# Debian + FreeBSD 7.2 Kernel - Benchmarking Debian's GNU/kFreeBSD



## Penel (Jan 19, 2010)

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=debian_kfreebsd&num=1

So I just finished reading this article and I dont know what to think.....

I could careless about Phoronixs Linux benchmarks, because  we all know they are geared towards the Linux users hehe  However,

I dont understand why Debian is trying to re-create the wheel when they can just drop what they are doing and change their trade-name/distribution-name to "GOTO http://www.freebsd.org/ " LOL

I like Debian as a pure Linux distro, but this will be interesting too see how everything will play out


----------



## graudeejs (Jan 19, 2010)

One thing that pissed me off is
http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD_why



> kFreeBSD developers often have more interest in merging new features rather than spawning forks all along (the port to Xbox is a very good example. See the responses from Linus Torvalds and [red]kFreeBSD developers[/red]).



And link to FreeBSD mailinglist.... kFreeBSD developers have nothing to do with that AFAIK

Uhhh, those bastards


Also I think this post should be in Off Topic section


----------



## GPF (Jan 19, 2010)

I concur, the wiki page that lists the reasons why someone would choose Debian kFreeBSD over FreeBSD is -to put lightly- a joke.

Let's wait and see what will happen, although I have my doubts if this idea is going to work out and attract a lot of users.


----------



## LateNiteTV (Jan 20, 2010)

lol the reasons to use kfreebsd as opposed to freebsd are ridiculous.


----------



## Daisuke_Aramaki (Jan 20, 2010)

LateNiteTV said:
			
		

> lol the reasons to use kfreebsd as opposed to freebsd are ridiculous.



Precisely. I was just about to say that. It looks like they simply had no clue how to rationalize the existence of kfreebsd crap on the first place. :e


----------



## sqlpython (Feb 13, 2011)

Hi people maybe I can shed some light on your confoundings (as in surprise & confusion)..
Please don't start a flame war over this observation/opinion as I am truely attempting to show the other side.  
  I am a 15 year Linux User/Developer and have used PCBSD for about 5 years... True I haven't installed FreeBSD since 1996... Currently, I have been investigating an install of GNU/kfreebsd 8.1 myself.. 
   So, let me help by first getting all misgivings out of the way by saying..........
Linux is a Slow, Bloated, Unstable, BUG ridden, Inferior OS that will cause God himself to forsake you (if one is to use it.) I have it on good authority that God is a FreeBSD user..    ..maybe that will break the tension.. 

The reasons for creating and Using a GNU/kfreebsd are as follows:
 1. It allows a uninitiated Users a Simpler install vehicle to a FreeBSD kernel.. (as PCBSD)
 2. As there are multiple BSDs this is just another Choice to help Draw in BSD users.
 3. As a Bridge those that are familiar with Linxu Working/File Structure can Learn BSD commands.
 4. Most Users are stingy with time investment ..GNU/kfreebsd minimizes that....
 5. A simple Linux GUI for additional Software sans Portage..
 6. A deeper pool of Hardware Drivers..Again drawing in more New potiential BSD Users..
..........So it is all about Experimentation and New Users...........
 It goes on but it is all about the New the unfamiliar Masses that would be the a thriving new BSD base..
 The difference between the avg BSD user and the avg. Linux user is that the BSD user has to be willing and eventually able to take on manual configurations of all sorts..
  So, please don't be offended. Be at least interested and perhaps this will wet the appetite of Users that will go on to become genuine BSD users..

 P.S. I have been reading and searching these forums for many years but never had a need to post. I can only hope that this post is of some value.


----------



## graudeejs (Feb 13, 2011)

We need to take advantage of Debian/kFreeBSD in form of drivers


----------



## oliverh (Feb 13, 2011)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> We need to take advantage of Debian/kFreeBSD in form of drivers



Do you think it will be easier, just because it's ripped off FreeBSD kernel in a "GNU-environment"? Debian maintains a lot of projects, guess why they need a couple of years to get things done at all.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Feb 13, 2011)

In my opinion, PCBSD (KDE) and GhostBSD (Gnome, a forum user's project), and anything interfacing with the new bsdinstall (replacing sysinstall) is about as far as FreeBSD needs to move 'to draw in users'. FreeBSD has never been about gaining desktop user market share, really.


