# FreeBSD with Linux Kernel



## Toad39 (Aug 13, 2020)

Hello,
Is it possible to use the FreeBSD base with the Linux kernel? If so, has anybody done it before?

Thank you for your time.


----------



## a6h (Aug 13, 2020)

I've never done or attempt to do that, but I know that FreeBSD and Linux use different syscalls conventions. Take a look at 11.3. System Calls in the FreeBSD Developers' Handbook.


----------



## mark_j (Aug 13, 2020)

There was kfreebsd but that's the opposite of what you seek. Either way I think it's a silly notion, but hey, I'm all for people wasting their time.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 13, 2020)

Toad39 said:


> Is it possible to use the FreeBSD base with the Linux kernel?


I'm going to say, no. Not without significant effort at least. The FreeBSD userland aka 'world' and FreeBSD kernel are considered a complete set, they are, literately, made for each other. They are developed in unison.


----------



## Jose (Aug 13, 2020)

There was also https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

I'm not sure what Linux with a Freebsd kernel would be. Linux _is_ the kernel.

Maybe you mean a Freebsd kernel with glibc as the C library (or maybe musl) and a GNU toolchain? I doubt the C libraries could be made to work for the reasons Vigole mentions.  Gentoo-Freebsd used the GNU toolchain, but that was before clang got imported into Freebsd base as the compiler of choice. I expect there would be serious problems trying to compile Freebsd base with gcc nowadays.


----------



## Mjölnir (Aug 13, 2020)

Toad39 said:


> Is it possible to use the FreeBSD base with the Linux kernel? If so, has anybody done it before?


Why would someone want to do that?  What's wrong with the FreeBSD kernel?


> Thank you for your time.


You could, in return, start to figure out/brainstorm/research a list of tasks, pitfalls, notes & links for transforming the FreeBSD kernel to

add microkernel-features, or become a microkernel eventually (while keeping good performance)
add the D language to write new code & evolutionary rewrite old parts
evaluate if there's a better alternative language than D.


----------



## kpedersen (Aug 13, 2020)

Not a FreeBSD base but some distributions provide a kind of base.

For example Arch Linux provides a "base" meta package which only pulls in packages from their core repository. Although this is not nearly as clean as FreeBSD sets, for example due to an unresolved bug in gettext packaging, it requires 1 extra package from the extra repository (libcroco, dependency from gettext). They might have fixed this by now but I am sure things like it will crop up again.

Alpine Linux fairs a little better if you get the "extended" version. This allows for an offline install of a bare minimum set of packages you can think of as a "base". However unlike FreeBSD sets, these will likely update over time just like normal packages so you lose a little deterministic behavior there.

In theory there is a Linux Standard Base (LSB) but I don't think anyone follows it.


----------



## shkhln (Aug 13, 2020)

I'm not aware of any kind of "sets". FreeBSD uses meta-packages as well.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Aug 13, 2020)

All the tries of kernel OS.X and userland OS.Y I have seen failing. So no. Although the idea is pleasing they all fail.


----------



## kpedersen (Aug 13, 2020)

shkhln said:


> I'm not aware of any kind of "sets". FreeBSD uses meta-packages as well.





			https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/bsdinstall/bsdinstall-config-components.png
		


Each one of these is a distribution set. Nothing to do with packages.

The name more comes from older sysinstall era FreeBSDs (i.e https://docs.freebsd.org/doc/4.4-RELEASE/usr/share/doc/handbook/x1517.html)

Offtopic: It sucks for a lot of other peoples use-cases but I would love to see a return of the X11 related base distribution sets. I found it to be more elegant than pulling in loads of unnecessary dependencies from packages (even for xorg-minimal).


----------



## mark_j (Aug 13, 2020)

kpedersen said:


> Offtopic: It sucks for a lot of other peoples use-cases but I would love to see a return of the X11 related base distribution sets. I found it to be more elegant than pulling in loads of unnecessary dependencies from packages (even for xorg-minimal).


You're not alone there; I for one agree with you.


----------



## shkhln (Aug 13, 2020)

kpedersen said:


> Each one of these is a distribution set. Nothing to do with packages.



