Speaking of which: are there any "distros" out there ship a combination of FreeBSD and the latest Gnome desktop? I think that would be a better combination than Ubuntu's Debian+Gnome combo, personally.
Yes, the only FreeBSD 'distro'. FreeBSD is not fragmented like the 100 and 1 Linux distros Download the FBSD isos, install the gnome packages. Not new enough, build from source using ports. While it probably doesn't include the absolutely latest Gnome, the FreeBSD people tend to appreciate stability over cutting edge features, so its probably going to be a little behind the bleeding edge, for something popular like gnome though, it should match up with the latest stable release within a very short period
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Thursday March 06, 2008 @10:28AM (#22662604)
FreeBSD is not fragmented like the 100 and 1 Linux distros
I'm a FreeBSD fan, but what kind of logic is that? You pick one example out of a fragmented set, and compare it to an entire other set of operating systems.
You act as if NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin, etc, do not exist. Of course and item cannot be fragmented if if you define it's containing set as "itself". Makes about as much sense as:
Ubuntu is not fragmented like the 100 and 1 BSD distros
Of those you listed, Only DragonflyBSD and Darwin use a FreeBSD kernel, Darwin considerably modified, to the point that it might as well be counted on its own. You can not drop the FreeBSD kernel in any of them and have things work, except for Dragonfly, but even then it still requires (minor) modification. Compare/Contrast to Linux distributions. The kernel, assuming version matchs, is rather interchangable between the distros. Its the file system layout, the utilities included, and default configuration
'the GNU/Linux kernel' and 'the utilities and userland tools required to make it usable'.
You got it almost right, but the Linux kernel is The Linux Kernel. The GNU part was added by Stallman because they provided "the utilities and userland".
However, I agree with you that FreeBSD has nothing to do with netBSD and openBSD. Only that they all are "based" on the BSD distribution of Unix. But if you want to go that far, then Linux would be based on the System V distribution of Unix and all of them would be diff
You act as if NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin, etc, do not exist. Of course and item cannot be fragmented if if you define it's containing set as "itself".
Read the question again. The question as about FreeBSD + GNOME. Not *BSD + Gnome. Grandparent is right. The only one that might, loosely, be considered a "distro" would be FreeBie (A freebsd liveCd). None of the other things you mentioned are FreeBSD. If you want to complain about set definition, take it up with the questioner.
There is no such thing as a BSD distro. FreeBSD is an entire operating system which includes the kernel and the core utilities needed to manage it. The nice thing about FreeBSD is consistency, it doesn't matter what server you login to things are going to be laid out the same and have the same options. Most systems will have extra packages installed but everything goes under/usr/local so you can just look around.
This is going to scare you, but BSD stands for "Berkeley Software Distribution", so BSD is automatically a distro. How can there be no such thing as a BSD distro? Maybe the definition of the word has changed since then. BSDs are each like a single Linux distribution with a selection of tools from the open source world, as well as a lot of project-specific code and legacy code from BSD heritage.
The closest to perfection a person ever comes is when he fills out a job
application form.
-- Stanley J. Randall
It's that year again! (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, what?
BSD Desktops (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Download the FBSD isos, install the gnome packages. Not new enough, build from source using ports. While it probably doesn't include the absolutely latest Gnome, the FreeBSD people tend to appreciate stability over cutting edge features, so its probably going to be a little behind the bleeding edge, for something popular like gnome though, it should match up with the latest stable release within a very short period
Re:BSD Desktops (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a FreeBSD fan, but what kind of logic is that? You pick one example out of a fragmented set, and compare it to an entire other set of operating systems.
You act as if NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin, etc, do not exist. Of course and item cannot be fragmented if if you define it's containing set as "itself". Makes about as much sense as:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare/Contrast to Linux distributions. The kernel, assuming version matchs, is rather interchangable between the distros. Its the file system layout, the utilities included, and default configuration
Re: (Score:2)
You got it almost right, but the Linux kernel is The Linux Kernel. The GNU part was added by Stallman because they provided "the utilities and userland".
However, I agree with you that FreeBSD has nothing to do with netBSD and openBSD. Only that they all are "based" on the BSD distribution of Unix. But if you want to go that far, then Linux would be based on the System V distribution of Unix and all of them would be diff
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eivind (ex/inactive FreeBSD kernel developer).
Re: (Score:2)
You act as if NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin, etc, do not exist. Of course and item cannot be fragmented if if you define it's containing set as "itself".
Read the question again. The question as about FreeBSD + GNOME. Not *BSD + Gnome. Grandparent is right. The only one that might, loosely, be considered a "distro" would be FreeBie (A freebsd liveCd). None of the other things you mentioned are FreeBSD. If you want to complain about set definition, take it up with the questioner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)