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."
Gentoo managed to get this kind of setup working years ago, didn't they?
Is it essentially just FreeBSD with APT and gnu userland instead of ports and bsd userland?
It's FreeBSD with the entire Debian userland. AND it's Debian with a FreeBSD kernel. Pretty much like a centaur is a man with a horse's body AND a horse with a human head.
The best description depends on what part you focus on. To me it's Debian with a FreeBSD kernel.
The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
*faster boot (i think)
As an honest question (from someone who, not that it matters, runs both slackware at home and xp at work), what's with the obsession with boot time? Can anyone explain why the free software community is so obsessed with this metric? I understand that embedded devices are better when they boot immediately - nobody wants to have to wait to make toast - but to boot a computer? Don't most people just sleep or hibernate their computer these days anyway? I think that before yesterday, the last time I rebooted this machine was a couple months ago. I don't mean this as a slight - it's an honest question.
If I had a nickel for every time I had a nickel, I'd be richcursive!
At the risk of burning some karma, I have to agree with you. Now, it's cool w/ the Linux BIOS that supports quite a bit of main boards, but really when I have to turn on my computer, after I restarted it or whatever, I use that time as I would a commercial on TV. Go take a leak, get a coffee, something like that. I can understand some times where a non-embedded system would want an instant-on type boot. Like a computer I want to install in my Jeep to run my mp3's and GPS. I don't want be driving and not have it booted until I get to my destination. Unless we're looking at the boot part wrong and people refer it to once the computer is started, and then all the programs that automagically start take a long time?
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
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.
A couple reasons for quicker boot:
kernel or driver updates that cannot be dynamically unloaded and reloaded require a reboot. If you want to keep your system patched up to fix bugs and insecurities you will need to reboot at some point. Might sound like a trivial scenario but a long boot process can deter you from doing the necessary update.
Laptops and other mobile devices should boot quickly. Granted, suspend and hybernate are good options but these systems do need to be rebooted on occasion and nothing sucks more than a 5 minute reboot when your battery is low and you are on an airplane. believe it or not, sometimes X crashes and the system cant shake the leftovers because of an nvidia driver quirk.
virtual machine environments where bringing up more computing resources in a hurry is necessary and a fast booting VM image is necessary.
and lastly, the drive to make things work faster is what keeps the gears of progress spinning. If we get content to have slow bootup then we will always have slow bootup.
Have you ever fucked up your system and had to reboot for hours of trial and error to fix it? Yeah, me neither... oh wait that was yesterday when I upgraded my kernel!
I guess if you have to pee every 5 minutes then it's okay, but a disk check is not necessarily what I want to sit through when I can't sleep until my system is fixed.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
As an honest question (from someone who, not that it matters, runs both slackware at home and xp at work), what's with the obsession with boot time? Can anyone explain why the free software community is so obsessed with this metric? I understand that embedded devices are better when they boot immediately - nobody wants to have to wait to make toast - but to boot a computer?
Boot time is the only time the computer is on when you can't switch to a browser while waiting for it to do something you want done, but aren't interested in the process. You can do that with copying, torrenting, uncompressing, compiling, encrypting, etc, but not boot.
Also, because you shouldn't have to wait.
Don't most people just sleep or hibernate their computer these days anyway?
I dual boot Gentoo and Vista. And ditching either one is not an option.
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?
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.