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
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
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
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.