Then this Arch comparison is pretty pointless, the difference comes to FreeBSD stuff being developed in one repo vs multiple repos with different non-cooperating maintainers. How exactly the end result is packaged doesn't matter. Although, to be fair, this whole thread is a sequence of nonsensical posts.



kpedersen said:


> Offtopic: It sucks for a lot of other peoples use-cases but I would love to see a return of the X11 related base distribution sets. I found it to be more elegant than pulling in loads of unnecessary dependencies from packages (even for xorg-minimal).



Aren't we are going into the packaged base direction? And, again, you'll probably have to fork X11 if you want consistent experience.


----------



## wolffnx (Aug 13, 2020)

for god..no! and big no!
dont tell to anyone this crazy fetish please,is disgusting
but anyone if free to do what they want..so good luck


----------



## kpedersen (Aug 14, 2020)

shkhln said:


> Then this Arch comparison is pretty pointless



Kinda but with FreeBSD, you know that running a pkg upgrade isn't going to touch anything from base. I.e vi, awk, etc. On Arch anything could happen. Your init system might even disappear before your very eyes 



shkhln said:


> Aren't we are going into the packaged base direction? And, again, you'll probably have to fork X11 if you want consistent experience.



It used to be done this way. One of its benefits was that it was something your package manager cannot touch (/ break). OpenBSD with their Xenocara "semi-fork" is a good example. Monolithic and self contained in /usr/X11R6 and you know that a breakage in something stupid like python isn't going to cause problems. Of course this won't be ideal for everyone.


----------



## Hakaba (Aug 14, 2020)

Alain De Vos said:


> All the tries of kernel OS.X and userland OS.Y I have seen failing.


Maybe an exception is Mac OS X (or NextStep to be more precise)
But to be honnest, the kernel and the userland was deeply hacked.


----------



## Deleted member 63539 (Aug 14, 2020)

kpedersen said:


> Offtopic: It sucks for a lot of other peoples use-cases but I would love to see a return of the X11 related base distribution sets. I found it to be more elegant than pulling in loads of unnecessary dependencies from packages (even for xorg-minimal).


No. Please don't do that. The non-standard (or non Linux like) location of X11 on other BSD (OpenBSD and NetBSD) caused many problems for porting of Linux developed software to them. The fact is FreeBSD followed Linux (even though ours is on /usr/local) eased the porting a lot.


----------



## kpedersen (Aug 14, 2020)

gh_origin said:


> No. Please don't do that. The non-standard (or non Linux like) location of X11



We could put it at any location but yep, /usr/X11R6 is the standard place for it. For example you can see that Solaris also put it there for a reason. Linux is non-standard here. Its funny because even the Linux Standard Base suggests it should be placed there: https://www.kernel.org/doc/ols/2005/ols2005v1-pages-9-20.pdf

The fact is that more and more Linux distros are copying off FreeBSD's /usr/local path idea so their non-standard Linux Makefiles happen to work on FreeBSD. It is a compromise I suppose.

Luckily once Linux regresses to Wayland we won't need to worry about babysitting it anymore 



gh_origin said:


> caused many problems for porting of Linux developed software to them.



Linux developers are fairly incompetent when it comes to portability. That is why our powerful ports framework allows us to patch their broken code.


----------



## Beastie7 (Aug 14, 2020)

I dont understand; is X that insecure and inefficient that it necessitates a whole new protocol design? Would it be feasible if we managed our own ‘semi-fork’ like OpenBSD? I think having a display server ABI/API compatibility would be nice alone. I’d wager 90% of open source apps are still based on X anyway; so creating a new Wayland Compositor for FreeBSD would be pain.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Aug 14, 2020)

I consider X and old and complex and insecure. But as so much is developped on it ...


