Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Open Source GNU is Not Unix BSD Linux

FSF-Approved Hyperbola GNU/Linux Forking OpenBSD, Citing 'User Freedom' Concerns (hyperbola.info) 135

Long-time Slashdot reader twocows writes: Hyperbola GNU/Linux, a FSF-approved distribution of GNU/Linux, has declared their intent to fork OpenBSD and become HyperbolaBSD..."
The news came earlier this week in a roadmap announcement promising "a completely new OS derived from several BSD implementations" (though Hyperbola was originally based on Arch snapshots and Debian development).

"This was not an easy decision to make, but we wish to use our time and resources to create a viable alternative to the current operating system trends which are actively seeking to undermine user choice and freedom." In 2017 Hyperbola dropped its support for systemd -- but its concerns go far beyond that: This will not be a "distro", but a hard fork of the OpenBSD kernel and userspace including new code written under GPLv3 and LGPLv3 to replace GPL-incompatible parts and non-free ones.

Reasons for this include:

- Linux kernel forcing adaption of DRM, including HDCP.

- Linux kernel proposed usage of Rust (which contains freedom flaws and a centralized code repository that is more prone to cyber attack and generally requires internet access to use.)

- Linux kernel being written without security and in mind. (KSPP is basically a dead project and Grsec is no longer free software)

- Many GNU userspace and core utils are all forcing adaption of features without build time options to disable them. E.g. (PulseAudio / SystemD / Rust / Java as forced dependencies....)

HyperbolaBSD is intended to be modular and minimalist so other projects will be able to re-use the code under free license.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FSF-Approved Hyperbola GNU/Linux Forking OpenBSD, Citing 'User Freedom' Concerns

Comments Filter:
  • by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @06:35PM (#59565856)

    Sorry.

    Low-hanging fruit.

    • Will they fork Theo as well?
      • If they are going to use a code of conduct, they might have to!

        Look what they did to Linus...

        Somehow I still think Theo would tell them to fsck off:)

  • This should be fun to watch.
  • HDCP Support (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @06:52PM (#59565898) Homepage Journal
    While I HUGELY oppose copy protection, it occurred to me some time ago that HDCP could be re-cast as a system security setting.

    Do a quick Google for "van Eck phreaking," and you'll see that your desktop sessions can be snooped wirelessly via the EM radiation coming off your VGA/DVI/HDMI/DisplayPort cable, or by EM radiation from the monitor itself (albeit only with rather sophisticated equipment in close proximity). It occurs to me that HDCP may help thwart this.

    So: Make HDCP an administrative security setting. Unprivileged applications don't get to change it, and have only limited ability to inspect it. If an unprivileged application wants it turned on, a security dialog pops up, and the user gets to decide whether or not to allow it. In other words, HDCP is re-contextualized to serve the security interests of the user, and not the entitled twerp who thinks they can run roughshod over your computer in exchange for a few minutes of mass-produced entertainment.

    Just a thought...

    • Re:HDCP Support (Score:4, Informative)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Saturday December 28, 2019 @07:27PM (#59565972) Homepage Journal

      "Do a quick Google for "van Eck phreaking," and you'll see that your desktop sessions can be snooped wirelessly via the EM radiation coming off your VGA/DVI/HDMI/DisplayPort cable, or by EM radiation from the monitor itself"

      In short, that is enormously difficult, and your monitor cable is shielded, so realistically it has to be done from your display, which has already decoded HDCP. In order to realistically mount an attack of this type, you have to be very near the target, preferably just the other side of the wall. You'd be better served by hanging up some aluminum foil and grounding it than depending on HDCP.

      • You're not important enough for Uncle Sam to bother with.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Indeed. And van Eck phreaking is actually pretty expensive, tedious and has uncertain and variable results.

      • A PC with a TV card in the room next to it
        you is enough.

        Which, in an apartment building, or hotel, etc is easily the next apartment over. Or in front of the window, in a car. Or in the hallway.

        And the whole point is that the built-in shielding is not enough.
        While wrapping everything in "tin" foil only achieves making you stand out as suspicious and look lime an idiot.

        Also, the old "Why would they spy on ME" nonsense... Why would they exclude you and NOT spy on you, specifically?? It is easier to just spy on

    • Re:HDCP Support (Score:4, Informative)

      by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh.gmail@com> on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:21PM (#59566090) Journal

      AFAIK HDCP keys are hardcoded, so once an attacker has the HDCP keys, which have leaked of course, the security advantage goes away. With that in mind, I don't think you can call HDCP a security setting.

