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.Is it possible to use the FreeBSD base with the Linux kernel?
Why would someone want to do that? What's wrong with the FreeBSD kernel?Is it possible to use the FreeBSD base with the Linux kernel? If so, has anybody done it before?
You could, in return, start to figure out/brainstorm/research a list of tasks, pitfalls, notes & links for transforming the FreeBSD kernel toThank you for your time.
I'm not aware of any kind of "sets". FreeBSD uses meta-packages as well.
You're not alone there; I for one agree with you.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).
Each one of these is a distribution set. Nothing to do with packages.
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).
Then this Arch comparison is pretty pointless
Aren't we are going into the packaged base direction? And, again, you'll probably have to fork X11 if you want consistent experience.
Maybe an exception is Mac OS X (or NextStep to be more precise)All the tries of kernel OS.X and userland OS.Y I have seen failing.
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.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
caused many problems for porting of Linux developed software to them.
Nowadays, Linux is the standard itself! Sadly, but true.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
The following features are not available at this time:
- graphics
- snapshots
- guest SMP support
- hardware passthrough
- live migration across hosts
- live hardware change
IGC is an MIT licence compiler. What does that have to do with Linux?We have to keep following Linux to keep relevant. Even Windows, the old king, now has to suffer from Linux's domination:
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!IGC is an MIT licence compiler. What does that have to do with Linux?
Not because of "FreeBSD didn't goose-stepped Linux". PR and marketing are alien to FreeBSD Foundation. That's the reason.All of the big servers use Linux!
It seems that before the Gentoo and Slackware systems used FreeBSD as a base system, I cannot say now.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.
vigole said:Not because of "FreeBSD didn't goose-stepped Linux". PR and marketing are alien to FreeBSD Foundation. That's the reason.
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.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.