----------



## Deleted member 63539 (Aug 14, 2020)

kpedersen said:


> We could put it at any location but yep, /usr/X11R6 is the standard place for it. For example you can see that Solaris also put it there for a reason. Linux is non-standard here. Its funny because even the Linux Standard Base suggests it should be placed there: https://www.kernel.org/doc/ols/2005/ols2005v1-pages-9-20.pdf
> 
> The fact is that more and more Linux distros are copying off FreeBSD's /usr/local path idea so their non-standard Linux Makefiles happen to work on FreeBSD. It is a compromise I suppose.
> 
> Luckily once Linux regresses to Wayland we won't need to worry about babysitting it anymore


Nowadays, Linux *is the standard itself!* Sadly, but true.

BTW, I don't think if Linux switch to Wayland, you could free from worry. It only means FreeBSD has to adopt Wayland, too, just like what happened with KMS, to catch the never ending game with Linux. Linux is the leader of the game, you have to follow it, regardless of if you wanting it or not.

We have to keep following Linux to keep relevant. Even Windows, the old king, now has to suffer from Linux's domination, too:






						Intel Is Using IGC In Their Windows Drivers, Internal Prototype For Mesa - Phoronix
					






					www.phoronix.com
				




OpenBSD is always a joke (or a toy?). They are free to keep playing with their Xenocara. They have a very successful marketing plan indeed. But I lost all faith on them when I realized that they still not support TRIM for SSD and their home growth virtualization solution, vmd, is just a joke! It's a toy at most! Who on earth would use a hypervisor that only supports one core for each guest?



> The following features are not available at this time:
> 
> graphics
> snapshots
> ...





			OpenBSD FAQ: Virtualization
		


This has to be so for a long time without any real improvements!

_View: https://www.reddit.com/r/openbsd/comments/81vaz1/can_vmd_allocate_cpu_cores/_


Meanwhile NetBSD come up with both HAXM and NVMM!



			QEMU HAXM on NetBSD - HOWTO
		







						NetBSD Blog
					






					blog.netbsd.org
				




Both of them are superior to that vmd toy!


----------



## a6h (Aug 14, 2020)

gh_origin said:


> We have to keep following Linux to keep relevant. Even Windows, the old king, now has to suffer from Linux's domination:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IGC is an MIT licence compiler. What does that have to do with Linux?


----------



## Deleted member 63539 (Aug 14, 2020)

vigole said:


> IGC is an MIT licence compiler. What does that have to do with Linux?


It was first developed on Linux and for Linux. And now they want to use it on other platform, too. Isn't it the sight of Linux's domination? Most of the GPU makers have more profit from big servers than from gamers. And guest what? All of the big servers use Linux!


----------



## a6h (Aug 15, 2020)

gh_origin said:


> All of the big servers use Linux!


Not because of "FreeBSD didn't goose-stepped Linux". PR and marketing are alien to FreeBSD Foundation. That's the reason.


----------



## teo (Aug 15, 2020)

Toad39 said:


> Hello,
> Is it possible to use the FreeBSD base with the Linux kernel? If so, has anybody done it before?
> 
> Thank you for your time.


It seems that before the Gentoo and Slackware systems used FreeBSD as a base system, I cannot say now.



			
				vigole said:
			
		

> Not because of "FreeBSD didn't goose-stepped Linux". PR and marketing are alien to FreeBSD Foundation. That's the reason.



However, adding linux software to FreeBSD does support some linux software.  Marketing only seems to be a closed policy of a few who benefit from the little space they use in the world with their servers and others products.  And some of them have opposed standardization for over 25 years for a  extended with default desktop graphic environment for everyone's use.


----------



## mark_j (Aug 15, 2020)

Beastie7 said:


> I dont understand; is X that insecure and inefficient that it necessitates a whole new protocol design? Would it be feasible if we managed our own ‘semi-fork’ like OpenBSD? I think having a display server ABI/API compatibility would be nice alone. I’d wager 90% of open source apps are still based on X anyway; so creating a new Wayland Compositor for FreeBSD would be pain.


Things like wayland come about more because of the NIH syndrome that afflicts systemdOS than any deficiencies of the old system it seeks to replace.. eventually.


----------



## Mjölnir (Aug 15, 2020)

vigole said:


> Not because of "FreeBSD didn't goose-stepped Linux". PR and marketing are alien to FreeBSD Foundation. That's the reason.


