics/ideology (and, BTW, I'm mostly in the Stallman camp on the freedom issue) but about ego. "GNU" is a name chosen by Stallman.
BTW, since I know you're thinking it, Linus did not name the OS after himself. Some FTP site admin in Finland did that, via the creation of a directory to hold the OS. In typical hacker fashion, Linus had chosen the truly dreadful name Freax for his OS.
Fact is, a group of people clustered around the kernel developers put the system together. Theodore T'so, a kernel developer who doesn't care for the "GNU/Linux" thing, is the person who made the mistake of building the first Linux install disk with GNU odds and ends rather than BSD odds and ends. He certainly couldn't predict that this would result in an aggressive and hostile campaign to rename the OS.
Unfortunately, the name is damn important. You can be sure that Microsoft and Apple put lots of effort into choosing marketable names. Linux is marketable. GNU is not very marketable; in English it is unpronouncable or bad-sounding. (sounding like guh-noo, noo, jee en yoo, etc.) The three-letter acronym looks technical and complicated before you even mention the recursion.
If Stallman's selfish renaming efforts have done anything related to software freedom, the result has been negative. Making the OS sound less friendly and approachable ensures that fewer people will end up running free software.
I'm not surprised that somebody's done a FreeBSD client that runs on top of Xen - but can you run a Xen server on a FreeBSD base?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I use pfSense which is based on FreeBSD and it's damn stable.
Now with Debian wanted to offer folks the choice of which two completely different kernels at boot time is kinda scary to me.
Kinda like offering folks the choice of booting Windows 98 and Vista despite the fact most programs will run just fine. Just certain unknowns will bite people in the ass.
In any case, the submission is a bit confusing where it says that Deb "supports two kernels at the same time". Unless I'm having a total brainfart, that doesn't make sense to me: a Linux binary would no more run under a BSD kernel than it would under DOS (and vice versa).
Unless, of course, he really means everything is re-compiled, which does make sense.
"This makes Debian the first distribution, and probably the first large OS, to support two completely different kernels at the same time."
First? Nope: Gentoo Linux has supported Linux on a BSD kernel for a number of years now.
Also, when you say "at the same time," I'm sure you meant that Debian users can chose either kernel during install, not that users can choose which to boot either BSD kernel or Linux kernel each time they boot... please write more clearly.
What a load of rubbish. Do you honestly believe a word of what you just wrote?
I call it Linux and so does everybody I know. You are fighting a war that ended years ago. Worse, you make people who support open source sound insane.
Dude, it is software, not a friggen religious movement. Have some perspective.
Oh, I guess you mean that same kind of "support" that is offered to Debian users using the Linux kernel ;)
So, err, Darwin doesn't count? Mach + BSD .. sounds like 2 kernels to me.
--
Watching Idiocracy and posting on Slashdot at the same time is, umm, spooky.
Ironically relevant to your sig, "BSD" in this instance is referring to userland, not kernel. You really can't have 2 kernels at the same time (virtualization aside), unless you code a new, hybrid kernel or something...in which case it would be appropriate to give it a completely new name.
I've seen a lot of these posts...are Slashdotters in general unable to tell the difference between the OS as a whole and the kernel? Scary...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
doesn't offer much in the way of the discussion of this topic. mostly conjecture i.e. not interesting. the opinion is also biased in a way that reeks of unscientificness
I just installed "GNU/FreeBSD"
Hibernate saves the contents of memory to disk and then _turns off_ the computer.
Zero power usage, speedy restart.
My Journal
How about "ps -ax" bitching at you not to type the dash (which every other Unix system requires)
You're lucky that Linux accepts that standards violation at all. Try it on any real UNIX (Solaris, HP-UX, UnixWare, IRIX, etc.), and you won't get what you want.
The proper UNIX syntax to print every process is "ps -e". Woah, that doesn't even work on FreeBSD! Linux accepts it. Clearly, BSD is even less of a UNIX than Linux is.
IRIX and Solaris will simply reject "ps -ax". (the "-x" is not valid)
HP-UX will interpret "-x" as a request to extend the command line. It seems to be a sort of width option, or for showing command args.
UnixWare will interpret "-x" the same as "-y". This is a format modifier commonly used with "-l". It drops the useless FLAGS field and replaces the useless ADDR field with RSS.
AIX and Tru64 will reject your command too, though they are at least nice enough to accept it without the "-". Try "ps ax" and it'll work, but "ps -e" is really the proper way to issue your command.
Linux of course fully supports POSIX and UNIX behavior, unlike FreeBSD. If you leave off the "-" though, you can get BSD behavior too. You can even mix the options. What you're complaining about is a friendly reminder that Linux is making a DWIM-style guess to deal with unknown options that have POSIX/UNIX-style syntax but no POSIX/UNIX meaning.
It's what Freedom software is supposed to be all about.