      • They don't etch a different cirquit for each one, you know?
        It's on a built in Flash-like memory that holds the firmware. It changes with updates. Hell, for some hardware, it gets loaded from hard disk on every boot, because they saved on the "EEPROM" chip.
        It is trivial to code a key setting utility.

      • by _merlin ( 160982 )

        You'd need to sniff the initial negotiation to get the stream keys using the known hard-coded root keys. You'd need to catch the moment the monitor is switched on, or comes out of sleep. Anyway, as I said in my other comment, it's far more practical to capture the radiation from the panel itself rather than from the cable.

    • by _merlin ( 160982 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:55PM (#59566150) Homepage Journal

      The grid of electrodes in the LCD panel itself acts as a big radiating antenna. The video has obviously been decrypted, unscrambled, and decoded to RGB by the time it gets there. The radiation from the cable is tiny by comparison.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Serious question
    • Depends on whether you use a libertarian's or a socialist's definition of "freedom." For the former, yes, for the latter, no.

      • by hey! ( 33014 )

        When debates about definitions get emotional, they lose sight of the fact that definitions are mere *conventions*. Group A says "Freedom is X and Freedom is Good"; Group B says "Freedom is Y and Freedom is Good," and we automatically act as if one and exactly one of them must be right.

        Logically it'd be the same if A were saying, "Fizbo is X and Fizbo is Good," and B saying "Luzbat is Y and Luzbat is Good." Neither of them is necessarily right, nor if one of them is right is the other necessarily wrong.

        • by drnb ( 2434720 )

          When debates about definitions get emotional, they lose sight of the fact that definitions are mere *conventions*.

          Possibly, but we also have the case where some definitions are simply erroneous. As we have here where on group turns a blind eye toward the *restrictions* that *enforce* a desired benevolent behavior.

          • by hey! ( 33014 )

            A definition can't be "erroneous". It can be *non-standard* (not mean what most people think it means). It can useless (e.g. refer to something that can't exist) or absurd (assume the existence of things that aren't compatible with each other). But the one thing a definition can't be is wrong.

            When you argue about definitions, you are arguing about terminology, not reality.

        • The libertartian "freedom" to take other people's freedom is never accepted. Not even by libertarians. It is essentially just a disguised newspeak word for them wanting to be dicks and harm others for their selfish reasons, while being too damn stupid to realize there is always somebody who is going to do that to *them* too. :)

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        You do know that libertarian was originally a socialist ideal?
        From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Libertarian socialism often rejects the state itself[14] and asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[18] Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confeder

        • Nothing in the text you quoted indicates that libertarian socialism was the original source of libertarianism in general, which is the argument you're making. Maybe another part of the article indicates that, I'm just going off the part you pointed out.

          Either way, it's not a particularly relevant or useful argument. Modern libertarianism and modern socialism are generally well-understood and distinct schools of political thought. Even if the origins of modern libertarianism did trace back to socialism so
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Formally, the BSD license is a more permissive [wikipedia.org] software license than any version of the GPL, but not necessarily a more free license since BSD licensing may lead to loss of freedoms. This difference between the licenses extends to BSD vs Linux distros as well. The linked article provides full details of why degree of permissiveness is not the same thing as degree of freedom, primarily in its impact on developers versus users.

      The same situation is seen in other social settings. For example, imagine a

      • by guruevi ( 827432 )

        The problem with your example is that one freedom is infringing on someone else’s freedom, or to put it in libertarian words, your freedom ends where my property begins. There are also people that think a base morality supersedes the freedoms available.

      • by epine ( 68316 )

        Formally, the BSD license is a more permissive software license than any version of the GPL, but not necessarily a more free license since BSD licensing may lead to loss of freedoms.

        I've personally never forgiven Stallman for adding "compelled public benevolence" to the dictionary under "freedom".

        If I make a USB flashlight using wire-wrapped TTL, it has no source code, and I haven't deprived anyone else of their "freedom" (whew).

        If I make the same USB flashlight with a PCI10 and a several dozen instruction

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      There's an interesting little logic problem entailed here.

      Is the way to maximize the freedom enjoyed in the world to allow the most freedom to the people you deal directly with? Many people would say yes, but some would say we need to restrict the ability of people to restrict other peoples' freedom.

      It's an interesting philosophical debate, but in practical terms both approaches seem to work.