----------



## Pushrod (Feb 13, 2011)

sqlpython said:
			
		

> The difference between the avg BSD user and the avg. Linux user is that the BSD user has to be willing and eventually able to take on manual configurations of all sorts..



If that's true, then a few scripts or GUI tools in FreeBSD ports would achieve that goal.

Other than this very post, I have given Debian/kFreeBSD absolutely no thought or consideration, nor do I intend to.


----------



## sqlpython (Feb 13, 2011)

> FreeBSD has never been about gaining desktop user market share, really.


  I can respect that ......
However remember this FreeBSD like every other OS will forever lose particular Users every year. While these Users will never return it is Growth via Marketing/Interest  that keeps FreeBSD from perishing.
The Growth generated/facilitated by Interest. In business you Grow or Perish..simple economics. A neutral Growth business Dies. So, Let all FreeBsd users bow their heads in thanks for the likes of PCBSD, GhostBSD or DesktopBSD as the the interest generated by those variations surely helped new users move on to swell your ranks...
 Anyway as I have said I can understand your view point..
 Different goals for Different folks


----------



## DutchDaemon (Feb 13, 2011)

I know that you are of the opinion that GNU/kFreeBSD would swell FreeBSD's ranks. I am not of that opinion at all. That the derivative FreeBSD versions would _eventually_ move people to 'FreeBSD-proper' (for non-desktop applications, or for more _personalized_ desktop environments ('roll your own' installations)) .. sure -- this is already happening when people want to break out of the confines of these derivatives. But I can't see any positive spin-off emanating from the Debian project. It looks rather self-serving to me.


----------



## Crivens (Feb 13, 2011)

Sorry mate, the posting started really good, but some of your points do not make much sense to me. Maybe it is me, but I can not take them seriously.



			
				sqlpython said:
			
		

> The difference between the avg BSD user and the avg. Linux user is that the BSD user has to be willing and eventually able to take on manual configurations of all sorts..


As will the Linux user when he wants something from his system which $DISTRO has no support for. Like blacklisting some drivers for hardware and then telling the system again and again to not load them because the update mechanisms are often as smart as ... well, as dumb as it can get. That was one reason why I no longer use Linux.

I am sorry to say so, but I feel unable to comment on the other points witout being offended and/or offensive. This project looks more like "have solution, seek problem" to me. It could have the reasons you mention, but it could as well have other reasons. It will further fragment the Linux area and do the same to FreeBSD. Who would want that?


----------



## oliverh (Feb 13, 2011)

sqlpython said:
			
		

> I can respect that ......
> However remember this FreeBSD like every other OS will forever lose particular Users every year. While these Users will never return it is Growth via Marketing/Interest  that keeps FreeBSD from perishing.
> The Growth generated/facilitated by Interest. In business you Grow or Perish..simple economics. A neutral Growth business Dies. So, Let all FreeBsd users bow their heads in thanks for the likes of PCBSD, GhostBSD or DesktopBSD as the the interest generated by those variations surely helped new users move on to swell your ranks...
> Anyway as I have said I can understand your view point..
> Different goals for Different folks



>However remember this FreeBSD like every other OS will forever lose particular Users every year. 

Linux on the Desktop has got no relevance at all, forget about the hype. It's an Apple and Microsoft dominated world. However, it's quite a different story on servers. Linux dominates this market, but *BSD is going strong in different areas ... think of quality instead of quantity.


----------



## sqlpython (Feb 14, 2011)

OK, Keep in mind that I am not attempting to convince anyone. Just the way a user base works. So I will end it here.
 Besides, Olly keeps getting edited and I don't want to be responsible for his health. :^)

 Seriously, Simply know this as a User/Developer/Moderator I get to exchange thoughts with thousands of people per year on the subject of OSes and...............
Many find FreeBSD interesting and Compelling but lack the courage to take the leap.
Projects like PCBSD and even GNU/kfreebsd open a door to allow them an opportunity due to the simplicity of install to touch on a BSD like install..That's all.
 And while purists may not like that some choose to cut their BSD teeth in that way they do. It is all about choices and no one is taking your choices away because of this fact.
 So, relax and let it pass because as Other type newbie BSD users get less then the Welcome aboard here they will go elsewhere for better or worse. As they relay their experiences here you will be left to you needed/wanted common denominator of Users.
It will work out just fine...for you.


----------



## Pushrod (Feb 14, 2011)

Perhaps the users who are too afraid to try FreeBSD should seek some sort of counseling.


