ArchBSD

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.
 
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.)
Click to expand...

It would have taken one search ..
 
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 ;)).
 
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1: Out of date binary packages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. :p
 
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.

M6JxF7x.png
 
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.
 
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!
 
Re:

kpedersen said:
Unlike Linux, FreeBSD already is a complete operating system so doesn't need all these strange distros.
Click to expand...
If FreeBSD does not have distributions, then what would you call PC-BSD, DesktopBSD, FreeNAS, GhostBSD, etc.?
 
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.
 
Re: Re:

NewGuy said:
kpedersen said:
Unlike Linux, FreeBSD already is a complete operating system so doesn't need all these strange distros.
Click to expand...
If FreeBSD does not have distributions, then what would you call PC-BSD, DesktopBSD, FreeNAS, GhostBSD, etc?
Click to expand...
Derivatives.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re:

kpedersen said:
Unlike Linux, FreeBSD already is a complete operating system so doesn't need all these strange distros.
Click to expand...

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 ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top