    • Wasn't BSD always more free than Linux?

      Yes. Linux, well the GPL actually, has restrictions. The fact that those restrictions are designed to be benevolent does *not* change the fact that they are restrictions. Linux, like BSD, is free as in beer, but Linux is less free as in freedom.

      Please, before typing in your 1000 word manifesto, re-read the above, and then contemplate whether you are conflating benevolent behavior with freedom. Hint: they are two separate things. The restrictions that enforce benevolence are inherently less free as in fre

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        The question isn't benevolence, but scope. For the individual with BSD licensed code, their actions are freer. But for the recipient of that code...being able to re-license it, or to deny access to the source code, decreases the freedom. Motives are beside the point in this argument.

    • by steveha ( 103154 )

      The BSD license allows anyone to do almost anything with the software. (You aren't allowed strip off or change the notes on who wrote the software; and some versions of BSD have an "advertising clause" that requires you to disclose where you got the software if you use it. Other than those points you can do what you want.)

      The GPL license family puts some restrictions on the software, and GPL proponents believe that these restrictions maximize freedom for the community using the software.

      For example, with

    • You should make the distinction between freedom of the code itself and freedom to use it. GPL relates to the freedom of the code. That is the intent is to get sure the code remains free. Of course you may freely use the code however this comes with the associated burden to give back any improvement you've made. Whereas the BSD license applies to the freedom to use the code. And why not change it and then render it non free with a non free license. Which means the original BSD code won't benefit from said ch

    • It is, it's just not communist like the gpl

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      Depends on how you look at things. BSD licensed code is more free to the person who takes it, but may well be non-free to the person who receives it from them. GPL imposes transitive-rules on freedom, but BSD doesn't. So if you are dealing with lots of code, much of which is binary, then code with BSD licensed sources is likely to be less free to you. But if you're working with only source code, BSD licensed code is freer, in that it doesn't require that freedom be transitive.

  • The latter may be a more appropriate name.
  • Small team is trying to hard fork a whole operating system and improve it. It will end up as yet another GNU Hurd - toy project without any practical use. Whats even worse they intend to GPL3 their code, so even the potentially useful code they create will remain useless for general public as it wont be possible to port it back to *BSD due to license conflict.

    • Ayup, it would have far better if these folks joined up with Theo and actually helped with OpenBSD instead of just mooching off it for their own bent agenda.
    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Small team is trying to hard fork a whole operating system and improve it. It will end up as yet another GNU Hurd - toy project without any practical use. Whats even worse they intend to GPL3 their code, so even the potentially useful code they create will remain useless for general public as it wont be possible to port it back to *BSD due to license conflict.

      Which is why some people really hate the GPL, because GPL fanatics always complain "but someone can steal your code!", yet completely ignoring the fac

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @08:16AM (#59567200)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
          BSD is like liberals saying "raise your children how you want" and GPL comes along and is like "we don't want to vaccinate our children", then BSD gets all mad.
      • > The GPL is superior because it prevents making code proprietary and "locked up". Yet it does a lot of "locking up" itself. No it does not, the GPL 3 allows relicensing to AGPL-3 which has more restrictions, hence you can't merge it back into a GPL-ed code base.
    • The smallest fork is ... a pure name change.

      Why would forking mean any more work than you want?

      The base system won't care.

      I can run a fork all on my own, in my spare time. The weekly routine (mostly automated) goes like this:
      1. Update my fork with all the changes from the original.
      2. Apply my patches.
      3. For those that fail, and specifically the lines that fail, do the changes manually and then do a diff to get a new complete patch.
      4. Maybe code a bit on my own parts, to add a feature or fix a bug.
      5. Commit/

      • They intend to improve security, remove "tainted" dependencies ("E.g. (PulseAudio / SystemD / Rust / Java as forced dependencies)"). This definitely doesn't look like a small fork with minimal patching but more like a serious rewrite. They even clearly state "we are planning on implementing a completely new OS derived from several BSD implementations.".

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @07:14PM (#59565948)

    "FSF-Approved Hyperbola GNU/Linux Forking OpenBSD, Citing 'User Freedom' Concerns"

    This certainly sounds as if the concern is with OpenBSD - however, reading the summary, it's obvious this is being done because of concerns with the current state of Linux's kernel, and they see the OpenBSD kernel as a better option.