----------



## nakal (Feb 14, 2011)

Oh, people... don't be like that. Debian on FreeBSD kernel is a nice thing, in my opinion. This does not only prove that you can have a GNU system that is portable. It also shows that FreeBSD kernel is great in other scenarios.

When you think about it as a developer, to have some other kind of userland also a cheap way to test the stability and reliability. Second thing is... people are really interested in FreeBSD there. Third... you get cheap form of advertisement. Fourth... etc..

Look at the advantages! I would not use this, but it does not mean I should hate it.


----------



## Crivens (Feb 14, 2011)

Ok, after some sleep I think I should be more clear.
When this is used as a club to hang over anyone who adds linux-only parts to the Debian codebase, userland and apps - then this is a good thing (tm). That would mean I would support it, but that does not mean I would use it. But for that reason, I would support it.


----------



## oliverh (Feb 14, 2011)

sqlpython said:
			
		

> OK, Keep in mind that I am not attempting to convince anyone. Just the way a user base works. So I will end it here.
> Besides, Olly keeps getting edited and I don't want to be responsible for his health. :^)
> 
> Seriously, Simply know this as a User/Developer/Moderator I get to exchange thoughts with thousands of people per year on the subject of OSes and...............
> ...



Yeah the same old song "it's too hard". Most people nowadays are thinking Debian is too hard, too old, too $excuse and they're using Ubuntu instead - even on servers. So maybe BSD is dying - a nice running gag by the way - but maybe Debian is dying too. Finally, who cares? BSD today is mostly for people fed up with Linux.


----------



## sqlpython (Feb 14, 2011)

Nakal, Crivens, Oliverh, Dutchd, killasmurf*
  I was going to make the my last post my final on the thread but.........
I just wanted to state that we are now all roughly on the same page..
Let the other variates have their choices it really doesn't effect the FreeBSD Project.
Redirect non pertinent FreeBSD inquiries to Docs or back to their Source Project. Voila..


> So maybe BSD is dying


  LOL.. not in my life time! 


> Finally, who cares? BSD today is mostly for people fed up with Linux.


 Spot on... and for some not so much fed up but needing more refinement/quality in their OS..

 Let me say in closing this is not the FreeBSD user group of 15 years ago.. 15 years ago I would have been tarred and feathered and sent out of town tied to a rail for this subject..LOL
Today it is obvious clearer heads prevail on the Project..
Thanks for the exchange.


----------



## sossego (Feb 14, 2011)

Debian/kFreeBSD is a project that should be separated from both Linux and FreeBSD.

It is not a system for the beginning  user.

Is there any positive use that can be gained from this?
Yes. More programs. Native over compat. Xorg for Debian and Xorg for native if there are two cards.
Visually impaired users can use ADRIANE and emacspeak.

Any reason why it shouldn't be used?
Ye Olde Lycense Lourds are not happy with the project.
Maintenance is not easy. The user is running two systems, not one.
No UFS2 support. There is no FreeBSD default security options. There is no Linux kernel support for security. There is no community forum dedicated to the project.

Does removing drivers from the kernel source help? Nope.
Someone can just rebuild from source.


Any operating system can be used on the Desktop providing that the proper applications and configurations are available.
Any operating system can be used as a server providing the proper setup and applications are available.


This is the official FreeBSD forum site. 


There's a lot that the Debian/kFreeBSD project can accomplish.


You may ignore me now.


----------



## phoenix (Feb 14, 2011)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> We need to take advantage of Debian/kFreeBSD in form of drivers



FreeBSD kernel is FreeBSD kernel is FreeBSD kernel.  Meaning that the drivers are the same regardless of what you put on top.  Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is not going to magically add new drivers, since it's still the same FreeBSD kernel as we (normal FreeBSD users) use.


----------



## jrm@ (Feb 14, 2011)

sqlpython said:
			
		

> I have it on good authority that God is a FreeBSD user



That would make an awesome signature/T-shirt.


----------



## kpedersen (Feb 15, 2011)

I believe Debian's GNU/kFreeBSD to be detrimental to the FreeBSD project because instead of bright people working solely on FreeBSD, their hard work is now going to be spread between the two projects.

