Debian Abandons the Linux Standard Base
-
I wonder if they would switch to Devuan. The fork without systemd. Maybe that's too much work.
-
@johnhooks said:
I wonder if they would switch to Devuan. The fork without systemd. Maybe that's too much work.
If who would?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
I wonder if they would switch to Devuan. The fork without systemd. Maybe that's too much work.
If who would?
Ubuntu. Sorry, we lost internet today and I have been trying to catch up with everything. Then again, maybe they just don't care.
-
Ubuntu switching would be a pretty big deal as they are pretty much "all in" with Gnome and Gnome is intimately tied to SystemD. So that would cause a bit of a problem for them. They would have to rethink an awful lot of things to do that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Ubuntu switching would be a pretty big deal as they are pretty much "all in" with Gnome and Gnome is intimately tied to SystemD. So that would cause a bit of a problem for them. They would have to rethink an awful lot of things to do that.
Ah, I didn't think of that.
-
@Reid-Cooper said:
Mac OSX is a fork of FreeBSD.
It's most certainly not. There is more than one BSD out there.
OSX is a derivative of the original BSD. This can trace its history back to the NextSTEP which traces back to BSD. Darwin, which the kernel is called now, is completely foreign as compared to FreeBSD. And FreeBSD is younger than the Mach kernel, which Darwin is based.
All Unix derivatives lead back to AT&T but where they are now versus where they were with SystemV is completely different. The Linux kernel is nothing like BSD which is nothing like the commercial Unix released like HP-UX or AIX.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
@Reid-Cooper said:
Mac OSX is a fork of FreeBSD.
It's most certainly not. There is more than one BSD out there.
Of course, I've used them all (including Dragonfly) but FreeBSD is the main contributor to Mac OSX. While Next was out and an inspiration for Mac OSX, it was very old and outdated by the time OSX was being made and while it was used, FreeBSD was the primary contributor. Apple was very public about this circa 1999 when OSX had not released publicly yet.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
And FreeBSD is younger than the Mach kernel, which Darwin is based.
Sure, but that they put a Mach kernel onto mostly FreeBSD utilities doesn't change where that ecosystem came from. They took ideas from Next, the kernel from Carnegie Melon and mostly the FreeBSD OS to put together Darwin. FreeBSD is widely recognized as the core contributor to the initial releases.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
And FreeBSD is younger than the Mach kernel, which Darwin is based.
Sure, but that they put a Mach kernel onto mostly FreeBSD utilities doesn't change where that ecosystem came from. They took ideas from Next, the kernel from Carnegie Melon and mostly the FreeBSD OS to put together Darwin. FreeBSD is widely recognized as the core contributor to the initial releases.
But FreeBSD came out AFTER 4.1BSD, which is where the great schism started. Next started their work on Mach/Darwin a few years before FreeBSD came about. There is plenty borrowed from FreeBSD but it's still running kernels that are nothing like FreeBSD.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
But FreeBSD came out AFTER 4.1BSD, which is where the great schism started. Next started their work on Mach/Darwin a few years before FreeBSD came about. There is plenty borrowed from FreeBSD but it's still running kernels that are nothing like FreeBSD.
Yes, the ported the Mach kernel to the FreeBSD ecosystem. But the bulk of the code is from FreeBSD, not from Next/Mach. The OSX project started long after both FreeBSD and Next were established. That Next was older isn't really a big deal. OSX was much later. At the time, around 1999, they made a big deal that it was mostly FreeBSD with the Mach kernel swapped out for the old kernel.
Not totally unlike the Dragonfly project. Based on FreeBSD but taking the kernel in a different direction.