Now the only big thing left is to use a unified package manager to be able to add, remove, and upgrade Linux packages, even the ones outside the distro's repository. Once Linux is free of proprietary distro packaging, and projects are using more standardized APIs so that users can swap out one program in their software "stack" for another program if, say, they wanted to do something like switch to a new desktop notification system, or what have you, it would be cake! Then users would never be forced to install a different OS just because there's a piece of software they want and they don't know anything about compiling or the command line!
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
The thought of misplaced universality often leads developers to folly. The folks at debian seem bent on establishing some sort of record here.
As we all technical oriented people knows the fact that Debian is the software system and it use Linux operating system and offers GNU/Linux development platform for developers (because no developer can build applications without devel-tools).
The Debian has now come one step forward for coming true multiplatform-multiOS software system. You can run now Debian at least with three different operating system. Linux, Hurd and FreeBSD.
But as we all know by the history, Debian is the FSF bitch who spread the GNU propaganda on it's name etc. But they gain own momentum from it too.
It is just sad that GNU project has not yet got their own OS (hurd) working. Now they are on the road to ruin FreeBSD fame (what is left from it) with GNU propaganda of Debian GNU/FreeBSD.
It is sad that political people like RMS and some Debian users twist the computer science to gain fame and reason to call own work more important than others work who has already builded the operating system what they then just use on their own systems.
So is Debian so great when we look it as objective...? No... they are just biased people like many GNU fanatics. But that does not mean they do not develope damn good software (first class some may say) and package them to great software system!
[quote]Truth is, nothing irreplacable was provided by the GNU project. [/quote]
I can't see you you can possibly think that is relevant. Whether there were other options that *could* have been used doesn't change the fact that a circa 1992 "linux" system was largely a GNU system.
I certainly agree that a modern Linux based desktop is not a GNU OS, but I think it was a perfectly reasonable request in the early 90s. I still call it Linux, mostly because the name is shorter, and I am not about to call it GNU/X11/Gnome/Linux. And the reasons I choose to run Linux over (say) FreeBSD are mostly to do with the kernel and the kernel specific system tools, and not with the userland.
on the other hand, "stall-ma-nux" is probably quite a cool name. Now say it in your best Cartman voice, see what I mean. :)
The concern is that "Linux" as the name for the system encourages people to adopt the apathy the Linus and a lot of kernel developers share about issues concerning software freedom. If you care about software freedom and you think people should be able to do whatever they want with the software they use that is on *their* own machines, then call it GNU/Linux. If you opt for this pseudopragmatism instead, just call it whatever you want.
The concern is that "GNU/Linux" as the name for the system encourages people to adopt the apathy that Stallman and a lot of other free software advocates share about issues concerning extrajudicial torture being conducted by americans, outside of US borders. If you care about torture, and you think that the constitution should be upheld by american service men and women even on bases not on US soil, then call it NO2GUANTANAMO/GNU/Linux. If you opt for the pseudopragmatism of turning a blind eye to human rights violations, call it what you want.
Next mission - Windows kernel package for Debian.
I don't understand the "ego" criticism of calling the system GNU/Linux. No one's demanding that anyone call the system "Stalmanux" are they? It's about ethics/ideology, not about ego. The concern is that "Linux" as the name for the system encourages people to adopt the apathy the Linus and a lot of kernel developers share about issues concerning software freedom.
It is not about the _software system_ but the _operating system_.
The problem is that RMS can not stand the fact that one young finnish student developed own OS what he licensed under GNU's GPL license and got popular among OS developers and the GNU's own OS Hurd got forgotten like it is almost on these days too.
So RMS wanted that all people calls the OS to be GNU + Linux because Linux was developed by using GNU tools and the applications for Linux was developed by GNU tools and because no one can do anything with just OS but they deed applications too (like ls, cd, df, commandline, Clib etc) to give commands to OS, it should be called as GNU/Linux and not just Linux what the OS really is.
No one is not giving critic that whole software system should be called as Linux or GNU/Linux. That is just totally wrong. We are talking only about the operating system Linux here. We can talk about _development platform_ called GNU/Linux (OS+development tools) or we can talk complete _software systems_ like Ubuntu, Mandriva and Debian.
It is just stupid to call Linux OS as GNU/Linux or Software system as GNU/Linux or Linux. Linux is nothing more than just a OS. You do not write documents on it, you do not listen music on it or you dont edit your photos on it. The OS is just the most important software of the software system because it allows all other applications and libraries to work on the hardware.
Or should we start calling our computers like powerplant/manufacturer/brand? Like RPT/Dell/Insipiro?
After all, you can not use your computer without power, so it should be so.
Oh and you can call all Linux distributions just by Linux because they all includes the Linux OS. Because you need the OS to run all other applications etc. You can just call it with it's name. But if you want to talk few specific software systems, then you can talk about Ubuntu and Mandriva Linux without mentioning even the OS. On Mandriva case it is just problematic because the software systems name is "Mandriva Linux" and corporation name is just "Mandriva". Canonical dropped off the "Linux" after their name so it is now only a "Ubuntu". When you talk about Ubuntu and Mandriva Linux, you do not need to talk explaining what is the OS and how it works and what is it's main purpose to exist.