You can see this happening in linux and one of the most beneficial points of FreeBSD is everything is developed in one place (one tree). Because Debian's kFreeBSD is not developed in one place I don't feel it should even be allowed to use FreeBSD in it's name.
Debian GNU/BSD sounds a little contradicting but is "most correct"


----------



## graudeejs (Feb 15, 2011)

phoenix said:
			
		

> FreeBSD kernel is FreeBSD kernel is FreeBSD kernel.  Meaning that the drivers are the same regardless of what you put on top.  Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is not going to magically add new drivers, since it's still the same FreeBSD kernel as we (normal FreeBSD users) use.



Never say never


----------



## oliverh (Feb 15, 2011)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> Never say never



True, but apparently you don't know Debian. They have a plethora of projects, many people eager to talk all day long, but the have got a marginal output of real useful stuff. Apart from that, the Linux kernel is GPL, the FreeBSD kernel is BSDL. You cannot change the license from a GPL driver to BSDL, so they have to change the FreeBSD kernel to GPL. The latter is possible, but then it would be impossible to port it back. It's that easy ...


----------



## tingo (Feb 15, 2011)

kpedersen said:
			
		

> I believe Debian's GNU/kFreeBSD to be detrimental to the FreeBSD project because instead of bright people working solely on FreeBSD, their hard work is now going to be spread between the two projects.



This is only valid if you assume that developer resources (people) are leaving FreeBSD for Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. I haven't heard anyone doing that.

As for the result of the hard work done by FreeBSD and the other BSD's (and in fact, any project with a license as liberal as the BSD license) - anyone can take that work do make something else of it (and this happens all the time). Still, in several decades this hasn't killed any of those projects.



> You can see this happening in linux and one of the most beneficial points of FreeBSD is everything is developed in one place (one tree).



I disagree - diversity is good for any open source project.
Your assumption seems to be that if FreeBSD was the only open source OS project, everybody would work on that project. It doesn't work that way - people's motivations are as diverse as people themselves.


----------



## wblock@ (Feb 16, 2011)

oliverh said:
			
		

> True, but apparently you don't know Debian. They have a plethora of projects, many people eager to talk all day long, but the have got a marginal output of real useful stuff. Apart from that, the Linux kernel is GPL, the FreeBSD kernel is BSDL. You cannot change the license from a GPL driver to BSDL, so they have to change the FreeBSD kernel to GPL. The latter is possible, but then it would be impossible to port it back. It's that easy ...



The license holder is the only one who can change the license; BSDL is not public domain.  But that's not really a problem for device drivers unless they are a part of the kernel.  There are some drivers in ports that are GPL, and the user agrees to that license by installing them.

So if Debian GPL drivers are ported to run with a FreeBSD kernel, they can still be used, just not included under a BSDL.


----------



## Pushrod (Feb 16, 2011)

tingo said:
			
		

> I disagree - diversity is good for any open source project.



I dis-disagree. "Diversity" is a flawed concept that hurts projects. It is often better to have one way of doing things that is 90% effective than to have 6 months of fighting over which of two or more methods that are 95% effective, while getting nothing accomplished in that time.

FreeBSD is a classic example. There is one implementation, everyone knows what to expect, and a great deal of success is seen from it.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Feb 16, 2011)

This is basically the "Chaos versus Order" dichotomy.


----------



## oliverh (Feb 18, 2011)

wblock said:
			
		

> The license holder is the only one who can change the license; BSDL is not public domain.  But that's not really a problem for device drivers unless they are a part of the kernel.  There are some drivers in ports that are GPL, and the user agrees to that license by installing them.
> 
> So if Debian GPL drivers are ported to run with a FreeBSD kernel, they can still be used, just not included under a BSDL.



Yes I know, I didn't mean "change of license" but any changes to the BSDL kernel under the GPL are lost vice versa. So how do you want to use a GPL licensed driver in FreeBSD (aka FreeBSD OS) without violating the GPL? It's lost, they can use it, they can change it. Yes they cannot change the BSDL, but they can do whatever they want with it while mentioning the source and leaving the BSDL text intact. It's a one-way root of development.


----------



## expl (Feb 18, 2011)

oliverh said:
			
		

> Yes I know, I didn't mean "change of license" but any changes to the BSDL kernel under the GPL are lost vice versa. So how do you want to use a GPL licensed driver in FreeBSD (aka FreeBSD OS) without violating the GPL? It's lost, they can use it, they can change it. Yes they cannot change the BSDL, but they can do whatever they want with it while mentioning the source and leaving the BSDL text intact. It's a one-way root of development.



