# ArchBSD



## DutchDaemon (Jan 23, 2013)

*Arch BSD: Arch Linux Atop The FreeBSD Kernel*

Arch BSD: Arch Linux Atop The FreeBSD Kernel.


----------



## Amzo (Jan 24, 2013)

Well, since I setup my website yesterday I got a bit of publicity about my project.. However I thought I would take the time to clear up some things.

What is ArchBSD:
ArchBSD is a project I started to use the Arch Linux package manager and tools for a rolling release FreeBSD distro; Too keep it update as the port tree and in some cases even more up to date than what is available in the port tree.

What makes ArchBSD different:
ArchBSD uses the pacman package manager, which builds packages using the FreeBSD port tree ( Ease of use )

It also uses a new init system which is openrc (BSDL license) which aims to keep GPL stuff out of the base to keep enthusiast happy. Packages are optimised for x86_64 and i686 respectively to give the best speed possible for binary packages on those architectures. All packages (As well as base GPL coded stuff) are prefixed to /usr/local to avoid tainting base. Base will be GPL free as of release of FreeBSD 10. PKGBUILDS use FreeBSD ports in a jail which can override system variables and make it easy to packages and configure software for ArchBSD.

Progress of ArchBSD:

While things got out before I could finish the project, the website is far from completion and a very limited package set as of now. Though, if you're interested in the project, you can join in the discussion at:

irc.archbsd.net

#archbsd

Conclusion:
Some people may not agree with my project, but rather, this was a personal project which I started to respond to issues I currently had with FreeBSD. It kinda got out though, so, if you like the Arch philosophy and the rolling release distros; You may enjoy ArchBSD.


----------



## SirDice (Jan 24, 2013)

In case we get questions regarding ArchBSD:

[thread=7290]Topics about PC-BSD | FreeNAS | NAS4Free | m0N0WALL | pfSense | kFreeBSD | *ArchBSD*[/thread]


----------



## Amzo (Jan 24, 2013)

There was some confusion regarding it, it isn't based on GNU userland, and the base is a perfect FreeBSD system untouched.

Minus the OpenRc in base which is BSDL ever other GPL product is prefixed to /usr/local/ as not to taint base.


----------



## SirDice (Jan 24, 2013)

Doesn't matter much, support questions should be asked on your forums, not ours


----------



## Amzo (Jan 24, 2013)

SirDice said:
			
		

> Doesn't matter much, support questions should be asked on your forums, not ours



I agree, I was just pointing out a few issues that was mismatched in Dutch Daemons posts, that's all.


----------



## SirDice (Jan 24, 2013)

I'll see if I can change the text. Do you have any other links we could mention?


----------



## Amzo (Jan 24, 2013)

SirDice said:
			
		

> I'll see if I can change the text. Do you have any other links we could mention?



unfortunately no, things got out before I could finish things, but this can't be helped.. Just rumors are saying it's GNU userland which isn't true; It is infact a pure FreeBSD base.


----------



## wblock@ (Jan 24, 2013)

Why no link?


----------



## graudeejs (Jan 24, 2013)

Amzo said:
			
		

> unfortunately no, things got out before I could finish things, but this can't be helped.. Just rumors are saying it's GNU userland which isn't true; It is infact a pure FreeBSD base.



Maybe that's a good thing... some people might try BSD and find to like it without realizing it.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Jan 24, 2013)

I am assuming, Amzo, that you guys will take care of proper developer and community support for this?


----------



## wblock@ (Jan 24, 2013)

Ah, Phoronix.  Boldly going where the facts aren't.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Jan 24, 2013)

SirDice said:
			
		

> I'll see if I can change the text. Do you have any other links we could mention?



Rewritten.


----------



## alie (Jan 25, 2013)

http://starchlinux.org/

Arch with OpenBSD kernel hahaha


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Jan 25, 2013)

Does this include an installer? The ArchLinux concept of an installer seems to be a brief README file.


----------



## dR3b (Jan 25, 2013)

alie said:
			
		

> http://starchlinux.org/
> Arch with OpenBSD kernel hahaha



Hello, 

Starch Linux is basically OpenBSD atop the Linux kernel where as Arch BSD is Arch atop the FreeBSD kernel.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI4MzI


----------



## wblock@ (Jan 25, 2013)

dR3b said:
			
		

> ... where as Arch BSD is Arch atop the FreeBSD kernel.



That turns out not to be the case.  It is FreeBSD using pacman atop the FreeBSD kernel.


----------



## vermaden (Jan 25, 2013)

FedoraBSD?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FreeBSD_kernel_integration


----------



## break19 (Jan 25, 2013)

Hmmm, seems like now that all the major Linux distros have screwed up Linux, they all want to try and screw up FreeBSD


----------



## sossego (Jan 25, 2013)

There is a distribution called Fuduntu- Fedora plus Ubuntu- so, .....
FuduntuBSD.


----------



## Amzo (Jan 26, 2013)

But those projects do bring attention back to FreeBSD.


----------



## Amzo (Jan 26, 2013)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> Does this include an installer? The ArchLinux concept of an installer seems to be a brief README file.



