FreeBSD "distributions"

M

mark_j

At the risk of starting a flame war, what is it about the use of this term that just seems oh so wrong?

Oh, apart from the obvious that it is tightly associated with Linux and GNU?

Is this a deliberate ploy by the FreeBSD foundation or are they just ignorant to the prevailing view of Distributions == Linux?

I'm picking it's a little bit of both. The former is dangerous and the latter is stupid.

www.freebsd.org

Get FreeBSD

FreeBSD is an operating system used to power modern servers, desktops, and embedded platforms.
www.freebsd.org www.freebsd.org
: Title "FreeBSD-derived Operating System Distributions".

Journal | FreeBSD Foundation

The voice of the FreeBSD Community and the BEST way to keep up with the latest releases and new developments in FreeBSD is Free. Yes, Free! Don't miss a single issue! 2025 Editorial Calendar Downstreams (January/February/March) Networking (April/May/June) Contributing/Workflow...
freebsdfoundation.org freebsdfoundation.org

Edit: May contain peanuts.
 
mark_j said:
what is it about the use of this term that just seems oh so wrong?
Click to expand...
Stolen from https://eerielinux.wordpress.com/2016/08/20/how-to-choose-your-bsd-os-to-begin-with/

"One of the most important differences between the Linux world and the BSD one is that there are no “BSD distributions”. Sure, you will find some people use that term on the net but it’s most likely wrong. Most likely? Yes, because there arguably are BSD distributions… But that’s a very special case. You definitely know Debian and you probably know Gentoo. These are two Linux distros, right? Sure – but they could also be called “BSD distributions”. Why? Because there’s not only Debian GNU/Linux. The Debian project also offers Debian GNU/Hurd. And there’s Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, too! The latter is a typical Debian distribution (GNU userland) running on top of the FreeBSD kernel. For Gentoo it’s the same story. That’s where there’s something that you may call a “BSD distribution”. But that’s a rather Linuxy point of view!

While Linux is just a kernel and it is the distributions that create a full operating system by combining it with a userland (usually GNU), all BSDs follow a “whole system“ approach. There’s no such thing as “the BSD kernel”. Each BSD has its own. Fedora and Arch Linux may use different versions and configure their kernels differently, but it’s the same Linux kernel from the same sources that they use. The FreeBSD kernel and the OpenBSD kernel for example are entirely different kernels (even though they share common ancestry). It’s due to this “whole system” approach that calling e.g. NetBSD a “distribution” is plain wrong (and for the same reason BSD people will probably call the idea of a “BSD distribution” an absurdity in the first place)."
 
In the process of developing, you have to maintain a level of cultural orthodoxy, to protect yours from competitors, whom have access to more resources. Personally I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
 
Yes, it is the way it is, but that doesn't, surely, mean it has to stay that way?

I've watched the Deb Godkin address at Linux conference in Aus (poorly advertised I might add!!) where I think there's a genuine push to "be more like Linux". That may be good, it may be bad.

The headline in the FreeBSD journal makes it seem like FreeBSD is not for the desktop, that it's up to the "distributions" to make it so. Phooey.
 
Yes, of course.
It actually renders the term "FreeBSD Distribution" as "Free Berkeley Software Distribution Distribution"... :eek:
 
mark_j said:
At the risk of starting a flame war, what is it about the use of this term that just seems oh so wrong?
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with it. Native FreeBSD is itself a distribution, as well as the derived distributions. Quote from wiktionary: distribution: "(software) A set of bundled software components; distro".
Oh, apart from the obvious that it is tightly associated with Linux and GNU?
Click to expand...
Only to people deliberately ignoring the meaning of the term.
Is this a deliberate ploy by the FreeBSD foundation or are they just ignorant to the prevailing view of Distributions == Linux?
Click to expand...
Neither. See above.
I'm picking it's a little bit of both. The former is dangerous and the latter is stupid.
Click to expand...
It's stupid to deliberately ignore the meaning of the term & deny it's universality. E.g. when you get a set of bundled software components from your favourite database vendor, that's a distribution by definition. When you download the KDE GUI onto your machine, that set of bundled software components is a distribution per definitionem.
www.freebsd.org

Get FreeBSD

FreeBSD is an operating system used to power modern servers, desktops, and embedded platforms.
www.freebsd.org www.freebsd.org
: Title "FreeBSD-derived Operating System Distributions".
Click to expand...
What matters more is that some derived distributions are missing in that list: e.g. XigmaNAS, OPNsense. And FuryBSD is not marked as beta-version. EDIT: And NomadBSD is missing.
 
mjollnir said:
It's stupid to deliberately ignore the meaning of the term & deny it's universality. E.g. when you get a set of bundled software components from your favourite database vendor, that's a distribution by definition. When you download the KDE GUI onto your machine, that set of bundled software components is a distribution per definitionem.
Click to expand...
You're correct but frakswe accidentally made a good point: No one says "Window 7 distribution" despite it consists of bundled software components. And BSDs are a "all-in-one solution" after all (kernel + userland).

Argentum said:
I have to remind you that BSD is an acronym of 'Berkeley Software Distribution'.
Click to expand...
Damn, those weed smoking hippies were smart! ?
 
20-100-2fe said:
rigidity prevents adaptation, which is required to survive.
Click to expand...
Don't confuse rigidity with compliance. Forced compliance or willing compliance to a term used by Linux that describes something different is weakness.
Argentum said:
I have to remind you that BSD is an acronym of 'Berkeley Software Distribution'.
Click to expand...
And I need to remind you that the distribution was ATT's copy of UNIX given to Berkley and not the confused variations spit about by Linux individuals. It was one of many copies given around but limited to few.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
mjollnir You may be onto something. Or on something. Not sure which.
Click to expand...
No, I just decided to be cheerful & humourous, because it's healthy. I have two principles:
  • Kein Bier vor vier
    en: No beer before four (o'clock)
    Doesn't mean I open a beer at 4 pm every day, though
  • Auf See & auf Arbeit wird nicht gesoffen
    en (by analogy): No drugs on sea (or any other traffic) & at work
 
mjollnir said:
It's stupid to deliberately ignore the meaning of the term & deny it's universality. E.g. when you get a set of bundled software components from your favourite database vendor, that's a distribution by definition. When you download the KDE GUI onto your machine, that set of bundled software components is a distribution per definitionem.
Click to expand...

This is at least an effort to explain why "distribution" is objectionable from a technical standpoint. I tend to think of distribution in a more generic sense such as "variant", but I do see your point that it has a specific meaning in some contexts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top