How it fits BSD?

aponomarenko

aponomarenko

Choosing hardware for BSD?

I just implemented a new feature of the BSD hardware database that allows you to check desired computer models for BSD compatibility. You need to find the computer model you are interested in in the Linux hardware database first (it's large enough) and then follow new How it fits BSD? button at the bottom of the page. You'll get a list of devices on board and support statuses:

TestedWe have a BSD probe of this device and driver was found and active
SupportedWe have found driver implementation for the device in the kernel
Likely not supportedWe have NOT found driver implementation for the device in the kernel
Not supportedWe have a BSD probe of this device and driver was NOT found by the kernel
Need to testWe have no info on the device

See example for DELL E6320 computer model on this page. See example for RTL8188CE device on this page.

Search for drivers is performed using this list of supported device IDs generated for the FreeBSD kernel, kms-drm, drm-legacy and Nvidia proprietary drivers.

If you did not find the right computer model, then try again in the morning — 200-300 new computers are added to the database daily.
 
Last edited:
SirDice said:
It's not, the FreeBSD OS is considered a single entity, not a collection of individual, self-contained, components.

No, they are derivatives.
Click to expand...
I do not agree on this. It's a matter of definition, though. If you bundle FreeBSD w/ a set of sw components e.g. *NAS web interface, I'd call that a distribution as per the definition given on wiktionary. I understand a derivative as beeing e.g. HardenedBSD, for they change relevant parts of the kernel. The sw they add is only two tools AFAIK, so I'd not call that a distribution. A distribution does not do that to that extend, but bundles a set of sw and usually comes pre-configured for a special use-case.
 
mjollnir said:
If you bundle FreeBSD w/ a set of sw components e.g. *NAS web interface, I'd call that a distribution as per the definition given on wiktionary.
Click to expand...
I would call that a configuration or packaging. Adding software to a working operating system does not change the underlying operating system in the case of FreeBSD. It does not change how FreeBSD works.

In Linux case, there is no operating system until one pieces together everything needed to create one which is typically given a name for "distribution". Once that is done, then one can use the rightly called "package manager" to create a configuration or package based on an operating system. You can then add a *NAS web interface to Linux in the same way but that won't make the original Linux distribution another, different distribution.
 
An OS kernel is a piece of software. The userland is a set of sw components, as well as a web server and it's middleware & backend. Applying the definition: "A distribution is a set of bundled software components", then e.g. the *NAS are distributions, as well as the desktop distros, since they bundle FreeBSD & GUI, and the commercial variants like JunOS. It's just that in the BSD universe, this definition is not commonly accepted, or more precisely, the use of this term is not commonly applied to FreeBSD distros. This reminds me on the historical use of the term slice in the BSD world for what was commonly known as partition, while a slice was commonly used in the realm of RAID. You are refusing to apply the term distribution, to emphasize that another kernel comes naked and needs to be bundled w/ userland to make up an OS, while FreeBSD is a complete OS. Ok. But that does not invalidate the definition given above, right? The Linux folks do not define the term distribution... you can use it w/o any risk, trust me, it does not do any harm ;)
 
I disagree. The BSDs I'm familiar with provide at least a carefully integrated set of three key components: A kernel, C library, and toolchain. There's only one Linux kernel, but there are several options for the other two, and the permutations of these key components can yield radically different results.

Additionally, it is customary and common for particular Linux distributions to patch all three components. This has advantages and disadvantages*.

To me, the word "distribution" implies that custom integration and patching. I do not believe that applies to the BSDs.

* "Because Linux distribution compilers tend to use lots of patches. coreboot does lots of "unusual" things in its build system, some of which break due to those patches, sometimes by gcc aborting, sometimes - and that's worse - by generating broken object code. Two options: use our toolchain (eg. make crosstools-i386) or enable the ANY_TOOLCHAIN Kconfig option if you're feeling lucky (no support in this case)."
 
I don't understand why some people are so rigid on "ports are not FreeBSD". The sole purpose of an OS is to allow the execution of applications. Applications are what people need to get their work done, an OS is a just way of achieving flexibility and cost-efficiency by providing abstractions to application developers and resource sharing to applications. If Windows applications could run on FreeBSD, there would be no need for ports. Ports are the only reason for the base OS to exist.

OS developers can consider them as distinct on a purely technical point of view, but it makes no sense to separate them from the user's perspective. Users are what makes the efforts of developers meaningful, and my impression is that this is often overlooked.
 
