Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:09:45 +0430 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <stephane@laperouse.internatif.org> To: Simon Barner <barner@in.tum.de> Cc: FreeBSD questions List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?! Message-ID: <20031210163945.GB800@fetiche.sources.org> In-Reply-To: <20031210011904.GB2145@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> References: <012701c3bde4$4acf2b30$019c9752@xp> <20031209013027.GC1099@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <03da01c3be90$032636f0$019c9752@xp> <20031210011904.GB2145@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:19:04AM +0100, Simon Barner <barner@in.tum.de> wrote a message of 101 lines which said: > If you have a look at all this, you will easily understand why there > aren't multiple FreeBSD distributions (like in the Linux world): > The FreeBSD Project provides more than a kernel - it also maintains > the base system and almost 10000 ported third-party applications (the > so-called ports collection). You are comparing apples and oranges. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. "Distributions" is a specially ill-choosen word in the Linux world. There are several operating systems, Debian, RedHat, Mandrake, which only have in common to use the Linux kernel. Forget the word "distributions" which seems to imply that an operating system is defined by its kernel. And there are several operating systems based on a BSD kernel, too: FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, there is even now a Debian/BSD which uses a NetBSD kernel instead of Linux.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031210163945.GB800>