No.  The root cause is not the foundation.  FreeBSD developers & traditional user-base refuse to integrate

a modern graphical installer for standard PC (currently x86-64, but that seems to change).
there's a strong notion that FreeBSD is oriented towards server & not desktop.
methods for automated configuration.  pkg/ng does not include automagic configuration intentionally.  The package managers on Linux have it.
For these reasons, young nerds grow up with Linux, thus that's what they choose in their professional career.


----------



## Beastie7 (Aug 15, 2020)

mark_j said:


> Things like wayland come about more because of the NIH syndrome that afflicts systemdOS than any deficiencies of the old system it seeks to replace.. eventually.



Hmm, fair point. You’d figure all these years they would’ve fixed all those deficiencies. Unless X is so fundamentally broken that a new re-design is warranted. Perhaps, they’re lazy?



mjollnir said:


> No.  The root cause is not the foundation.  FreeBSD developers & traditional user-base refuse to integrate
> 
> a modern graphical installer for standard PC (currently x86-64, but that seems to change).
> there's a strong notion that FreeBSD is oriented towards server & not desktop.
> ...



Great point. I’ve wondered what the reluctance is with the developers on this. I’ve watched every single FreeBSD Want/Need/Have session from various conferences. Only 10% of the entire discussion addresses desktop related issues. Are graphics kryponite to kernel developers? Or does our developer base not have enough experience in that domain? From an implementation perspective; one blocker could be API/ABI compatibility with the rest of base; which we couldn’t do with something like X.org/Mesa, etc unless we fork it.


----------



## mark_j (Aug 15, 2020)

Beastie7 said:


> Hmm, fair point. You’d figure all these years they would’ve fixed all those deficiencies. Unless X is so fundamentally broken that a new re-design is warranted. Perhaps, they’re lazy?



I think the story went somewhat like this:

- We need something better than X. Let's not fix what we have let's invent something. It's Not Invented Here but it must be Invented Here.
- X is in need of some bug fixes, we can't be bothered we're working on this new concept called Wayland.
- Those using X need to step up and fix it; we're not.
- X slowly dies as a 'generic' platform.

It's not fundamentally broken, it's a little flawed but so is TCP/UDP. It maintains backward compatibility for everything back into the '80s, and there's still a lot of hardware out there using it that will never use wayland or its compositor.

I should add, NIH applies to Redhat who basically owns Linux nowadays. I guess it's the default for redhat now?


----------



## ralphbsz (Aug 15, 2020)

mjollnir said:


> No.  The root cause is not the foundation.  FreeBSD developers & traditional user-base refuse to integrate
> 
> a modern graphical installer for standard PC (currently x86-64, but that seems to change).
> there's a strong notion that FreeBSD is oriented towards server & not desktop.
> ...


And now explain why Linux has 100% market share in supercomputers, and probably 90% among servers that are in the large cloud datacenter (with the remainder being Windows, and very little BSD, AIX, MVS/VM and others).

Do you think that people who build $100M supercomputers or data centers with millions of machines care about graphical installers? Shouldn't they love an OS that is "oriented towards servers"? And automated configuration? The argument with "mindshare of nerds" is particularly pointless.

I think trying to make BSD in general and FreeBSD in particular into a mainstream success is pointless. That ship has sailed. It is a niche operating system, for a set of niche users. I greatly enjoy using it for my little server. But I admit that my personal use case doesn't scale to other people or other uses.


----------



## Mjölnir (Aug 15, 2020)

mark_j said:


> I should add, NIH applies to Redhat who basically owns Linux nowadays. I guess it's the default for redhat now?


RedHat is owned by IBM since July 2019.  They commited 2nd most changes to the Linux kernel, after Intel.  Who "owns" Linux?  Here's the list of members of the Linux Foundation.  Compare to that to the FreeBSD Foundation...


ralphbsz said:


> And now explain why Linux has 100% market share in supercomputers, and probably 90% among servers that are in the large cloud datacenter (with the remainder being Windows, and very little BSD, AIX, MVS/VM and others).
> 
> Do you think that people who build $100M supercomputers or data centers with millions of machines care about graphical installers? Shouldn't they love an OS that is "oriented towards servers"? And automated configuration? The argument with "mindshare of nerds" is particularly pointless.