If someone ask something about Open Office I bet you do not start talking about Linux or Ubuntu or Gnome if discussion is not someway related to them. Like what edited version of Open Office does Ubuntu use or what OS is included on the Ubuntu.
Otherwise correct but you miss the information that Hurd, NetBSD, Linux and SunOS (OpenSolaris) are operating systems as well ;-)
Indeed, just like the engine is a fairly small and minor part of a car. In fact, there are vehicles without engines, therefore, by analogy, you can also have an operating system without a kernel, the kernel is totally irrelevant, right?
Geez, why cannot the GNU people get The Hurd working and get over the kernel envy end this stupid just-a-kernel joke, once and for all?
Debian can run over Linux, kFreeBSD, kNetBSD and Hurd since ages ago. Was just added to the main repository.
http://www.debian.org/ports/
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm926456064/tt0069372
Chris
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
Apollo Domain hosted BSD, Unix Sys 5 and Unix Sys 7 under the Domain OS-ness ... So a great direction Debian is taking but not a first. And in Apollo's case it was a dynamic choice ...
Very cool tech at Apollo, and now HP has buried it deeply (Also had a great UI design tool called Dialog that decoupled UI from implementation and was way ahead of its time... Alas it seems gone forever even though an attempt was made to "open it" and Digital (then Compaq then, what for it ... HP) had a similar decoupled UI design system, all gone it seems)
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
I see you've never discussed this issue with Richard Stallman. Unfortunately I have. He might not consider it the most important thing, but it's definitely in his top five list.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Would that make it "Debian GNU/BSD"?
...4-way redundant power supply...
What on earth is that for? I understand wanting 2, or 3 just to be extra safe, but 4? How do you lose 3 of 4 without noticing?
There have been unofficial ports before but afaict this is the first time one has been accepted into the debian archive.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Novell has supported both netware and linux kernels for a while now. You can decide which one to use during the install.
MFG: "The system supports both the LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) and WIMP (Windows, IIS, MySQL, PHP) platforms."
Every single system that fails your expectations is POSIX-compliant. It goes together generally:
A. support "ps -ax", fail "ps -e", not POSIX compliant
B. fail "ps -ax", support "ps -e", POSIX compliant
Strictly speaking, a POSIX system need not support "ps -e" (for every process), but they all do anyway. Likewise, a POSIX system could support "ps -ax", but none actually do.
The bigger trouble is BSD's failure to interpret "ps -uwax" as asking for ps to print processes belonging to a user named "wax". FAIL.
Do you honestly believe a word of what you just wrote?
Yes.
And it's even less a war than it is a religious movement.
In 1984, the GNU project started an operating system[1][2] called GNU. By 1991, the GNU OS was almost complete as it was lacking one critical part of the system: the kernel. Somebody then had the idea of combining Linux together with the GNU system. Today, RMS isn't asking people to rename the Linux system, RMS is asking people to give credit to where credit is due. The Linux system is combined with the GNU system to form the GNU/Linux system.
To call system Linux will overload the label which can lead to confusion. Calling the system Linux also invites people to believe that the GNU/Linux system was started by a Finnish programmer in 1991.
I also don't buy your claim that GNU is non-marketable; I don't find it any less marketable than Sony. You might think it sounds technical but I would bet you haven't done any real reasearch on the topic.
[1] the OS a collection of computer system software which includes the kernel, the compiler
system and other userland tools
[2] My definition of OS comes from Andrew Tanenbaum. The kernel is the OS so it's right to
call Linux an OS.
[to correct the topic]
* the -j/-z options are new in FreeBSE 7. They dont exist in other/older implementations.
* a help options simply listing the commands w/o explanation is useless. you shouldnt have to consult the man pages to see a short description
* your "syscall bs" is nonsense. It's like "go read the source luke"...
I have found here much useful information. Thanks timothy !!!
Nobody is claiming that X11 is part of the GNU system. It is fine if you think X11 needs to be mentioned, but it won't change the fact that the two most fundamental systems in a GNU/Linux system are GNU and Linux.
Yes, it is true that many parts of GNU are trivial, nothing special and easily replaceable. This is because the GNU project's primary goal is intended to be a free and complete replacement of the proprietary Unix systems. In case you forgot, the design philosophy of Unix was to have small tools that did their job well which leads to software that is trivial to implement and easily replaceable.
Yes, it is true that the GNU project didn't create the GNU/Linux systems that exist today. However, that doesn't invalidate RMS's claim for credit for the GNU part of the GNU/Linux system: some people took GNU (a nearly complete system) and combined it with Linux (a system that fulfilled the incomplete parts of GNU).
Gnome is part of the GNU project so there isn't any need to specifically mention it.
Eunuchs and Code Swapping and incestuous distros!
http://www.netneurotic.net/mac/unix/timeline.html
It's immoral I tell you!
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
These gems are why I still read Slashdot :)
Really interesting, in depth post. You sir deserve a virtual beer or other beverage of choice.
Here's to the crazy ones
Finally a distribution that shows some Linux users can get laid.
Debian BetterSexDaily.