Slashdot Mirror
UbuntuBSD Is Looking To Become An Official Ubuntu Flavor (softpedia.com)
prisoninmate quotes a report from Softpedia: UbuntuBSD maintainer and lead developer Jon Boden is now looking for a way for his operating system to contribute to the Ubuntu community and, eventually, become an official Ubuntu flavor. Just two weeks ago, [Softpedia] introduced the ubuntuBSD project, whose main design goal is to bring users an operating system powered by the FreeBSD kernel while offering them the familiarity of the Ubuntu Linux OS. Right now, ubuntuBSD is in heavy development, with a fourth Beta build out the door, and it looks like the developer already seeks official status and wants to contribute all of his work to the main Ubuntu channels. [Canonical has yet to respond.]
This sounds a whole lot like the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD distro! It was the Debian userland running on top of the FreeBSD kernel.
For those who don't remember, it was yet another casualty of systemd being forced into Debian, which caused GNU/kFreeBSD to be effectively killed.
Systemd is the worst thing that has happened to Debian. Not only did it cause great pain and upheaval for many long-time Debian users, especially those who need reliable and stable systems, but it also killed projects like Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, which had little to do with Linux to begin with.
It's kind of funny, in a sad way. The very action (using systemd) that killed the integration between the Debian userland and the FreeBSD kernel ended up rendering the Linux-based Debian distro unusable for many, forcing them to switch directly to FreeBSD itself!
Systemd is the worst thing to have happened to Linux, and the best thing to have happened to the BSDs!
And whipslash, if you're reading this, can you please get rid of the goddamn posting limits? I've posted maybe once or twice in the last 12 hours, if not longer, yet I kept get the fucking "You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later." error message. Ditch the idiotic posting limits, please.
> Yeah we could all run Windows 2008 Server and call it a desktop,
Windows IS a desktop OS, not a network OS. Notice it's not usable except by clicking desktop icons? You can certainly argue that it's a poor desktop because not many applications are been installed by default , but the operating system is desktop through and through. A server OS doesn't require rebooting every week or every month. Average uptime for my servers is probably about three years, because I physically moved them a few years ago. A server OS can handle hotswap hardware. I swap drives regularly, and we've even hotswapped a CPU. You don't reboot a server three times when > Yeah we could all run Windows 2008 Server and call it a desktop,
Windows IS a desktop OS, not a network OS. Notice it's not usable except by clicking desktop icons? You can certainly argue that it's a poor desktop because not many applications are been installed by default , but the operating system is desktop through and through.
You don't reboot a server every week or every month. A server OS can support server hardware, which includes hotswap. You damn sure don't reboot a server just because you swap out the backup drive - hotswap SAS and SATA are a bare minimum for a server OS. We've even hotswapped a CPU on a server. The server OS (Linux) didn't skip a beat, because servers support hotswap. That's hotswap PCIe, not sometimes USB works if you properly eject it first.
A server OS doesn't implement "security" by HIDING files in the GUI. A server OS has mandatory access control.
I could go on and list a dozen more things, but the bottom line is that Windows is a very successful desktop operating system. One originally developed as a user-friendly shell for Disk Operating System, so named to distinguish it from all of the others at the time, which were network operating systems.