Well, from a technical viewpoint FreeBSD is better in many aspects, equal in some, and worse in a few.  Most Open Source software is developed on Linux, just because that's what the developers (nerds) have on their machines.  That's a criterium (availability of software (-stacks)).  Thus, yes, I do think in the end it's this profane reason.  In general, people do not like to try & learn something new, when they know what they're used to & know about is sufficient for the task.   If it would be only for technical reasons, I guess DragonFly BSD should have a 67% market share on super-clusters.


----------



## mark_j (Aug 15, 2020)

mjollnir said:


> RedHat is owned by IBM since July 2019.  They commited 2nd most changes to the Linux kernel, after Intel.  Who "owns" Linux?  Here's the list of members of the Linux Foundation.  Compare to that to the FreeBSD Foundation...
> 
> Well, from a technical viewpoint FreeBSD is better in many aspects, equal in some, and worse in a few.  Most Open Source software is developed on Linux, just because that's what the developers (nerds) have on their machines.  That's a criterium (availability of software (-stacks)).  Thus, yes, I do think in the end it's this profane reason.  In general, people do not like to try & learn something new, when they know what they're used to & know about is sufficient for the task.   If it would be only for technical reasons, I guess DragonFly BSD should have a 67% market share on super-clusters.


Ok, I'll rephrase: linux is run/steered/directed by redhat, regardless of who owns redhat.


----------



## a6h (Aug 15, 2020)

mjollnir said:


> a modern graphical installer for standard PC (currently x86-64, but that seems to change).





ralphbsz said:


> But I admit that my personal use case doesn't scale to other people or other uses


There're 4 delays in FreeBSD installer: before "Welcome | Install", after "DHCP | Network configuration", "Commit" and "Final configuration | OK"
If I could ignore them, aka let's suppose no delay and seamless installation , I can literally close my eyes and successfully go through FreeBSD installation.
I'm not  a nerd and I don't what to be, but I like it. Some people hate it. Changing FreeBSD installer? It would be a shame. NAY!


----------



## Mjölnir (Aug 15, 2020)

mark_j said:


> Ok, I'll rephrase: linux is run/steered/directed by redhat, regardless of who owns redhat.


Doesn't make it true, no matter how often you rephrase it.  Have a look into that impressive list, and decide yourself if all these big players would allow a single entity to own a system that is mission-critical for them.


vigole said:


> There're 4 delays in FreeBSD installer: before "Welcome | Install", after "DHCP | Network configuration", "Commit" and "Final configuration | OK"
> If I could ignore them, aka let's suppose no delay and seamless installation , I can literally close my eyes and successfully go through FreeBSD installation.
> I'm not  a nerd and I don't what to be, but I like it. Some people hate it. Changing FreeBSD installer? It would be a shame. NAY!


And if you could choose between a graphical & CLI installer, which both call the very same backend-scripts? Where the only change I propose is to add a language selection screen at the very beginning, which also pre-sets the choice of keyboard layout & timezone (which can be changed by successive steps)?


----------



## a6h (Aug 15, 2020)

mjollnir I agree. I'm for a dual-option installer GUI/CLI. I have no problem with that.
[EDIT] Just don't mess with classic ones!


----------



## mark_j (Aug 15, 2020)

mjollnir said:


> Doesn't make it true, no matter how often you rephrase it.  Have a look into that impressive list, and decide yourself if all these big players would allow a single entity to own a system that is mission-critical for them.
> 
> And if you could choose between a graphical & CLI installer, which both call the very same backend-scripts? Where the only change I propose is to add a language selection screen at the very beginning, which also pre-sets the choice of keyboard layout & timezone (which can be changed by successive steps)?


Um, look at systemd, flatpak and wayland and tell me redhat isnt steering that ship. Of course I clarify this is the generic 'linux' not just the kernel - you know the one with hundreds of 'distributions'.