The REAL problem is that "distro" is a Linux term referring to their multitude of mish-mash variations of the same thing. No one EVER called ANYTHING else a "distro" before this. The BSDs have a bad enough time when so many Linux weanies think BSD is just another Linux so minimizing Linux terms and names about FreeBSD should be the LEAST we can do to remain unique.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
The REAL problem is that "distro" is a Linux term referring to their multitude of mish-mash variations of the same thing. No one EVER called ANYTHING else a "distro" before this. The BSDs have a bad enough time when so many Linux weanies think BSD is just another Linux so minimizing Linux terms and names about FreeBSD should be the LEAST we can do to remain unique.
Click to expand...
Now we get to the point. Distribution is not a Linux term. Look it up in any dictionary:
Code: 
distribution
n. 1. A software source tree packaged for distribution; but see kit.
Since about 1996 unqualified use of this term often implies ?Linux distribution?.
The short form distro is often used for this sense. [...]
Besides that, it's a very old word with various applications in statistics, economics, etc.pp. So IMHO it's justified to avoid to use distro because it commonly refers to Linux distributions, but it's false fear to avoid to use distribution which already has a meaning applied to bundled software.
Jose said:
I disagree. The BSDs I'm familiar with provide at least a carefully integrated set of three key components: A kernel, C library, and toolchain. There's only one Linux kernel, but there are several options for the other two, and the permutations of these key components can yield radically different results.
Click to expand...
At least PC-BSD/TrueOS applied patches to the kernel & base system. I'd guess the commercial FreeBSD distributions (e.g. JunOS) do as well. You let the Linux folks define the term distribution. IMHO that's totally unjustified. The term get's it's meaning in the realm of software from by applying common sense and carrying over it's meaning in other realms. See my previous post.
 
For me disto always was an abbreviation for distribution. I'll try to change that to avoid confusion. Thx for this interesting discussion on a topic that went kind of philosophical (evolution of natural language).
 
mjollnir said:
Your understanding of the term distribution does not match common agreements. In fact, Ghost/Midnight/FuryBSD, XigmaNAS et. al. are FreeBSD distributions: (software) A set of bundled software components; distro.
.
Click to expand...
No, they're derivations. A word is often 'hijacked' and can never be used again for it's original definition. For example, gay. It meant something totally different 40 years ago. Likewise, distribution is, in software terms, associated with linux. No ifs or buts.

It should never, ever be used in terms of any *BSD. Linux is a kernel, and is useless on its own. It requires a distribution around it to make it usable. That's not applicable to any BSD.
 
20-100-2fe said:
Maybe because FreeBSD ranks #27 on Distrowatch. ;)
The dream of the FreeBSD community is that it gains more visibility, and when it does, they regret it. Tssss... ;)
Click to expand...
And an obscure Linux distribution has top billing, always. I suspect distrowatch is pay-for-rank. :eek:
 
Jose said:
I disagree. The BSDs I'm familiar with provide at least a carefully integrated set of three key components: A kernel, C library, and toolchain. There's only one Linux kernel, but there are several options for the other two, and the permutations of these key components can yield radically different results.

Additionally, it is customary and common for particular Linux distributions to patch all three components. This has advantages and disadvantages*.

To me, the word "distribution" implies that custom integration and patching. I do not believe that applies to the BSDs.

* "Because Linux distribution compilers tend to use lots of patches. coreboot does lots of "unusual" things in its build system, some of which break due to those patches, sometimes by gcc aborting, sometimes - and that's worse - by generating broken object code. Two options: use our toolchain (eg. make crosstools-i386) or enable the ANY_TOOLCHAIN Kconfig option if you're feeling lucky (no support in this case)."
Click to expand...
Linux distributions are such a disjointed mess it took one of Linux's owners IBM/Redhat to design a wanna-be launchd/svcadm called systemd to try to align the dog's breakfast of inits, network and audio managers etc.
 
mark_j said:
No, they're derivations. A word is often 'hijacked' and can never be used again for it's original definition. For example, gay. It meant something totally different 40 years ago. Likewise, distribution is, in software terms, associated with linux. No ifs or buts.

It should never, ever be used in terms of any *BSD. Linux is a kernel, and is useless on its own. It requires a distribution around it to make it usable. That's not applicable to any BSD.
Click to expand...
Well, that's often the problem with natural language. A sender sends a message intending X, the receipient receives it and applies meaning Y. Many respected members here use the term distribution according to it's definition given in various dictionaries. Of course you are free to apply any meaning you like to any term, but obviously that will make communication difficult. You can even invent your own new language... Maybe you should start a discussion with the editors of the dictionaries?
EDIT if you let others hijack a term & redefine it's meaning, that's your decision. You are free to take another decision and use the very same term in it's genuine and widely accepted meaning.
 
mark_j said:
Linux distributions are such a disjointed mess
Click to expand...

When talking about FreeBSD here, we don't care what Linux is, what matters is FreeBSD.

Besides philosophy and linguistics, considering psychology also helps.
Posts here exhibit not only fear, as mjollnir pointed out, but also anger, a whole lot of anger.

The role of fear is to keep us safe by triggering a reaction when we feel in danger.
The role of anger is to preserve our status in our group by triggering a reaction when we feel someone lacks us respect.

Obviously, this danger and lack of respect are purely imaginary: no one in any Linux community cares about FreeBSD.
They already have the world with them, they don't need to even think about FreeBSD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top