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.]
I got into a debate with my former Linux users group on this when a fork of Debian hit a half decade ago with FreeBSD.
Everything from gnome to pulse audio to SystemD is integrated in Linux. People act as if you can swap the kernel out and still run or even compile anything. I am shocked anything works at all with gnome on non Linux platforms as things are so proprietary and tight. Yes it's gnu, but what I mean by proprietary is Linux and not Unix standard way it does things since 2006
FreeBSD is a server oriented OS as far as I am concerned
http://saveie6.com/
Haven't ports of debian already been tried to alt OSes such as FreeBSD, HURD and OpenSolaris with a tiny number of users to support and develop the platform?
Please stop trying to taint *BSD with the nasty ass disorganized chaos of GNU.
*BSD are nice, organized, predictable, maintainable OSes with good clean utilities that work in reliable and predictable ways.
GNU is a piss pot of everything doing everything THEY want and not giving one flying fuck about how anyone else might like it:
Examples:
Not using /usr/local ... except different so that nothing actually will work out of the box across them without tweaks
systemd
4 trillion flavors of GNU/Linux that all work exactly the same
The Linux desktop
Stop trying to make a fucked up BSD, its not a god damn shitty GPL project, its actually open source.
JUST TAKE THE KERNEL PARTS YOU WANT AND LEAVE *BSD ALONE. WE DON'T WANT YOUR CORRUPTION.
And no, I'm not joking.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You'd be surprised. A stable ABI and licensing that permits distros to ship closed driver binaries would go a long way to solving the few lingering hardware issues.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
How should kernel developers go about debugging a crash caused by a proprietary kernel module?
Systemd is the worst thing to have happened to Linux, and the best thing to have happened to the BSDs!
That'll be true so long as hardware makers play nice with the FreeBSD hardware support team.
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.
That's because Anonymous Coward has made a lot more posts than that in the past 12 hours. Have you considered making an account instead of posting as Anonymous Coward? Other things to try: Are you sharing an IP address with co-workers? Is your ISP applying carrier-grade network address translation (CGNAT) to conserve scarce public IPv4 addresses?
Open system considerations aside, most of us just want to use our computers to do things. Anybody gaming in Linux right now is already dealing with this, but with extra manual steps involved, and the world hasn't ended.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
I hope parent post is modded up as Funny. This guy has already posted two or three comments in this very thread about how used BSD is in the desktop space thanks to iOS and OSX and now he talks about open systems.
If all you want is to "do things" (in this case play a game), then I suggest you... this is crazy... buy a game.
The Linux device driver model is what it is. If various video card vendors and gaming companies decide there isn't a business case to support it as is - well, such is life. Don't go about warping the system itself to low-tow to your needs.
Besides, nothing is stopping you for writing such an ABI layer yourself, and getting vendors to adopt it. Just don't expect the FOSS community to be enamored with your project.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
What are these "good reasons?"
FreeBSD forked off of 386BSD when it died.
NetBSD forked off of 386BSD focused on multi-architecture support.
NetBSD forked first. [http://www.netbsd.org/about/history.html][https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/history.html]
NetBSD in November '93, FreeBSD in December '93.
DragonFlyBSD forked off FreeBSD due to threading implementation.
OpenBSD forked off NetBSD to focus on heavy security.
These "Big 4" are completely different OS's, they all have their own kernel, they all have their own userland. They do share a lot, but they're not the same OS's.
Then you have Open Source Commercial OS. All of these are based off FreeBSD. PC-BSD - iXsystems desktop OS. FreeNAS - iXsystems NAS OS. PFSense - Electric Sheep Fencing firewall OS.
And there are probably more that would go into that category.
Don't forget BSD/386 (later BSD/OS), the commercial offering from BSDi. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD/OS]
I don't know what happened there. It appeared that my browser deletee what I had typed, so I typed it again. Somehow it ended up posting both copies. I'll blame it on many mobile OS.
Your point is well taken, but we're talking about replacing the Linux kernel with BSD. So it's not a backwards step.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
Weirdly, you need 3D acelleration for things besides gaming. Data visualization. Google earth and maps. Designing for 3D printing. CUDA. Shall I go on? Ideological purity has little place in the discussion about desktop operating systems, or you can go use gnu/Hurd and run out o.k. all the hardware it works on ( hint: none)
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
FreeBSD, which is more of a server OS
FreeBSD officially supported platforms include XBox and embedded ARM systems.
you really could not be more wrong even if you actually tried
And you couldn't pay less attention to what peopel wrote if you tried.