----------



## Mjölnir (Aug 15, 2020)

Why should I? I'm not using these, and I even do not know what _flatpak_ is   Maybe your point is that many contributions come from RedHat.  Yes.  More came from Intel in the last few years.  So then you'd have to correct your view to: _"Intel steers that ship"_.  I don't know about more current numbers.  Anyway, Linux is, like FreeBSD, a joint effort of many people.  Hard to tell if there's a single entity that leads all others.


----------



## mark_j (Aug 15, 2020)

I'm not counting contributions, but who is setting the direction/running of 'linux'; it's certainly not set by intel. Name your intel projects that are changing the very way 'linux' works? I've given you 3 that I can think of the top of my head, I'm sure I could probably find more should I care to look but I don't care to. I've spent more time than I care thinking about an OS I don't have interest in.


----------



## kpedersen (Aug 15, 2020)

gh_origin said:


> Nowadays, Linux *is the standard itself!* Sadly, but true.



The proprietary companies doing the development set the "standard". Linux is just along for the ride. It is literally going to be torn apart by those messy guys. Just wait and see. It is not even UNIX-like anymore. The next step is to tightly integrate the display system into the OS (Wayland) and finally remove the terminal. SystemdOS is basically dying right in front of your eyes. Enjoy! 



gh_origin said:


> BTW, I don't think if Linux switch to Wayland, you could free from worry. It only means FreeBSD has to adopt Wayland,


Wayland is basically Mir. I don't think we need to worry unless we run Gnome 3 on FreeBSD. And most people don't. FreeBSD has 100's of window managers to choose from. Linux now only has 3!
More damaging is that Linux has basically lost its ability to do effective remote desktop. I suppose with the direction Linux is going, it certainly won't need that anyway haha.



gh_origin said:


> OpenBSD is always a joke (or a toy?).



If you check out their funding... You will see that the companies guiding the industry certainly don't think so.




__





						Donate to the OpenBSD Foundation
					






					www.openbsdfoundation.org
				




I believe OpenBSD receives more in funding than many Linux distros combined. Perhaps have a think why. Also, without OpenSSH, I don't think Linux would even be around today.


----------



## Beastie7 (Aug 15, 2020)

ralphbsz said:


> I think trying to make BSD in general and FreeBSD in particular into a mainstream success is pointless



I think the most of us just want FreeBSD as a viable, functional alternative to mainstream desktops. I am so done with Apples idiotic direction (with their hardware, and now recently, software), political bullshit against users (anti repair), and draconian behavior to the point where I’m starting to despise them. If marketing is a means for FreeBSD to get all the driver support it needs, so be it. If FreeBSD had it’s own in-kernel GPU driver support and it’s own display server to match; I’d be a VERY happy clam.


----------



## Mjölnir (Aug 15, 2020)

Beastie7 said:


> I think the most of us just want FreeBSD as a viable, functional alternative to mainstream desktops. I am so done with Apples idiotic direction (with their hardware, and now recently, software), political bullshit against users (anti repair), and draconian behavior to the point where I’m starting to despise them. If marketing is a means for FreeBSD to get all the driver support it needs, so be it. If FreeBSD had it’s own in-kernel GPU driver support and it’s own display server to match; I’d be a VERY happy clam.


Observation: there're some Intel fellows actively contributing to FreeBSD, their GPUs are supported well, you can download the latest drivers e.g. for em(4) from ports/packages.  AFAIK, their competitor is not that cooperative, and other GPUs are reported more often to have issues, at least here in the forum.


----------



## sidetone (Aug 15, 2020)

What's the point of this?


----------



## teo (Aug 15, 2020)

Beastie7 said:


> I think the most of us just want FreeBSD as a viable, functional alternative to mainstream desktops. I am so done with Apples idiotic direction (with their hardware, and now recently, software), political bullshit against users (anti repair), and draconian behavior to the point where I’m starting to despise them. If marketing is a means for FreeBSD to get all the driver support it needs, so be it. If FreeBSD had it’s own in-kernel GPU driver support and it’s own display server to match; I’d be a VERY happy clam.


