Why not kOpenBSD?

Message

dmhdlr · #1 Post by **dmhdlr** » 2011-10-26 19:58

Does anybody know why the FreeBSD kernel was picked over the other two popular kernels for the Debian GNU/BSD project?

vbrummond · #2 Post by **vbrummond** » 2011-10-26 21:09

Perhaps search or ask the devs themselves? They probably have a mailing list.

el_koraco · #3 Post by **el_koraco** » 2011-10-27 10:32

I think it's because of the general nature of FBSD development, which is highly similar to Debian's, so maintenance is easier.

BBQdave · #4 Post by **BBQdave** » 2011-11-10 03:07

Deckard wrote:Does anybody know why the FreeBSD kernel was picked over the other two popular kernels for the Debian GNU/BSD project?

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).

Though arguably one could say Unix development never stalled, just continued under the name FreeBSD.

el_koraco · #5 Post by **el_koraco** » 2011-11-10 08:57

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).

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 · #6 Post by **BBQdave** » 2011-11-11 04:57

el_koraco wrote:
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).
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.

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?

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.

boobdillin · #7 Post by **boobdillin** » 2011-11-11 05:19

Deckard wrote:Does anybody know why the FreeBSD kernel was picked over the other two popular kernels for the Debian GNU/BSD project?

actually there was a debian gnu/netbsd project for a while

el_koraco · #8 Post by **el_koraco** » 2011-11-11 09:10

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.

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 · #9 Post by **BBQdave** » 2011-11-16 01:27

el_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.

Understood. And I was at wikipedia while you were clarifying this through your post. Thanks

register88 · #10 Post by **register88** » 2012-07-02 12:48

Is there any project do porting apt system to any BSD system?

sidRo · #11 Post by **sidRo** » 2012-07-03 06:29

APT system ported to openSolaris/openIndiana (unix) == Nexenta
http://www.nexenta.com
http://nexentastor.org/

Debian User Forums

Why not kOpenBSD?

Why not kOpenBSD?

Re: Why not kOpenBSD?

Re: Why not kOpenBSD?

Re: Why not kOpenBSD?

Re: Why not kOpenBSD?

Re: Why not kOpenBSD?

Re: Why not kOpenBSD?

Re: Why not kOpenBSD?

Re: Why not kOpenBSD?

Re: Why not kOpenBSD?

Re: Why not kOpenBSD?