submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Frato@lemmy.ml to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

FSF approved distro (now Linux based soon with own FLOSS-BSD-kernel)

Do you want to participate? (esp. BSD-kernel-dev would be very welcome 😁)

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Presi300@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Linux libre distros have always been interesting to me, I just can't use them because while I like FOSS as much as the next guy, I also enjoy doing stuff like playing games and listening to music (on Spotify) or... Yk using all my hardware.

Also, why would they switch to a BSD-based kernel? Seems like a step backwards to be going from a kernel with bad hardware support (Linux-libre) to a kernel with even worse hardware support (anything based on BSD).

[-] Frato@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think it is a very good thing to have TWO options when choosing a FSF conform distro. Yes, for a laptop linux may be the more versatile option (for now...) but on a server a BSD-distro will be pure gold.

p.s. i have no problems using bsd on a laptop right now - it's a very clean and well made system and the hardware support is sufficient.

[-] Presi300@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't get why some people say that bsd is better for servers, it achieves the same thing as Linux, it's just less supported and requires more setup, at least on my eyes

[-] Frato@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

BSD based systems (with the according userland) have a very clean and more minimalistic code base. In the last years Gnu/Linux systems drifted away from the ideals of the unix-style (e.g. systemd...). For an end-user-system this may be ok, but the general design of the bsd-systems is better imho.

[-] Presi300@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But you can use gnu/Linux without systemd, or hell, even without the gnu, Linux is just a kernel and has never been a unix philosophy following kernel, and neither is BSD afaik, they are both monolithic kernels. Not to mention that most currently existing BSD operating systems don't use old-school init scripts anyways, they either use openrc or are MacOS and use the literal predecessor of systemd...

[-] Frato@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That is true. There are linux distros around with musl/busybox (alpine) and some distros without systemd. But i would really appreciate a fsf-conform distro with a fsf-conform BSD-kernel and the bsd userland - it's just a nice addition to the existing oss-os world. It is not about "this OR that" - why not have both?

p.s. both runit and openrc are close enough to the unix philosophy

p.s.s. yes, macos derived from openBSD and is using a sytemd-like init, but - as said - macos mainly targets end-user system... it's o'right for that - i think power users prefer os-designs closer to the unix philosophy.

[-] Presi300@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I don't wanna sound like I'm hating on BSD, I'm not, I just don't see the point of parabola splitting their development efforts to develop another niche BSD-based operating system, instead of focusing on parabola gnu/Linux or hell, even contributing to pre-existing BSD-based projects like freebsd or openbsd

[-] Frato@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

nevermind, parabola is a great distro (with openrc version), but hyperbola will not draw dev-power from pb, because it will be a completly own breed. Yes the existing BSD's are great, but none of them are fsf conform.

The effort of the hb-bsd will produce OSS that can synergize with all the projects you named.