Some who benefit of the  server Marketing, are not interested in FreeBSD's default graphical desktop  extended and have opposed, dare to call other nerds when I think that nobs or average users have no idea what a nerd is. Most, by  not say  everyone, use some graphical desktop environment or graphical manager of their hardware or device.


----------



## ralphbsz (Aug 16, 2020)

Beastie7 said:


> I think the most of us just want FreeBSD as a viable, functional alternative to mainstream desktops.


I don't know about "most of us". I certainly have zero interest in running FreeBSD on the desktop. I used to use Linux on the desktop, and I don't want to go back to that either, it's just too painful. I'm quite sure that any *BSD would be harder than Linux, so: no thank you.

Personally, I use Apple as a desktop (both at work and at home), and I'm quite happy with that. Not perfectly happy, but better than Windows (which I've also used for many years).


----------



## Beastie7 (Aug 16, 2020)

Most of us who complain about FreeBSD on the desktop do.


----------



## Jose (Aug 16, 2020)

I've started using a Freebsd desktop after years of using mostly Mac and some Linux. Hasn't been too bad yet, but I'm not very picky.

Apple is clearly trying to unify their operating systems. I'm not interested in having a "laptop" that's just a big phone.


----------



## Deleted member 63539 (Aug 16, 2020)

kpedersen said:


> If you check out their funding... You will see that the companies guiding the industry certainly don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Disagree with you again. Should I remind you that OpenBSD is not OpenBSD alone but a bunch of Open[Something] projects? Yes, you are right. These companies paid them to maintain OpenSSH. The money didn't pour into the development of OpenBSD as an OS itself. On their latest release, I see very moderate improvement to vmd. All of them are just minor improvements.


----------



## kpedersen (Aug 16, 2020)

gh_origin said:


> Disagree with you again. Should I remind you that OpenBSD is not OpenBSD alone but a bunch of Open[Something] projects?



Well yeah... You think the Linux Foundation gets donations to work entirely on the kernel?


----------



## mark_j (Aug 17, 2020)

My request to SirDice/Crivens: can this be closed? Enough of linux, already.


----------



## Deleted member 63539 (Aug 17, 2020)

kpedersen said:


> Well yeah... You think the Linux Foundation gets donations to work entirely on the kernel?


Of course I know.


> *The Linux Foundation hosts many of the most important open source projects in the world, including Linux. With more than 1,000 companies backing tens of thousands of active developers, our projects harness the power of open source development to fuel innovation at unmatched speed and scale.*







__





						Linux Foundation | Browse Projects
					

The Linux Foundation provides a neutral, trusted home for developers to collaborate on hundreds of open technology projects. Join us.



					www.linuxfoundation.org
				











						Linux Foundation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




But this, doesn't change a single thing. Linux Foundation is relevance because of Linux. OpenBSD is relevance, because of OpenBSD based tools (OpenSSH, OpenSMTPd, ...), not OpenBSD itself.


----------



## Deleted member 63539 (Aug 17, 2020)

mark_j said:


> My request to SirDice/Crivens: can this be closed? Enough of linux, already.


In the other hand, I don't understand why the FreeBSD forums Mods and community members could tolerate trolls and morons too much (it's not to insult, because I think they indeed not stupid, they present themselves like that in order to you... feed them, the troll, when you yourselves don't know you are being used and they laughed in front of the monitor) but treat me too harsh (or too bad). If I'm in authority, any thread like that would be deleted from the beginning and the OP banned immediately, not a simple thread close. But I know the reason they don't do that. The SJWs. They will accuse them of being dictators and spread hate. No one want to be dictators, though. But the forums rules could be used to protect them from these SJWs. They could invoke the forums rules to delete the thread and ban the OP without being dictator.

p/s: if the Mods think that the OP is not a troll but only lack of knowledge, they could simply delete the thread and send a private message to him to address the problem politely: his idea do not work and not supported here. Done.