There are peopel using FreeBSD for just about everything. That doesn't change it's core competency.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The 'few lingering hardware issues' are pretty much already being addressed by the Linux development community anyway. Linux already has perhaps the best hardware support out of any operating system, period. There are still problems with some graphics cards (especially newer nVidia cards, because nVidia started requiring signed firmware, so the already working open source firmware can no longer be used), and a few wifi card vendors. Nouveau already is getting pretty damn competitive with the binary blob for cards like the 680 when reclocking is enabled, and the open source radeon drivers keep improving too.
Yeah let's go through that list shall we:
Windows IS a desktop OS, not a network OS.
Define Network OS. By many standard none of the common "server" OSes are Network OSes.
Notice it's not usable except by clicking desktop icons?
No I didn't notice at all. Especially Windows 2008 Server Core doesn't have a GUI at all, just a command interface. No desktop icons either. Just a very feature rich shell.
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.
Saying something doesn't make it so. But I agree it's a poor desktop.
A server OS doesn't require rebooting every week or every month.
Neither does a Windows server so not sure what your point is.
Average uptime for my servers is probably about three years, because I physically moved them a few years ago.
So what reason causes you to take down a Windows server? They don't just magically shut themselves down. But then no one gives a shit about server uptime, the only thing that matters is application uptime and rebooting a server often is a sign that: a) it'll likely recover from some epic random failure without a hidden fault, and b) that you actually knew what you were doing and your infrastructure happily rode through it.
A server OS can handle hotswap hardware. I swap drives regularly
Congratulations. That's part of the SATA / SAS spec, any OS supporting SATA / SAS can do that. But before it was part of a SATA spec it was part of the features offered by many vendors. We had no problem swapping HDDs on Windows NT 4 machines. That you consider this some major achievement that isn't part of Windows just shows your bias.
and we've even hotswapped a CPU.
Hotplugging memory has also been a feature of Windows server for 13 years. Hotplugging CPU in Windows is a bit newer then Unix, but also was introduced 9 years ago.
I'm glad we can agree on how awesome Windows Server is. It clearly fits your use case very well.
Not true. Sure Powershell sucks but it is available.
Seriously? This isn't 1999. I have Windows Servers up for much longer than that.
The only thing most people need to hotswap in a server are disks and that is easily done in Windows
Windows has this.
You really are working off of pre-2000 Windows knowledge. Current Windows implementations are not at all based on DOS despite their similarity to earlier Windows systems. What bothers me the most is that I'm a Linux guy and you're making me defend Windows because you can't just say things that are not true.
Time makes more converts than reason
> The post was meant to dissuade future devs attempts to turn BSD into Linux Distros.
Won't work. Not even close. There are many reasons but the largest one is that nobody really gives a shit what you tell them that they're allowed to do or not do. That's the thing about open source - and it is awesome.
Finally, you forgot BestBSD which is GhostBSD. GhostBSD is awesome.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
no chance in hell.
FreeBSD, which is more of a server OS
Servers like Sony's PS3 (Vita OS) and PS4 (Orbis OS), both of which are based on FreeBSD?
Most who install Ubuntu expect to have their devices ans [sic] peripherals running after install.
Citation Needed!
You know what? Linux isn't all rainbows and unicorns. A recent update to the Fedora kernel broke my dual monitor setup. Yes, the kernel. Reverting to an earlier kernel with no other changes restored my dual monitors. Gnome 3 Desktop has routine breakage. Yeah, don't tell me that Fedora isn't Ubuntu, I already know that.
Part of the difference might be that there are actual companies selling Linux. Companies with lawyers, who can approve NDAs, that allow kernel developers to get early access to new devices, so Linux tends to get support for new stuff earlier. *BSD's kernel developers may not always have that kind of luxury.
I've used FreeBSD since the beginning, and 386BSD before that. I've never had bleeding edge hardware and I've never had a problem with FreeBSD supporting my hardware.
as much as Solaris is BSD
FUCKING IDIOT
SunOS was BSD based, they RIPPED IT OUT, and dropped in System V when they re-branded as Solaris
Windows has more BSD code in it than Solaris
Looool! wow... Calm down, not only have you missed my point and angrily agreed with me... You're also not as "right" as you think you are, because AT&T integrated parts of BSD into UNIX before Sun rebased their system on unix, so yeah... they swapped BSD for some UNIX and BSD, not that it makes much difference... like i said there are bits of BSD everywhere, but much of the other distinct OSs are still vastly different.
>I have Windows Servers up for much longer than that.
Two words: patch Tuesday. Server systems aren't systems designed to need rebooting two or three times just because it's Tuesday.
>> server OS can handle hotswap hardware. I swap drives regularly, and we've even hotswapped a CPU
> The only thing most people need to hotswap in a server are disks
As long as nothing ever goes wrong, no hardware ever fails, the system won't crash. That's typical desktop. Systems built for server use stay up as you hotswap failed parts or parts throwing warnings.