I use the same method, which is pacstrap, but in time, I hope to get around to porting their old installer and updating it.

It's a command line install, on UFS, zfs partitions, setup manually from the liveCD.


----------



## sossego (Jan 26, 2013)

I'll give you credit for being persistent.

You could always try making a liveCD iso that has an optional installer.


----------



## bsduser35325 (Jan 26, 2013)

I don't qualify to criticize people's work , but it seems like the Linux people are making more duct tape versions of frankenstein.


----------



## sossego (Jan 26, 2013)

Frankenstein was the doctor/creator not the monster/creature.
Right now, there is no standard/definitive Linux kernel + userland. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. 
A package manager is just that, it manages packages. I'd rather that a ports/Makefile system be a standard option for all systems but that's me.


----------



## supercobrajet (Jan 31, 2013)

archbsd.net

ArchBSD = FreeBSD + Userland (pure FreeBSD) + (openrc)init's, + Arch's "pacman", ...

http://bbs.archbsd.net/viewtopic.php?pid=37#p37

(I volunteered to ask the below - and not archbsd):

There's a list of todo's over at archbsd, if anyone would like to help them out a bit, and got some spare time, or if you know someone who'd like to help?, with anything, then that'd be great, in any way.

Thanks.
smile

(if this is the wrong forum thread, sry, can you please move it to one the mods/admins here feel is more appropriate.)

Thx-again.

Rick.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Jan 31, 2013)

supercobrajet said:
			
		

> (if this is the wrong forum thread, sry, can you please move it to one the mods/admins here feel is more appropriate.)



It would have taken _one_ search ..


----------



## kpedersen (Jan 31, 2013)

Unlike Linux, FreeBSD already is a complete operating system so doesn't need all these strange distros.

I predict that these BSD "distros" will do little more than attract users to the main operating system (FreeBSD) which can only be a good thing for popularity of FreeBSD (Though not necessarily a good thing for the quality of the community ).


----------



## Amzo (Feb 1, 2013)

That is the idea. 

I addressed some of the issues people have with FreeBSD.

They would complain about:

1: Out of date binary packages

2:Compiling taking to long (Low end machines)

3: Slow booting.

See, with ArchBSD, the binaries are always the latest version, (Also can be source base using ABS [Arch Build System].

One ISO will always install the latest version available, without having to constantly push out new ISOs.

Support for UFS and ZFS installs.

The packages are as up to date, and in some cases even more updated than the ports.

It's extremely quick to boot, getting from the beastie menu to X in 15 seconds in a virtual machine.

I mean, it's not for everyone, it was just a pet project to address somethings I didn't agree with.


----------



## vermaden (Feb 1, 2013)

@*Amzo*

I would add ZFS only root install and ZFS _Boot Environments_ with sysutils/beadm as next goals for ArchBSD.


----------



## Amzo (Feb 11, 2013)

I'll look into it when I get arround to making the next iso, which will be soon as looking for testers for xorg 1.13 and mesa 9.0

It works fine with vesa in a virtual machine, but needs more thorough testing.


----------



## jwele (Feb 11, 2013)

I have personally been following ArchBSD updates since I saw Amzo or someone with the same name, talk about the project in the ArchLinux forums. I hail the idea, I think it is great and a way to make use of the BSD licenses while still keeping a vanilla FreeBSD approach. Can't wait to see the future of this project.


----------



## prp-e (Apr 24, 2013)

I'm interested in this kind of BSD variant. A mix of a major Linux distro + BSD kernel.

Archlinux is a lovely distro and ArchBSD is more lovely than Archlinux or ArchHurd. Wow!


----------



## DevilishDB (May 28, 2014)

I think this seems like a great idea, you should definitely submit it to Distrowatch! (http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=submit) I'm going to try it ASAP, it's a great idea


----------



## NewGuy (May 28, 2014)

*Re:*



			
				kpedersen said:
			
		

> Unlike Linux, FreeBSD already is a complete operating system so doesn't need all these strange distros.


If FreeBSD does not have distributions, then what would you call PC-BSD, DesktopBSD, FreeNAS, GhostBSD, etc.?


----------



## wblock@ (May 28, 2014)

Except those are not really forks.  They don't split from FreeBSD, but use it as an ongoing basis.  They are customized projects based on FreeBSD.  PC-BSD and GhostBSD could be called "desktop distributions" of FreeBSD.  FreeNAS and pfSense and such are customized projects, not really distributions.  DragonFly BSD is a fork of FreeBSD, though.


----------



## SirDice (May 28, 2014)

*Re: Re:*



			
				NewGuy said:
			
		

> kpedersen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Derivatives.


----------



## DutchDaemon (May 28, 2014)

Sorry @wblock@, I wrote that (now removed) _forks_ remark thinking of OpenBSD, NetBSD, and such. In this case, I would opt to use the term _variants_, not _distros_, since the latter so clearly reference a common kernel with separately pre-packaged userland and applications. Variants are more typically copies of the FreeBSD operating system with modifications (whether they be additions, subtractions, or installation helpers). And yes, I've also referred to them as _derivatives_ in the forum rules. Thanks for the reminder, @SirDice. Note that the *D* in FreeBSD actually stands for _distribution_, but that has an entirely different (and much more literal) history to it.