----------



## mark_j (Aug 17, 2020)

I don't think the OP is a troll. It seemed like a genuine, albeit silly, question. The question is probably borne out of ignorance of what FreeBSD is (an *OPERATING SYSTEM*) compared to Linux (a *KERNEL*) and the misguided assumption that they can be simply swapped around.

My request was for the moderators to close this because it's just more of the same. I wasn't asking for anyone to be banned or the thread to be deleted, just closed as the answer has been given. They can choose to ignore me if they want. I'm used to being ignored. 

At the very least, though, and not wishing to tell them their 'job', I would think it should be moved to off-topic?


----------



## Hakaba (Aug 17, 2020)

I regulary talk with linux user that want experiment BSD.
And it is exactly like when a Windows user buy a mac and ask why there is only one menu in top of the screen and how to detach this menu in each windows.
If FreeBSD accept that the project is open, it is open. So «stupide» question appear just because somebody try it (by curiosity)
And sorry, the question is not that stupid.
If Linux is a good kernel and well maintained, use it in FreeBSD may be relevant to accelerate other developments (bhyve, zfs, jails, pkg, doc...)
The reason that it is not a good idea is not obvious.
The better answer I could let here (as I am NOT a OS dev) is «as the FreeBSD userland was not developed in scope of portability, it depends of the FreeBSD kernel.»

And the NDH syndrome seems to affect some FreeBSD user, no ? 
(Smiley added here, be careful, irony behind !)


----------



## mark_j (Aug 17, 2020)

I get your point.
The question was posed by the OP almost like something asked of a student for their homework assignment.

Oh, and the question is silly. "FreeBSD base"? What is that? Is the question stupid? No.


----------



## Deleted member 63539 (Aug 17, 2020)

mark_j said:


> Oh, and the question is silly. "FreeBSD base"? What is that? Is the question stupid? No.


FreeBSD base = FreeBSD userland. It comes from the misconception of most Linux users:

Linux = Linux kernel + GNU userland

=> FreeBSD = FreeBSD kernel + FreeBSD userland

The GNU userland is independent from the Linux kernel, it also used by other systems. So let's assume it's the same for the FreeBSD userland, too.

So what about a custom OS = Linux kernel + FreeBSD userland?

It's what this thread all about.

But if the OP researched a bit before he asked, he will not waste his time started this thread.

But what if he already know it by a quick Google search but still started the thread?

This way he could not have good intention. He could just want to start an Internet flame war here and laughed hard in front of the monitor, watching we being trolled but completely don't know that we are being played.


----------



## Deleted member 63539 (Aug 17, 2020)

All of that is just my own speculation and could be wrong. But it came from my own experience with people usually asked such questions on this forums. I didn't accuse the OP as being a troll, though.


----------



## Hakaba (Aug 17, 2020)

On simple solution is to open a new Thread for this kind of question.
Move all «kernel/init/container...» questions that seems to be «how it work on FreeBSD» in this Thread.


----------



## forquare (Aug 17, 2020)

I've been thinking on this for a while.  A few months ago I sold my ageing iMac and decided I couldn't afford to replace it with another Mac, so decided to go down the self-build route.
But what OS to install?  I've not used Windows at home since ~2006 and I don't find it comfortable to use. All my personal servers and laptop run FreeBSD, and utilities I use on macOS came from FreeBSD originally; but there is software I want to run that doesn't run on FreeBSD but does on Linux (Reaper, Steam).

I've ended up installing Arch Linux on the new desktop, and it's fine, but it ain't FreeBSD.  

My (almost certainly naive) thought was that having a Linux kernel, and >90% FreeBSD userland (with additional "Linux" libraries (e.g. glibc)) would give me the best of both worlds - except of course it doesn't exist, and if it did it would have such a small user base it would probably be old/unstable/poorly supported, so it likely would be the worst of all worlds.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 17, 2020)

gh_origin said:


> So let's assume it's the same for the FreeBSD userland, too.


It's not. It's not even supported to run a different version of the kernel compare to the base. The kernel and "world" are a complete set. The kernel belongs to the base and the base belongs with the kernel. You cannot mix and match here.

The original question has been answered. The rest of this discussion is pointless. Thread closed.


----------