>> A server OS has mandatory access control.
> Windows has this.
No, Windows is based on discretionary access control, DAC, not MAC. DAC is the 1960s approach. Nobody uses it ,but Windows also has a silly little system they call MIC. It's an even more limited version of DAC in that it's based on levels. Any program run by any higher-level user can do anything to any file.
With mandatory access control, access is predefined saying which program has which kind of access to which objects, in which contexts. Linux has a couple of options for MAC; SELinux is the default for most distributions.
You test the binary blob against the requirements of the ABI. If the kernel crashes harden and protect the interface further.
At some point, you end up having to build all the overhead of a microkernel in order to "harden and protect the interface" against popular yet defective binary drivers that violate "the requirements of the ABI".
FreeBSD, which is more of a server OS
Servers like Sony's PS3 (Vita OS) and PS4 (Orbis OS), both of which are based on FreeBSD?
Most who install Ubuntu expect to have their devices ans [sic] peripherals running after install.
Citation Needed!
SO you ayr sAyn' that peepule d'unt expect they're nstuls to work? It's to mech! Gow fguure/
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I have written tons of CUDA code for Linux. Not sure what you are going on about here. The only bad part is dealing with Nvidia's drivers.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
The last time I checked (which was yesterday to peek at how kextload works) Darwin was open source.
Bloody fool.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Here you go: http://opensource.apple.com//r...
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
It's funny to me that some people delight in pointing out that Linux isn't a wonderful desktop personal computer operating system, but then get all uncomfortable with the idea that Windows IS a desktop PC OS . Personal computers revolutionized the world, and PC desktop operating systems are hugely important.
> Define Network OS
It's part definition and part heritage. I'll try to cover both, but first I'll go for a short-form, example. Unixes won't boot without their network stack. The graphical windows on the screen are a bolt-on afterthought, delivered through a SOCKET. If you want to configure printers on a Unix, you access 127.0.0.1:931 - you constantly use the network to access the local machine.
Definition wise, before defining network operating system, we should make one point about the definition of operating system, and operating system families generally. The family to which an operating system belongs isn't determined by one or two userland applications. Installing a graphical web browser on an instance of a network OS doesn't turn it into a personal computer desktop OS. (In fact, a browser is a graphical tool for accessing the NETWORK, being a network client using network applications). Likewise, deleting the browser, or the desktop calculator, from a desktop (PC) OS doesn't make the OS stop being a desktop OS. Windows is an operating system. Windows 7 Home and Windows 7 Ultimate are two PRICES, mostly for userland applications, not two operating systems.
Network are designed with network access being a basic assumption. They don't have network DLLs added in some version, they start with the assumption that most users will be accessing the system over the network. The local console may be extremely limited, because they the local keyboard and monitor isn't the standard way of using them. That's because the whole point of developing network operating systems, starting with MULTICS in 1964, was that they are multi-user, with several concurrent users using them over the network. Often, primary storage and other important components are accessed over the network.
On the other hand, PC (personal computer) operating systems generally assume a local user is the typical use case. A network isn't required or assumed, local storage is the norm.
On MULTICS it was also common to remove half of the components each night and assemble them into a second system. At night, half of the CPUs, half the storage, half the RAM, etc would be removed, a devel/test system assembled, then in the morning all of the parts would be combined again into one large computer. The computer wasn't shut down during this process - programs continued to run as CPUs were added and removed. That's one defining characteristic of an OS family related to NOS - the server operating system.
From MULTICS came UNIX, and from UNIX sprang BSD and Linux. (Linux of course re-implemented Unix, rather than copying source code files). This OS family has been based on multiple concurrent users, over the network since it began in 1965, 50 years ago. Of course with multiple concurrent users comes the need for securing one user's file and processes from access or interference from another user, so that was always built in to this OS family. Computers cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each, so multiple concurrent users was a bit important.
Teen years later, electronics had advanced enough that for just a few thousand dollars you could build an electronic word processor with 4KB of RAM and a 1 Mhz CPU. Obviously UNIX wouldn't run, with user software, in 4KB of RAM. Hell just the networking code alone was 4KB. So a couple of really smart people had a great idea. They could build a PERSONAL computer, for one user at a time, by putting together a tiny OS that would run on word processor hardware. It wouldn't need anything multiuser - no networking, no security, etc. With just one home user at a time, it didn't need enterprise grade reliability. It DID need to fit into 4KB of RAM, and boot a from a 140KB st
Paragraph four, which basically defines network operating systems (as I'm using the term), was murdered by a few typos. It should read:
Network operating systems are designed with network access being a basic assumption. They don't have network software added on in some version. They start with the assumption that most users will be accessing the system over the network. The local console may be extremely limited, because most users won't be using the local keyboard and monitor. That's because the whole point of developing network operating systems, starting with MULTICS in 1964, was that they are multi-user, with several concurrent users using them over the network. Often, primary storage and other important components are accessed over the network. With the CPU in one place, the disk somewhere else on the network, and the keyboard somewhere else, the system can't really even come into being unless the network is up and working. Network operating systems are designed for that type of system as their natural environment. Another example is that I routinely install Linux on machines thousands of miles away, without using a KVM. Networked access is the norm, of course you can easily install the OS over the network.