    Taking a pragmatic point of view - I'd think their time would be better spent leaving the OpenBSD kernel alone and focussing more on addressing (what some might perceive as) the lack of a quality UI for OpenBSD, which might make it more appealing to a broader audience. I certainly have more faith in the OpenBSD kernel maintainers than I do in these people's ability to rewrite that kernel securely. But it is their own time to spend as they see fit, and I realize pragmatism doesn't weigh heavily in decisions like this.

    • a centralized code repository that is more prone to cyber attack and generally requires internet access to use.

      And we're "concerned" about this? Really? Have you checked the calendar recently? Like in the last two decades or so? Last *I* checked, even some of the twats from systemd weren't allowed Linux kernel checkins (any more).

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        a centralized code repository that is more prone to cyber attack and generally requires internet access to use.

        My take was that they were talking about Rust, and the possibility of it being used in the kernel. I only read the summary.

        • Even the act of floating the idea that Rust should be used for kernel code should get your kernel contribution rights immediately and irrevocably revoked.

          We arent talking about userland here. We are talking about the kernel. The kernel, for lack of a better term, is sacred. It is not a place to smear shit.
          • Even the act of floating the idea that Rust should be used for kernel code should get your kernel contribution rights immediately and irrevocably revoked.

            OK, now we know that you are of that opinion. But where's your argument? If you want to make the case that Rust does not belong in the kernel, you should present some reason as to why. "Everyone who disagrees with me should be kicked out" is not a compelling argument.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • by nnet ( 20306 )
              1. Why is it the worst?
              2. What's the fix or alternative, and why is that better?
              • by HiThere ( 15173 )

                1. It's nearly the worst successful language to succeed assembler because of it's tendency to memory leaks and the difficulty of restricting wild pointers.

                2. Ah...the alternative is...
                Damn. Everything else is clumsier or larger or less efficient.

            • by epine ( 68316 )

              C is one of the worst system programming languages ever invented. And don't get me started on base ten.

    • by jmccue ( 834797 )

      Well I wish them success, it looks like a lot of work though. But I can understand their concern, seems Linux is being dragged/changed into a corporate controlled project.

      I hope they keep the OpenBSD's rabid obsession with up to date man pages and launch anything even remotely associated with info(1) into the Sun or better yet a black hole

    • by Bite The Pillow ( 3087109 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @07:43PM (#59566012)

      Sounds like they are not UI oriented. And you are asking them to be UI oriented. While you admit it is their time to use, it may be a team who should in no way be making UI decisions because of their interest and talent being directed elsewhere.

    • Thought I was having a stroke while trying to parse it.

    • by Gavagai80 ( 1275204 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @10:08PM (#59566250) Homepage

      Who says OpenBSD lacks a quality UI? Doesn't it run KDE?

      The reason most of us choose Linux over BSD is that most people choose Linux over BSD. Being more popular means better hardware and software support. (Same reason a lot of people like Windows.)

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

        Who says OpenBSD lacks a quality UI? Doesn't it run KDE?

        Yes it does run KDE. Yes OpenBSD lacks a quality UI.

    • Eh? XFCE on OpenBSD is a pretty good UI. It runs great on one of my video R&D work laptops.
  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Saturday December 28, 2019 @07:35PM (#59565988) Homepage Journal

    Part of Linux's success is its support for practically all hardware. The only reason I don't use OpenBSD is that it doesn't support all the hardware on the machines I want to run it on, although I haven't tried in a year or two. Someone actually contributed a patch to the relevant atheros driver to support my particular nic but they rejected it on the basis that it might violate the GPL... but the patch only used values from the Linux driver, no code, so it has already long been settled that it would not violate the GPL. Enough time had passed that the patch would no longer apply cleanly, and enough had changed that it was not trivial to patch manually... So I installed Linux.

    OpenBSD is not just an OS which is not for everyone, it is WILLFULLY not for everyone. Which is stupid.

    If this fork somehow has better hardware support, I'll use it. But that seems unlikely...

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      In this case, the makers insist that certain hardware and features should not be supported (eg. HDCP) because they do not agree upon freedom.

      For me, it would depend on the project, if I’m building something that has to be able to be maintained between now and hundreds of years after my death, I would want something like this project that has guaranteed Intel or Microsoft will never make claim to my creation.

      If I want something that just works, I’ll go with a Debian distro without any of Poetteri

    • by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @01:53AM (#59566652)
      OpenBSD is developed by a tiny group of people for use on servers and on their own laptops which they use to maintain their servers . However, it is also used for special military applications and the likes of General Dynamics and other large military system manufacturers. You are therefore correct that it is not for everyone - it is specialized and security focused and very good for C4I systems.
    • Alright then! Keep being used by, err, using your iPad.

