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."
Not to mention Android using the linux kernel with a netbsd userland. I guess google don't want to mess with GPLv3.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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!
FreeBSD
*is more secure (apparently, i don't know enough to be sure but they're development model and security results do tend to suggest this)
*has zfs,
*etc
while linux has other advantages,
*hardware support for many newer devices,
*faster boot (i think),
*lvm (imho when snapshot merging merges, i think it can compete with zfs)
*etc
So while I think the biggest difference though is the licensing, there are some pretty big differences that affect users.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
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 tested it myself, for a server with no fancy Desktop it compiles very well. Many packages are already tested and get the ~x86-fbsd keyword for installation. Also Sparc+Gentoo+FreeBSD is possible :)
disi@disi-desktop ~ $ cat /usr/portage/www-servers/apache/apache-2.2.* | grep bsd
KEYWORDS="alpha amd64 arm hppa ia64 ~mips ppc ppc64 s390 sh sparc ~sparc-fbsd x86 ~x86-fbsd"
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-freebsd.xml
Up until recently, I had so many problems with sleep/hibernate on every computer I put linux (whether it was fc, gentoo, debian, ubuntu, etc) that I never turned them on. I also didn't want to leave most of them running when I didn't need them so I turned them off to save power. I'm not sure about anybody else, but to me in the above scenario, boot time equated to whether or not I actually booted to linux, or just let it sleep/hibernate in windows.
Two kernels? At the same time? I'll be in my bunk.
That's essentially what cooperative Linux does, runs a Linux kernel and the NT kernel at the same time, often with a special X emulator to get full-blown Linux apps running in Windows userspace with better support than with Cygwin. I still can't wrap my head around how the two kernels yield to each other in respect to the PC architecture, but it's an interesting project - guaranteed to keep you in your bunk for a while ;)
Energy saving.
I turn off my computer every night, when it isn't downloading something. It's about 6 hours of near-zero power consumption every day. If everyone did that it would make a difference in energy use. I could just suspend, but if it isn't going to do anything anyway, let's save a couple more joules, shall we?
And when I boot it in the morning, I don't want to have to wait two minutes just to see xkcd.
Especially since Arjan demonstrated it was so easy to optimise the process.
I think if the boot was quick to begin with, people wouldn't have got this bad habit of leaving the computer on 24/7. Just because Linux can run months straight doesn't mean that it should.
entropy happens
Apple's port too :) http://zfs.macosforge.org/trac/wiki/
I mean they do a great work but it is basically not ready for prime time. For OS X, Prime Time means at least time machine support, data write/read (including all metadata, even Finder flags) support, Disk Utility GUI support and at last, boot support. Of course, don't forget no kernel crashes should happen and it should handle massive abuse, uptime and even sleep without any glitches. If a Mac doesn't sleep when no programs running, it is generally taken to service by end user.
Things go really complex when your potential ZFS loving users are professionals doing things with Resource (metadata) enabled files (e.g. Photoshop) and expect exact (not 99.9) feature compatibility with HFS+. If ZFS really rolled out in Leopard (10.5) release, there were even people asking for commercial, high end disk utility (like Disk Warrior) support.
What ZFS needs is a very practical use and the proof of how modern it is. Time Machine of OS X is the best thing to prove it to end users. Adding new disks easily when space runs out, snapshots etc. If there is one company which can make ordinary users say "Wow, I really need it" for such a high end filesystem, it is Apple.
I was actually expecting ZFS on XServe/RAID/OS X Server but I forgot the files stored on them are generally Apple Client files too.
As someone who's run FreeBSD for their dedicated desktop for close to 5 years now, my only gripes are this:
I love FreeBSD, though. There have many times when I downloaded and and burned a new Linux distro CD with the intent of moving back to Linux (5 years prior to my jump to FreeBSD, I ran Redhat or Fedora on my desktop). However, when I tried the live CD, I just couldn't bring myself to go back, even with the few shortcomings I highlight above.
While the mating of Debian and FreeBSD is cool for its own sake, I really don't see how someone from either camp would be happy with the result. If you like the cutting edge hardware support, virtualization, filesystems, and software support of Linux, you'll miss them in FreeBSD. If you enjoy the Zen-like simplicity of the base FreeBSD OS (including its rock solid nature) and the "ports" system, you'll be left wanting with even the best Linux solution (which, in my opinion, would probably be Debian). I applaud the effort, but I doubt it will have much adoption in the long run.
Method of processing duck feet
The thing is, S3 suspend is damn near "soft-off" power usage anyway. On my Kill-A-Watt, both result in a power consumption of 3W. This is with an Antec EA-380 80+ PSU (Seasonic manufactured).
If you really want to save power, flip the switch and make your consumption zero. Better yet, kill your monitor, printer, speakers, and every other standby-consuming device at the same time by using the switch on your power supply.
The reality is, though, it's a bit stupid. If you really want to save power, use a notebook. My ThinkPad is around 26W at idle, compared with around 90W for my Core 2 Quad Q9300 / 8GB DDR2 / Radeon HD3850 desktop.
My power usage is around 220 kWh/mo. That's down from around 400kWh/mo (after I replaced a 1980s fridge with a new Energy Star fridge), but the refrigirator is still over a third of the total usage at 90kWh/mo. Add the electric dryer, electric range, and some lights, and you see that my power usage is dominated by heating, refrigeration, and lighting. Cutting the 20W or so of standby power usage that's around the house would only save 15kWh/mo, or less than 10%.
There is really solid work for live patching a Linux kernel for security updates in http://www.ksplice.com/ - saw a demo of it last week at Eurosys, really impressive: http://www.ksplice.com/paper .
"a Linux binary would no more run under a BSD kernel than it would under DOS"
Errr... yeah... that's not completely accurate.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
FreeBSD supports Linux binary compatibility as a kernel compile time option (and now available as a module I think).
This could mean in theory you would "only" need to have a base package with the FreeBSD kernel and have it load FreeBSD specific kernel modules and that could be a base install from which existing Debian packages could be installed. Although, in practice I can image it would really mean updating other packages as well as the installer, e.g. like those for bootloaders, to ensure they were aware that using a FreeBSD kernel was an option.
As a point of interest, Solaris 10 is also compatible with Linux binaries, if you have the appropriate compatibility package installed. In theory (license permitting) the same thing could be done with Sol 10.
Bit off topic:
Solaris could REALLY do with better package management - Sun's own patches are inconsistent and some of the defaults are terrible (such as being insecure by default) and of course it lacks both the sophistication and convince of apt+dpkg on Debian. Often Sun packages don't even check for pre-requisites properly, I find them very sloppy and haphazard - this is frustrating especially as without some essential packages software may still run, but behave unexpectedly.
I raised this with Sun at an open event in London, while they were launching the Sun Fire x86 range (which are really excellent servers) which Andy Bechtolsheim gave a presentation on. They asked for general open questions and made a polite enquiry regarding package management. They seemed to have no idea their existing solution was so poor (compared to package management on Debian, Red Had and even FreeBSD) and were _very_ dismissive of the polite inquiry. They looked at each other for a moment, a bit confused and responded "Most of our vendors run hundreds or thousands of systems" they sniffed, "and have no trouble managing their packages".
Of course having seem hundreds of Solaris boxes over the years I know most major Sun customers they only /think/ they have no problem keeping their systems patched and up to date. The reality is they slap them behind private networks, are usually not patched after installed and are almost never patched thereafter (despite having a a number of essential bug fixes in their patches). This accounts for not only security holes but also a great deal of bugs.