Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230
Why not kOpenBSD?
Why not kOpenBSD?
Does anybody know why the FreeBSD kernel was picked over the other two popular kernels for the Debian GNU/BSD project?
Re: Why not kOpenBSD?
Perhaps search or ask the devs themselves? They probably have a mailing list.
Always on Debian Testing
- BBQdave
- df -h | participant
- Posts: 152
- Joined: 2011-09-25 03:38
- Location: North Carolina
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 14 times
Re: Why not kOpenBSD?
To my understanding (as the history of Unix goes) FreeBSD is Unix. FreeBSD is the continuation of Unix after the Unix legal wars (and the stalling of Unix development). All other flavors of BSD are derived or forked from FreeBSD (Unix).Deckard wrote:Does anybody know why the FreeBSD kernel was picked over the other two popular kernels for the Debian GNU/BSD project?
Though arguably one could say Unix development never stalled, just continued under the name FreeBSD.
On quest for blue smoke and red rings!
Debian 12 Toshiba Satellite C655 | i3 2.3Ghz | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | 8GB RAM | 65GB SSD
Debian 12 Toshiba Satellite C655 | i3 2.3Ghz | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | 8GB RAM | 65GB SSD
Re: Why not kOpenBSD?
Nup, you got it wrong. Free and NetBSD started development at about the same time. OpenBSD split from NetBSD in the early 90ies. There is a lot of BSD flavors based on FreeBSD, like PC-BSD, but there's a lot of them based on the other two big ones as well.BBQdave wrote: To my understanding (as the history of Unix goes) FreeBSD is Unix. FreeBSD is the continuation of Unix after the Unix legal wars (and the stalling of Unix development). All other flavors of BSD are derived or forked from FreeBSD (Unix).
- BBQdave
- df -h | participant
- Posts: 152
- Joined: 2011-09-25 03:38
- Location: North Carolina
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 14 times
Re: Why not kOpenBSD?
OK, thanks. Did not realize Free and NetBSD started development at the same time. BSD Unix is Unix, right? And I thought that after the Unix legal wars, BSD Unix became FreeBSD. Basically Berkeley could not use the word "Unix." Was NetBSD derived from the same BSD Unix or from FreeBSD?el_koraco wrote:Nup, you got it wrong. Free and NetBSD started development at about the same time. OpenBSD split from NetBSD in the early 90ies. There is a lot of BSD flavors based on FreeBSD, like PC-BSD, but there's a lot of them based on the other two big ones as well.BBQdave wrote: To my understanding (as the history of Unix goes) FreeBSD is Unix. FreeBSD is the continuation of Unix after the Unix legal wars (and the stalling of Unix development). All other flavors of BSD are derived or forked from FreeBSD (Unix).
Just curious? In my limited interest in Unix and articles on Unix, FreeBSD is presented as the strongest decedent of Unix, and sometimes phrased that FreeBSD is Unix.
On quest for blue smoke and red rings!
Debian 12 Toshiba Satellite C655 | i3 2.3Ghz | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | 8GB RAM | 65GB SSD
Debian 12 Toshiba Satellite C655 | i3 2.3Ghz | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | 8GB RAM | 65GB SSD
-
- Posts: 26
- Joined: 2011-11-07 16:21
Re: Why not kOpenBSD?
actually there was a debian gnu/netbsd project for a whileDeckard wrote:Does anybody know why the FreeBSD kernel was picked over the other two popular kernels for the Debian GNU/BSD project?
Re: Why not kOpenBSD?
No, BSD was one of the two principal Unix variants, the other being System V Unix (which Linux is a descendant of). Free and NetBSD started life as forks of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/386BSD. Basically, the freeing up of the code was halted by lawsuits claiming infringement violations of the original AT&T code for Unix, which led to complete rewrites and finally to the FOSS versions of BSD. They're more like the original and the commercial Unixes than Linux is, but that's pretty much geek talk for the 1% layers most users (hell, even sysadmins) are hardly ever exposed to. What the BSDs are not are "official" Unixes, because you gotta apply and pay s significant sum in order to get that specification.BBQdave wrote:el_koraco wrote: OK, thanks. Did not realize Free and NetBSD started development at the same time. BSD Unix is Unix, right? And I thought that after the Unix legal wars, BSD Unix became FreeBSD.
- BBQdave
- df -h | participant
- Posts: 152
- Joined: 2011-09-25 03:38
- Location: North Carolina
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 14 times
Re: Why not kOpenBSD?
Understood. And I was at wikipedia while you were clarifying this through your post. Thanksel_koraco wrote:BSD was one of the two principal Unix variants, the other being System V Unix (which Linux is a descendant of). Free and NetBSD started life as forks of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/386BSD. Basically, the freeing up of the code was halted by lawsuits claiming infringement violations of the original AT&T code for Unix, which led to complete rewrites and finally to the FOSS versions of BSD. They're more like the original and the commercial Unixes than Linux is, but that's pretty much geek talk for the 1% layers most users (hell, even sysadmins) are hardly ever exposed to. What the BSDs are not are "official" Unixes, because you gotta apply and pay s significant sum in order to get that specification.
On quest for blue smoke and red rings!
Debian 12 Toshiba Satellite C655 | i3 2.3Ghz | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | 8GB RAM | 65GB SSD
Debian 12 Toshiba Satellite C655 | i3 2.3Ghz | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | 8GB RAM | 65GB SSD
-
- Posts: 17
- Joined: 2009-09-27 01:22
Re: Why not kOpenBSD?
APT system ported to openSolaris/openIndiana (unix) == Nexenta
http://www.nexenta.com
http://nexentastor.org/
http://www.nexenta.com
http://nexentastor.org/