----------



## kpedersen (May 28, 2014)

*Re:*



			
				kpedersen said:
			
		

> Unlike Linux, FreeBSD already is a complete operating system so doesn't need all these strange distros.



I forgot I wrote that and reading it now it actually sounds overly harsh (so apologies @Amzo). :\

I would like to add that it still sounds like an interesting and technical project that you are working on. Besides, since I am not really a fan of PKGNG, Pacman suddenly seems close to an alternative


----------



## retrogamer (May 30, 2014)

I thought this would be the appropriate thread to mention this, but there is also a project in development to create a fully FSF compliant FreeBSD derived kernel, and an Arch derivative that uses it.   https://wiki.parabolagnulinux.org/Parab ... NuBSD-fire http://nubsd.mtjm.eu/


> NuBSD Fire will be based on FreeBSD with some documentation of other distributions.





> Parabola GNU/kNuBSD-fire is a libre software project aiming to provide a fully free as in freedom GNU distribution based on Parabola GNU/Linux-libre distribution with the kernel NuBSD-fire and packages optimized for i686, x86_64, and Loongson 2F (mips64el) CPUs. Parabola aims to keep its package and management tools simple. The primary goal is to give the user complete control over their system with 100% Libre software.


----------



## kpa (May 30, 2014)

retrogamer said:
			
		

> I thought this would be the appropriate thread to mention this, but there is also a project in development to create a fully FSF compliant FreeBSD derived kernel, and an Arch derivative that uses it.   https://wiki.parabolagnulinux.org/Parab ... NuBSD-fire http://nubsd.mtjm.eu/
> 
> 
> > NuBSD Fire will be based on FreeBSD with some documentation of other distributions.
> ...



They can't take the FreeBSD kernel and replace the license on it with something else, that would be strictly against the BSD licence because that would violate the clause that you have to acknowledge the original copyright. This means that kernel will be under a non-copyleft (non-GPL) license unless they reimplement the whole FreeBSD kernel from scratch without using the original FreeBSD sources.


----------



## SirDice (May 30, 2014)

Yes, that's what I was thinking too. But I couldn't find anything on the project's website. My goodness, what a load of unrelated information. I can't find anything.


----------



## kpa (May 30, 2014)

Why I'm bringing this up is that there have been attempts to transfer BSD licensed code in to the GPL camp just by claiming that it's ok to replace the original license on grounds that GPL gives more "freedom". This one was with pfSense:

https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=77038.0


----------



## wblock@ (May 30, 2014)

Only the owner of something can change the license on it.  But a confused look at their wiki appears to show they are concerned with removing binary firmware from the kernel and recommendations for using "non-free" software from the documentation.  I did not see anything about relicensing.


----------



## retrogamer (May 30, 2014)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> Only the owner of something can change the license on it.  But a confused look at their wiki appears to show they are concerned with removing binary firmware from the kernel and recommendations for using "non-free" software from the documentation.  I did not see anything about relicensing.


You are 100% correct, I probably should have elaborated on that before I posted.  AFAIK, this NuBSD kernel project grew out of dissatisfaction with the direction Linux was heading (moving away from traditional *nix design principles), particularly systemd.  But they are just "de-blobbing" the FreeBSD kernel, no need for a license change.  Stallman stated fairly recently in an interview: 





> Q2: What is your view on other licences, other than the GPL? Such as BSD style licences?
> 
> Richard Stallman: Well, there's no such thing as "BSD style licences". There are two different BSD licences, and they're both Free Software licences, but there's an important difference between them. If you use the term "BSD style", you are overlooking the difference. For more information, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html. It explains the issue.
> 
> However, both of those licences are Free Software licences. Both of them grant the four essential freedoms, which means they're both basically ethical.


 http://fsfe.org/freesoftware/transcript ... 09.en.html  There's also a pretty interesting (old) BSDTalk podcast where he elaborates on this:  http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2007/10/bsd ... llman.html

So there is no need to re-license anything to be "free" software in his view, it is just "less free" than the GPLv3 (but even the Linux kernel is GPLv2, something Stallman gripes about).  Just thought this was an interesting project worth mentioning since Arch BSD was being discussed anyway. I really didn't mean to go down this road, believe me I'm not wanting to start a licensing war here. I personally prefer the BSD licensing philosophy and I came over to FreeBSD from Slackware for a reason.   :beergrin


----------



## NewGuy (May 30, 2014)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> Except those are not really forks.  They don't split from FreeBSD, but use it as an ongoing basis.  They are customized projects based on FreeBSD.  PC-BSD and GhostBSD could be called "desktop distributions" of FreeBSD.  FreeNAS and pfSense and such are customized projects, not really distributions.  DragonFly BSD is a fork of FreeBSD, though.



That was exactly my point. The above poster said there are no distributions of FreeBSD, but there are lots of FreeBSD-based distributions. In fact, most of them operate in the same way Linux distributions like Mint do, extending the base operating system without diverging too far from it. Most Linux distribution are not complete forks either.


----------

