From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 11 11:06:59 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3C216A4CE for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:06:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from fw.farid-hajji.net (fw.farid-hajji.net [213.146.115.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B4E43D38 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:06:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cpghost@cordula.ws) Received: from fw.farid-hajji.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fw.farid-hajji.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBBJ67o7073976; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:06:08 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from cpghost@cordula.ws) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:06:07 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <200312111906.hBBJ67o7073976@fw.farid-hajji.net> From: "Cordula's Web" To: dincht@securenym.net In-reply-to: <200312111839.hBBIdAH06137@anon.securenym.net> (dincht@securenym.net) X-Mailer: Emacs-21.3.1/FreeBSD-4.9-STABLE References: <012701c3bde4$4acf2b30$019c9752@xp> <20031209013027.GC1099@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <03da01c3be90$032636f0$019c9752@xp> <20031210011904.GB2145@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <200312111839.hBBIdAH06137@anon.securenym.net> cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org cc: stephane@laperouse.internatif.org Subject: Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?! X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: cpghost@cordula.ws List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:06:59 -0000 > > There are several operating systems, Debian, RedHat, > > Mandrake, which only have in common to use the Linux kernel. > > This is incorrect. All relevant Linux distributions are not only based > on the same kernel, but almost almost all of the same userland software > as well. (Specifically, GNU software, much of which is a core part of > FreeBSD as well.) The main areas where they differ are the configuration > details (what files are where, how to configure services such as init > scripts and networking, etc) and package management. There are of course > other differences, but these two are the biggies. All Linux distributions use glibc; while BSDs use their own version of libc. But these are only technicalities. More important is that the BSDs use a central CVS repository for the whole OS (minus third party packages), whereas in the Linux world, the "vendors" maintain separate (mostly with source, but sometimes binary-only as well) collections of separately maintained software. If the developers of Linux' base utilities, glibc, kernel etc... submitted all their source code to a "Linux CVS" repo, and all distributions were built on top of that, they would have adopted an important part (though not everything) of BSDs philosophy [putting the different licensing schemes aside for a moment]. However, this is unlikely to happen any time soon (if at all), mostly for political reasons: the FSF, Linus, and a lot of other developers would have to agree to share a single repository, and this is particulary difficult to achieve. Anyway, both development models are quite viable, and it is amazing to see how both "camps" are making excellent progress. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/