You can use ports to import stuff that can not be destributed with the system, kernel modules as well.


----------



## oliverh (Feb 18, 2011)

>You can use ports to import stuff that can not be destributed with the system, kernel modules as well.

Yes it's possible, you can even use the Linuxulator to run some Linux software, you can even shoot some bullet into your toe, almost anything is possible. But alas, we're talking of _Debian_ and a port? Somebody has to maintain such a port and that's a hard task to stay compatible to kernel changes. FreeBSD has got a plethora of construction sites, like Xorg, etc.pp. I don't want to blow your dreams, but e.g. Debian is known for lots of talk and less action in the last years. Cutting out a kernel and attaching a GNU userland to it is trivial compared to kernel hacking. In my opinion it's defective by design.


----------



## davidgurvich (Feb 18, 2011)

I think it's useful having such different versions of the userland.  If there is a large advantage to the debian variant then that points to an area where FreeBSD can improve.


----------



## oliverh (Feb 19, 2011)

davidgurvich said:
			
		

> I think it's useful having such different versions of the userland.  If there is a large advantage to the debian variant then that points to an area where FreeBSD can improve.



I don't see any advantage in Debian over FreeBSD. I'm using Debian since about 10 years at work (server), I would be happy to get rid of it. Usually we're trying to get rid of the last reminders of GNU in BSD, because of the license and because of the lousy quality.

By the way, guess why Google's Android is using the majority of BSD-userland, mksh as shell or libc from OpenBSD/NetBSD? Because of quality.


----------



## sossego (Feb 19, 2011)

Stupidity seems to run rampant with computer geeks. In the event you are wondering, being stupid means remaining voluntarily ignorant. The licensing used for the Android system has nothing to do with anyone's ideology; it's a business decision. Few, if any, corporations choose software and hardware on the basis of political ideology; it's a decision motivated by the profit margin. When the company begins to falter, it may return to using different licensing, software, and hardware; this is because they are there to save their own collective arses. 
People create software projects according to their desires, not yours. Those which have the knowledge of such will choose the license they want. If there is a problem, let them deal with it. 
Have you noticed that most developers will not come on to forums and only answer mailing list replies in a direct fashion? Maybe this is due to them knowing that someone will bring up politics. 
For every operating system I use, the development and evolution interests me much more than licensing. It's great that the source code is available. When such isn't available, I'll hack it. It is my equipment for my use and I am not selling anything to anyone.

Now all of you silly little children can go back to sticking your tongues out at one another.


----------



## Zare (Feb 19, 2011)

Most of you are asking the wrong question. It's not why FreeBSD needs Debian, it's other way around.
As you can see on their wiki, there a lot of sane reasons to prefer Debian/BSD over Debian/Linux, but reasons to prefer Debian/BSD over FreeBSD are purely subjective - if you like apt more than ports/packages, if you prefer GNU version of UNIX userland tools over BSD ones, if you want your system to be blob-free, etc.

I can clearly see why Debian folks want this project - FreeBSD kernel has distinct advantages over Linux and that's nicely listed, ZFS, devfs, overall lighter and cleaner kernel, no initrd bullshit, OSS, etc...my former company had a lot of solutions developed around Debian Linux, and there were some problems regarding the kernel, backward compatibility etc. I never managed to push something on FreeBSD because other guys were strict Linux guys; however they don't care for the kernel itself, they want to use familiar userland with familiar hierarchy. This project, when it gets to release phase, could replace Debian Linux installations.

So, Debian administrators that want superior storage mechanisms or any other advantage that FreeBSD provides over Linux on kernel level would simply switch to this distribution.

This project won't affect FreeBSD itself, it's not a competition to FreeBSD or a way to get FreeBSD with easy tools. It's simply an option for Debian users. On the other hand, we get more eyes and hands on FreeBSD kernel tree, and something could be backported in future.

To conclude, i don't see any reason to dislike this project, be it from angle of Debian/Linux or FreeBSD user. However, the name is quite muddy, and without investigating further, one doesn't know what he gets from the name itself. A lot of people think they will automatically get Linux drivers on FreeBSD. Biggest computer magazine in Croatia had a small article on their website about "Linux getting ZFS support". Of course, that confusion came from incompetent article writer that didn't investigate what Debian/kFreeBSD really was. Naturally i wrote some comments there, in really harsh tone, but it will steer out the confusion and misinformation about "Linux getting ZFS".