      We'll stay with the pro tool, for people who know what they are doing, that will take your foot off if you tell them to.

      And you don't get to ruint it for us, by turning it onto another piece of condescending simplified cumbersome shiny crippleware.

      But you're too stupid to get to go around calling other people stupid. The fact that you can't even write drivers should already be enough to tell you that.
      Go back to your iPad.

      • It's the pro tool because the developers willfully decided not to support another flavor of the same wifi NIC that they already supported? Okay, sport.

  • by Cmdln Daco ( 1183119 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:49PM (#59566142)

    Why roll something new that will need to be maintained as a 'distro'? You can just install NetBSD and use the fairly large pkgsrc collection for user applications. The linux 'distro' brings baggage into things that is unnecessary.

    • Why not use NetBSD? Because even its own key developers abandoned it in the 1990's, shortly after Theo de Raadt was kicked off the project in roughly 1995 and founded OpenBSD instead. I admit that I will be very surprised if OpenBSD's current developers will accept code or cooperate with this FSF licensed and GPL licensed work.

    • by dyfet ( 154716 )

      NetBSD has a troublesome maintainership, in the sense that while its in theory portable to almost everywhere, many of the target platforms and ports are now subtly broken, with insufficient maintainers to fix it. It does have very modern ports in pkgsrc, but Xfce won't correctly run on it currently, and that is an achievement. I actually came to love fluxbox because of this, though. If NetBSD got more love, yes, it would be great again, but right now it is below critical mass required to be maintainable.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    - Linux kernel being written without security and in mind. (KSPP is basically a dead project and Grsec is no longer free software)

    This is not a linux problem; it is the result of legacy architectures where security was a belated afterthought, motivated by 32-bit limitations. The multiple address space hack with page granularity protection is manifestly insufficient, making IPC excruciatingly slow and painful. Until hardware is more capable, security and performance will continue to be mutually exclusive. Where performance matters at all, kernels and applications will remain monolithic and untrustworthy.

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      Security and performance will ALWAYS be mutually exclusive - look at Rust or Java for examples - because both are relative and we’ll always need/want the bottom of the can as for performance.

      What can help is code-time performance and security analysis. There’s plenty of static and dynamic ways of testing code but writing unit tests is simply not the way to go with that and although some automated testing is possible, the really good stuff is still locked behind massively expensive commercial gat

  • by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @01:22AM (#59566598)
    It is official; Netcraft now confirms: NetBSD is dying.

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered NetBSD community when IDC confirmed that NetBSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that NetBSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. NetBSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict NetBSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: NetBSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for NetBSD because NetBSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for NetBSD. As many of us are already aware, NetBSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the NetBSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that NetBSD has steadily declined in market share. NetBSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If NetBSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. NetBSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save NetBSD from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, NetBSD is dead.

    Fact: NetBSD is dying
  • by Snowhare ( 263311 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @01:37AM (#59566624)

    Purism is the fastest way known to irrelevance

  • Tandem via: "The way must be tried". A teacher decried opensource tech for many reasons and forks were one of them. Sure, perhaps this fork will sputter and die. Maybe it won't and some good ideas will come out of it. I am always intrigued by the BSD's. Sure, hardware support is often an issue. I have had weird hardware things happen when I install it. But I also like BSD's and had some exciting experiences. Ghost BSD was awesome to run. It was fun and lightweight and enough of my laptop functioned to get s
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • whatever happened to that project ?

  • I didn't notice we were already nearby 1st of April.

  • With the worst offense being that not everything being a file anymore, merely because they were too dumb and lazy for it. ("...don't know how to do it..." and "...difficult...", according to Torvalds)

    Making usage of those parts cumbersome, inelegant and unnecessarily complicated.

    Strange then, that others have no problems giving them a file system interface. And you could have copied them.

    Also, more and more tools seem to fail at basic fearures like providing simple doxumented text configuration files, scrip

    • by geggam ( 777689 )

      I think it's more the Bazaar vs the Cathedral combined with Theo's uncompromising stance on quality proving to be the better model.

      BSD isn't Linux, BSD is an OS. Linux is a kernel.

      I wonder how long it takes folks to figure this out ? ( been a few decades already )

According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.

Working...