Arch-bsd?

mattux · 2005-04-09 10:33:18

http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10239
i just thinking of porting the freebsd ( www.freebsd.org ) kernel to arch(linux)

anybody tried something like that?!?
somebody intressted ?

kernel/freebsd/freebsd-5.3-1.pkg.tar.gz (just kiding)

mattux

iphitus · 2005-04-09 12:07:41

er... you wouldnt port the freebsd kernel to arch, you'd port every other piece of arch software to the freebsd kernel, unfortunately it doesnt work the other way.

mattux · 2005-04-09 14:30:30

no only kernel programs like mount/umount...

the glibc is the same on each system kbsd or linux..
so it should be binary kompatible

mattux

rasat · 2005-04-09 14:39:15

I have no knowledge if it would work, but I like the idea... "ArchBSD". :idea:

neotuli · 2005-04-09 23:35:58

Sounds cool, I'd try it
Edit: I think someone either tried this before or ported pacman to bsd, try searching the forums, my memory of this is sort of fuzzy.

miqorz · 2005-04-10 01:24:47

Why not just port pacman to freebsd?

rasat · 2005-04-10 03:52:24

miqorz wrote:

Why not just port pacman to freebsd?

The idea here is to keep Arch init system and structure as it is. If not, then it becomes xxxBSD.

FMI, what's the difference between the two kernels?

miqorz · 2005-04-10 06:39:54

rasat wrote:

miqorz wrote:
Why not just port pacman to freebsd?
The idea here is to keep Arch init system and structure as it is. If not, then it becomes xxxBSD.
FMI, what's the difference between the two kernels?

I've actually considered porting pacman to FreeBSD because I quite hate their Pkgfile system.

And as for the kernels. Let's just say, "alot".

cactus · 2005-04-10 07:36:56

rasat wrote:

If not, then it becomes xxxBSD.

Umm..
Is that the BSD you can't bring home to meet the family?
*snickers*

mattux · 2005-04-10 10:36:55

my idea was it to change ONLY the kernel (and if nessacary the glibc) because many people (me²) say the freebsd kernel is much faster than the linux kernel ..... (and the most devices are supported by both) (radeon 3d is the only one i know linux only )

port pacman to freebsd seems very unintressting because freebsd has is own package system which is not that bad ... it´s like gentoo´s portage but has a better design

i´ll try to run the kernel on my system... and i´ll post if it works or why it doesn´t work

mattux

ps. (i know my bad english, in germany you don´t learn that much english in school)

FUBAR · 2005-04-12 19:01:06

Can anyone tell me the use of this?

cactus · 2005-04-12 21:15:12

Pure, unadulterated, nerd factor coolness.

Gullible Jones · 2005-04-12 22:09:47

And I have heard reports of the BSD kernel being faster....

Though frankly, I have trouble imagining anything faster than Arch on an up-to-date i686 box. NPTL + "-O2 -march=i686" + kernel 2.6.x = fast as hell.

rasat · 2005-04-13 02:56:35

Gullible Jones wrote:

Though frankly, I have trouble imagining anything faster than Arch on an up-to-date i686 box. NPTL + "-O2 -march=i686" + kernel 2.6.x = fast as hell.

Try Archie - Arch Live CD, when it gets uploaded. Said to be faster than in HD.
http://user-contributions.org/archie.html

Cynical · 2007-05-14 08:30:37

Gullible Jones wrote:

And I have heard reports of the BSD kernel being faster....

Well thats new, I've seen a few benchmarks showing database performance and scalability to be in favor of the 2.6 kernel. Regardless though, all the new cool tech seems to get into the linux kernel, even if there isnt as much documentation.

iphitus · 2007-05-14 09:39:54

you shouldnt use any distro/kernel solely for the speed. just means you've got far too much time on your hands. they serve a purpose, your computer is a tool (well, ok it's a toy too).

I prefer bsd, because it's a cleaner implementation, i prefer the bsd attitude, prefer the bsd init system to Arch's, the whole system is so well documented, the packages all worked for me. I found it more stable and reliable. Only real downside I ever found was ports, it was much slower, and not as simple as Arch, or many other parts of bsd.

James

ataraxia · 2007-05-14 19:37:34

mattux wrote:

no only kernel programs like mount/umount...
the glibc is the same on each system kbsd or linux..
so it should be binary kompatible
mattux

This isn't true. The BSDs don't use glibc, they each have their own libc.

There are also some syscall differences that can break some more advanced things - each has a few syscalls that the others don't have.

Most things (like pacman, most likely ) would port easily, though.

bboozzoo · 2007-05-14 20:22:15

Uhh I actually got pacman to compile some time ago. Some code changes were needed like adding defined(__FreeBSD__) here and there and adding getmntinfo for FreeBSD since their libc does not have getmntent calls. Though minor problems with linking occured, most of which were related to gettext. All was done on pacman 3.0.1 and FreeBSD 7.0 current snapshot from april. When I get things straightened out and tested I will certainly post the patch to pacman-dev.

Cynical · 2007-05-15 02:38:11

iphitus wrote:

you shouldnt use any distro/kernel solely for the speed. just means you've got far too much time on your hands. they serve a purpose, your computer is a tool (well, ok it's a toy too).

No I use the linux kernel because it supports my hardware the speed is just a bonus. It took forever to add support for my ide controller in the bsd kernel, even though the drivers were available. I'm sure their kernel is very stable, but that stability comes at a cost.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-04-09 10:33:18

Arch-bsd?

#2 2005-04-09 12:07:41

Re: Arch-bsd?

#3 2005-04-09 14:30:30

Re: Arch-bsd?

#4 2005-04-09 14:39:15

Re: Arch-bsd?

#5 2005-04-09 23:35:58

Re: Arch-bsd?

#6 2005-04-10 01:24:47

Re: Arch-bsd?

#7 2005-04-10 03:52:24

Re: Arch-bsd?

#8 2005-04-10 06:39:54

Re: Arch-bsd?

#9 2005-04-10 07:36:56

Re: Arch-bsd?

#10 2005-04-10 10:36:55

Re: Arch-bsd?

#11 2005-04-12 19:01:06

Re: Arch-bsd?

#12 2005-04-12 21:15:12

Re: Arch-bsd?

#13 2005-04-12 22:09:47

Re: Arch-bsd?

#14 2005-04-13 02:56:35

Re: Arch-bsd?

#15 2007-05-14 08:30:37

Re: Arch-bsd?

#16 2007-05-14 09:39:54

Re: Arch-bsd?

#17 2007-05-14 19:37:34

Re: Arch-bsd?

#18 2007-05-14 20:22:15

Re: Arch-bsd?

#19 2007-05-15 02:38:11

Re: Arch-bsd?

Board footer