----------



## oliverh (Feb 19, 2011)

@sossego

>The licensing used for the Android system has nothing to do with anyone's ideology; it's a business decision. Few, if any, corporations choose software and hardware on the basis of political ideology

What the heck you're talking of? I'm not talking of ideology, I'm talking of technology. Yes I'm confident in FreeBSD and e.g. OpenBSD and guess what I even like Slackware. I don't like Debian because of technical merits - I don't hate it, if this is your opinion. Is this so hard to understand in a _FreeBSD_ forum? I don't have a problem to talk about other operating systems, but it's the wrong place to question the opinion of FreeBSD users about their operating system of choice!

>Stupidity seems to run rampant with computer geeks.

Just get lost and think about your manners.


----------



## oliverh (Feb 19, 2011)

>I can clearly see why Debian folks want this project - FreeBSD kernel has distinct advantages over Linux and that's nicely listed, ZFS, devfs, overall lighter and cleaner kernel,

@zare

This is surely a valid point of view, but another is just flexibility. They're also eager to get Hurd to run: http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/ or long time ago they had some interest in NetBSD: http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/ and so on. They like to tinker with technology and there is nothing wrong with it. But they lost their focus on most projects during the years. That's my point of view and that's the reason why I don't see much in this project.


----------



## sossego (Feb 19, 2011)

oliverh said:
			
		

> What the heck you're talking of?





			
				oliverh said:
			
		

> By the way, guess why Google's Android is using the majority of BSD-userland, mksh as shell or libc from OpenBSD/NetBSD? Because of quality.



No. It is because of a business decision. It's because of the bottom line. Google is a corporation. The purpose of corporations is to make a profit. 
As like other companies, having a closed product gives them an advantage in the marketplace.



			
				oliverh said:
			
		

> Just get lost and think about your manners.


Being in a FreeBSD forum does not excuse you from researching. If what Debian does or what your company uses bothers you, then change it. Complaining about it here won't change anything. All that your comment tells me is that you don't want to look at every reason for a businesses decision.  


Criticism works both ways.  Learn to take it.


----------



## Zare (Feb 19, 2011)

@oliverh,



> This is surely a valid point of view, but another is just flexibility. They're also eager to get Hurd to run: http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/ or long time ago they had some interest in NetBSD: http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/ and so on. They like to tinker with technology and there is nothing wrong with it. But they lost their focus on most projects during the years. That's my point of view and that's the reason why I don't see much in this project.



Of course, Debian considers itself a complete operating system. Or operating environment, if i may. I'm aware of all their projects. Hurd version lost focus because Hurd lost focus. That kernel will never get out of alpha phase. Regarding NetBSD port, IMHO the biggest decision factor behind Debian/kFreeBSD is ZFS. devfs is an advantage too. Both of those are unavailable on NetBSD.

I can't predict what will happen to this project, so your opinion is fully valid, seeing that Debian's ports outside Debian/Linux are not doing good. However i'm leaving benefit of a doubt, mostly because of ZFS. 



> No. It is because of a business decision. It's because of the bottom line. Google is a corporation. The purpose of corporations is to make a profit.
> As like other companies, having a closed product gives them an advantage in the marketplace.



I don't see how closing down BSD licensed stuff such as main C library and shell would make a significant impact on profit. After all, there's no proof that Google did substantial modifications to those programs.

Android is nothing out of the ordinary; more or less standard Linux system with dalvik virtual machine. There's no need for Google to close down open sourced components.


----------



## sossego (Feb 19, 2011)

Zare said:
			
		

> I don't see how closing down BSD licensed stuff such as main C library and shell would make a significant impact on profit. After all, there's no proof that Google did substantial modifications to those programs.
> 
> Android is nothing out of the ordinary; more or less standard Linux system with dalvik virtual machine. There's no need for Google to close down open sourced components.




Point taken.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Feb 20, 2011)

Well, that was fun.

Anyway, we're not going to address any Debian GNU/kFreeBSD issues or problems on the FreeBSD Forums (see the Sticky), so we might as well stop bickering here about what it means to whom under which circumstances under which license or business model. There are certainly more interesting developments within FreeBSD itself to focus our efforts and energy on.

Closed.


----------

