# Linuxer with interest/questions about BSD.



## Marauder (Aug 18, 2009)

I am a long time linux user(Debian) and in trying to something i've started with FreeBSD. I managed to get it up and running with little to no problems thanks to the handbook.
And now I am left with a couple of questions:
1)Is FreeBSD-Current comparable with Debian Sid?
2)Are the BSD variants(unlike linux) binary incompatible with each other(my assumption is yes, but when googling it, it usually returned results of linux compability layers in BSD, but that's not what I'm interested in)?


----------



## graudeejs (Aug 18, 2009)

1) I don't know.... FreeBSD-Current is development version of FreeBSD (bleeding edge). FreeBSD-8-Current will soon become FreeBSD-8-Stable

2) hmmm, you mean FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD? All are BSD, but each system is different (Independent), unlike linux, where everyone share same kenrel, utilities, etc.... and only have different frontends....

BSD are different at core


----------



## Marauder (Aug 18, 2009)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> 1) I don't know.... FreeBSD-Current is development version of FreeBSD (bleeding edge). FreeBSD-8-Current will soon become FreeBSD-8-Stable


I'll take this as a yes


			
				killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> 2) hmmm, you mean FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD? All are BSD, but each system is different (Independent), unlike linux, where everyone share same kenrel, utilities, etc.... and only have different frontends....
> 
> BSD are different at core


I already know they each develop their own kernel, utilities, that's why i asssume they are binary incompatibale though I am not sure about it since eg. MS-DOS and FreeDOS are binary compatible(though this was done intentionally). I'm just looking for confirmation: eg. am I correct in assuming that a NetBSD Binary will not run on FreeBSD.


----------



## graudeejs (Aug 18, 2009)

Marauder said:
			
		

> MS-DOS and FreeDOS are binary compatible(though this was done intentionally)



*Don't smoke that much weed*, MS-DOS is absolutely incompatible.... DOS apps only run under emulators, that emulate DOS, or emulate PC and you install DOS in virtual PC (or install windows etc)



			
				Marauder said:
			
		

> I'm just looking for confirmation: eg. am I correct in assuming that a NetBSD Binary will not run on FreeBSD.



BSD are posix compatible as is linux. Which means that apps can be ported from one to another. But ye, you can't run FreeBSD binaries on NetBSD etc (unless they support that)

I think on OpenBSD you could run FreeBSD binaries (not sure, I think there was "FreeBSD api emulation")

EDIT:
You won't probably even be able to run OpenSuse binaries on *buntu


----------



## vermaden (Aug 18, 2009)

Marauder said:
			
		

> I'm just looking for confirmation: eg. am I correct in assuming that a NetBSD Binary will not run on FreeBSD.



NetBSD has FreeBSD compatibility mode, so you can run FreeBSD binaries on NetBSD, bot you cant run NetBSD binaries on FreeBSD (or OpenBSD).


----------



## graudeejs (Aug 18, 2009)

anyway, why do you need that, just install NetBSD and FreeBSD...  if you want to run them both


----------



## phoenix (Aug 18, 2009)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> *Don't smoke that much weed*, MS-DOS is absolutely incompatible.... DOS apps only run under emulators, that emulate DOS, or emulate PC and you install DOS in virtual PC (or install windows etc)



 Perhaps you should put down the pipe as well. (Or share with the group.) 

The OP mentioned MS-DOS and Free*DOS*, which are both implementations of *DOS*.  Not Free*BSD*.  Hence, his original point stands.


----------



## phoenix (Aug 18, 2009)

Marauder said:
			
		

> I am a long time linux user(Debian) and in trying to something i've started with FreeBSD. I managed to get it up and running with little to no problems thanks to the handbook.
> And now I am left with a couple of questions:
> 
> 1)Is FreeBSD-Current comparable with Debian Sid?



The term -CURRENT is roughly equivalent to Debian Sid, in that it's the bleeding-edge development branch that will eventually become the next -RELEASE.  All development happens in the -CURRENT source tree, and then it eventually gets branched into the next major .0 release.



> 2)Are the BSD variants(unlike linux) binary incompatible with each other(my assumption is yes, but when googling it, it usually returned results of linux compability layers in BSD, but that's not what I'm interested in)?



Uh, where did you get the idea that Linux distros are binary compatible with each other?  Unless you are running statically compiled binaries, it's very hard to run a RHEL 5.x binary on an Ubuntu system, or a Debian 4.0 binary on an OpenSuSE system, etc.

As for the BSDs, some of them include support for running binaries from other BSDs, and some of them don't.  (No, I don't know the specifics, as I've only ever run FreeBSD, which can't run binaries from other BSDs.)

Linux distros, as with the BSDs, are *source*-compatible, meaning it is very easy to take the source code for an app, recompile it on another system, and then run it.


----------



## graudeejs (Aug 18, 2009)

Ups. shame


----------



## tkjacobsen (Aug 18, 2009)

Marauder said:
			
		

> 1)Is FreeBSD-Current comparable with Debian Sid?



One important thing to note is that FreeBSD is separated into the base system and the ports. Regarding the base system you could say that -CURRENT is equivalent to sid. But the base system only contains the kernel and userland utilities such as a shell, ssh, ls, grep, awk and so on.

Regarding the ports, they are the same for both -STABLE and -CURRENT (there is only one ports collections) unlike debian where stable, testing and unstable (sid) has different versions of packages (somehow equivalent to ports). Though, a snapshot of the packages (precompiled ports) are released with a FreeBSD release (such as 7.2-RELEASE).

So in this way FreeBSD is not entirely comparable to debian. 

The benefit (imho) of the FreeBSD way is that you can 'safely' mass-update your ports without touching your 'system', meaning that you can never really skrew up. In debian an aptitude distupgrade will also pull a new kernel and so on which potentially renders your system unbootable...


----------



## dennylin93 (Aug 19, 2009)

Another advantage FreeBSD has it that ports will still work when the base system is upgraded. Linux distros have to download new packages whenever the system is upgraded. However, it is still preferable to reinstall installed ports when there is a major upgrade.


----------



## wonslung (Aug 24, 2009)

another thing is that FreeBSD has a much faster development cycle.  Debian's cylce is VERY long, and without a real "plan"  (sometimes it's 2-3 years between versions)


----------



## vermaden (Aug 24, 2009)

@wonslung

I have heard that they have changed that (Debian devs) into something like Ubuntu (hmmm ... :>).

source: http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20090729


----------



## irkkaaja (Aug 24, 2009)

Marauder said:
			
		

> I am a long time linux user(Debian) and in trying to something i've started with FreeBSD. I managed to get it up and running with little to no problems thanks to the handbook.
> And now I am left with a couple of questions:
> 1)Is FreeBSD-Current comparable with Debian Sid?
> 2)Are the BSD variants(unlike linux) binary incompatible with each other(my assumption is yes, but when googling it, it usually returned results of linux compability layers in BSD, but that's not what I'm interested in)?


1) Sort of. -CURRENT refers to the kernel and userland. Sid refers to the packages, and uses the latest stable kernel and userland. -CURRENT uses the same ports as -STABLE, though.

2) Yeah. NetBSD has a FreeBSD compatibility layer, but there aren't many things you'd use it for.


----------