It's funny to me that some people delight in pointing out that Linux isn't a wonderful desktop personal computer operating system, but then get all uncomfortable with the idea that Windows IS a desktop PC OS .
Define "wonderful desktop personal computer operating system", and then tell me the scope of what you're talking about. Right now the discussion started at the kernel. The Linux kernel is indeed a wonderful desktop personal computer OS. It's smooth, fast, polished, has features that if tweaked correctly provide a fantastic desktop user oriented connection to the underlying hardware. What the entire package that people call "Linux" is missing is a Desktop environment with polish that is free of bugs and frustration.
The same argument is used on the server side. Define what makes a server OS, and do it in a sensible way, not just everything needs to be built on a network stack. To make that claim you first need to show why the entire OS built on a network stack improves the environment for a server. Accessing a local printer via a network socket? Who gives a shit. Instead why not compare the CUPS performance for locally attached networks when exported over a network.
People like to cherry pick their arguments and definitions in these cases to make their own favourite the winner. The only thing that matters on the desktop is the experience to the user, the only thing that matters on the server is the the ability to perform functions related to being a server. At the kernel level Linux and Windows offer two different products highly tuned to each function, BSD provides one tuned to the server, unless you cound OSX then a BSD based kernel can be said to do both as well. At a higher level GNU/Linux does not have a very polished interface with easy to use software for the desktop but has a great list of features and software support for servers. At that same level Windows is good at both, regardless of the fact that it got to that point by starting out as a desktop OS.
>>> Define "network operating system"
[six paragraphs explaining network operating systems to you.]
> To make that claim you first need to show why the entire OS built on a network stack improves the environment for a server.
> Accessing a local printer via a network socket? Who gives a shit.
> Instead why not compare the CUPS performance for locally attached networks when exported over a network.
Because we're not talking "performance operating system", we're defining "network operating system". A network operating system is one that's based on the network, as a precondition. When the storage is at 10.0.2.3, the CPU is 10.0.2.6, and the console is 76.212.34.11, that's probably a network system. It's probably a good match for a network operating system.
When the console is connected via USB and DVI, the drive via SATA, and it's sitting on a desk, that's probably a desktop system. A desktop operating system makes sense.
When the 4" console is glued on top of the CPU and the storage is a soldered-on 2GB chip, that's probably a mobile system. A mobile operating system would be a good match.
Windows has had MAC since Windows NT debuted. That no one uses it doesn't change facts.
You obviously don't know what MAC is. Look it up. Windows doesn't have it. Microsoft even says so. The closest they get is MIC - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-... . There is a big difference. That's why Linux with SELinux is used on Navy ships. It works as Windows never will.
You are naive if you think that you can avoid rebooting for all Linux updates. Obviously a kernel update is going to require a reboot but a lot of other updates should also include a reboot but just because the OS doesn't force you to doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. If you avoid rebooting you can achieve long uptimes in either case. Also not all Windows updates require reboots.
This is based on really old thinking. Most servers today are VMs that can be moved to and from physical hosts. Add to that that CPU failures are really really rare. I have never had a server CPU fail. Servers are turned over fairly quickly in the corporate world to keep up with warranty and licensing issues.
MIC is not a limited version of DAC. That is a seriously misunderstanding of MIC. MIC is more like a light version of MAC. SELinux is superior in this regard but is still often the first thing turned off by a lot a admins. The best security system available for Linux, GRSecurity, is an external patchset to Linux.
Time makes more converts than reason
Let's start with your first two sentences:
> you are naive if you think that you can avoid rebooting for all Linux updates. Obviously a kernel update is going to require a reboot
You are mistaken. What is "obvious" to you is not in fact true. Since the beginning, we've been able to upgrade the majority of the kernel with nothing more than "rmmod foo && insmod foo". I've been doing that for twenty years. Seventeen years ago, we gained the ability to upgrade the kernel core live. That's now a default feature of kernels from Redhat and other major distros.
I could go on and similarly address the rest of your misinformed post, but I think it's sufficiently clear that you're at least thoroughly misinformed, if not actually suffering from Stockholm syndrome, defending the organization which holds your business captive.