Talk:Gentoo/FreeBSD

Can someone explain the relationship to GNU?

Hi, in a recent edit summary I mentioned that Gentoo/FreeBSD is based on GNU. This was under the assumption that Gentoo/FreeBSD is a Gentoo's GNU/Linux distro with some FreeBSD parts stuck in: maybe just the FreeBSD kernel? maybe just the kernel and libc? Maybe the kernel, libc, and command line stuff? ...or maybe my assumption was completely wrong. Can someone who's better informed mention in the article the relationship to GNU and GNU/Linux? Thanks. Gronky 12:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The question needs to be answered for other articles too: what do people who package existing software, add some stuff, and stick a name on it do? For example, what is the Debian Development team's relationship to Debian and to GNU (and GNU/Linux)? They don't "create" an OS, since most of the work isn't theirs. Do they "make available" an OS? do they "publish" an OS? do they "package" an OS? Gronky 12:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Gentoo/FreeBSD is not based on GNU at all. The core operating system is from FreeBSD project, so it can be considered a FreeBSD distribution by most of the means. The Debian GNU/kFreeBSD project is something different, way different. The only GNU tools used on Gentoo/FreeBSD are the ones that are used by FreeBSD, too. Flameeyes 10:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's the basics of the relationships of GNU, Linux, *BSD. GNU and Linux was independantly started as a project to make a free alternative to Unix. GNU's kernel project was HURD, but it never got very far and is v0.2 now, after almost 20 years of development (but apparently still being worked on). Linux is just a kernel. Because of the similariries between the projects and GNU's lack of a kernel, they dropped Linux (the kernel) into the GNU project to make GNU/Linux. It should be noted that neither GNU, Linux or GNU/Linux are an OS. The best way to describe GNU/Linux, in my opinion, is as a "pseudo-OS". Linux kernel + GNU package collection and tools are bundled together into "distributions" (a term not used in FreeBSD, possibly not used ouside of GNU/Linux). FreeBSD was designed as a free alternative to BSD (which started off as a specialist type of Unix, but when they split off and did their own thing, a court case concluded that BSD wasn't unix, so could sell its own licenses). FreeBSD is an OS.

Although there's quite a lot of overlap of GNU GPL packages being used on FreeBSD and BSD licensed packages being used on GNU/Linux, traditionally freeBSD will only use GNU packages where it would be unfeasable to replicate it for the BSD license (typical example being the GNU compiler compilation, gcc). You can add other GNU packages to freeBSD, but they won't be in the 'base system' (e.g. freeBSD uses tcsh as a shell, you can install bash (most common linux shell), but it won't be in the base system, so it will be in /usr/local/bin, not /bin).

"Gentoo/FreeBSD aims to provide a complete FreeBSD-based system using Gentoo design principles. This means that it's going to use the Gentoo init system, administration utilities and toolchain support." [1] Gentoo is a GNU/Linux distribution which is heavily inspired by BSD. Parts of it are often seen as the next evolutionary step from BSD packages. (e.g. Portage in Gentoo and ports in freeBSD). Most of the drawbacks of GNU/Linux come from it not actually being an OS, most of the drawbacks of freeBSD come from many components of it having been written a long time ago where design constrains were very different because of advances in computer hardware and computer science. If I were to describe Gentoo/FreeBSD to someone, I would say it was FreeBSD redesigned for the modern computer, drawing from recent advances in GNU/Linux; being more likely to chose packages based on what's better (in some developer's opinion), rather than what's on the right license; and as it's by Gentoo developers, it has a lot of similarities to Gentoo at the level of user interface.--KX36 13:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Help rewrite this

"The original, long term goal is to be able to choose any combination of software between the GNU/Linux and BSD versions, but that it is no more a priority as it is unfeasibly difficult at this point in time."

What does that mean? Should it actually be, "The original, long term goal was to be able to choose any combination of software between the GNU/Linux and BSD versions, but that it is no longer a priority, as it is not feasible at this point in time."? --Charles Gaudette 04:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'd say your interpretation is correct. Flameeyes 09:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. --Charles Gaudette 22:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

removed referance to portage being brought to freebsd from gentoo

it was actually the other way round, gentoo took it's portage system from freebsd after one of the lead developers used freebsd for a few months. - withnail420

portage and FreeBSD ports are different things. It is true that portage is partly inspired by ports, but it is also true that Gentoo/FreeBSD truly uses the python-backed portage instead of the conventional ports makefiles. --Karnesky 05:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to learn the history of Portage. Portage is supposed to be a modernised python rewrite of the freeBSD ports system for GNU/Linux; made to be, among other things, easier to maintain than makefiles. The Article currently says Gentoo/FreeBSD is to "bring Gentoo Linux design principles such as Portage ... to the FreeBSD operating system." This makes no sense. The 'principles' of portage are the same as FreeBSD ports as Portage is designed to immitate ports in a more user friendly way and under the GNU GPL; principals haven't changed--KX36 21:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but who's that someone who "needs to learn the history of portage?" I did say that portage was inspired by ports. Portage does have a different design than ports, but I agree that the sentence can be made clearer. I changed it. --Karnesky 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means your change was senseless. It's not bringing "Gentoo", as that's a penguin; what Gentoo/FreeBSD does is to port the infrastructure used by Gentoo Linux under FreeBSD operating system. That portage was derived itself by the principles of ports, is irrelevant. Flameeyes 13:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability

This was tagged for some reason, though I haven't found any discussion of it on the talk page. Can the author who added this tag please clarify on how the article fails to meet notability guideline? It could use more references, but is otherwise just as significant as any other Linux / BSD project article. 68.209.235.149 16:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

I propose to remove the citation needed since I (as actual Gentoo/Alt lead and Gentoo/FreeBSD deputy lead) certify that the sentence is true Drizztbsd 12:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add the tag, but I don't think it should be removed merely on your say-so. See WP:V and WP:RS. A third-party source would be preferred. Also, the article would benefit from having more sources in general (not just for the specific instance of the requested citation). --Karnesky 15:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The tag was added by User:Chealer, presumably as a part of his tagging of non-notable Linux distros. As this is a non-Linux distro, it doesn't seem to meet that qualification. If e wants to reinstate it, e can do so, and provide some note here as to why. htom 16:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I object. I assume that Chealer's edits were in good faith & there is no WP policy that has confined him to only edit articles directly relating to Linux distros (so your "qualification" argument is pointless). WP:V clearly defines where the burden is, and it is not with Chealer. The article would be improved by adding a citation. If no citation exists, does the statement really belong in an encyclopedia? --Karnesky 17:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I also assume that Chealer's edit was in good faith and if this was a Linux distro I would not have commented at all. Since e didn't see fit to comment here in talk when making the tag, (and the comment with the tagging was "notability") I think that the standard for removing the tag can be very low. I think that the project (Gentoo+BSD) is entirely notable, even though I had not heard of it before. If either of you want to put the tag back, and explain why Gentoo+BSD is non-notable, go ahead. htom 18:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see why you should behave differently because this is a FreeBSD distro than you would if it were a Linux distro. It also seems that we're conflating WP:V and WP:N (because of Chealer's monolithic edit). This article has no notability tags & there seems to be no reason to debate notability. But that does not address verifiability concerns. The statement is unsourced & it is not bad for it to be marked as such. --Karnesky 18:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There are (I assume, I have not counted) many more minor Linux distros than there are minor *BSD distros, and a distro that seems to want to put a Linux face on the BSD core would seem notable to both camps.

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/bsd/

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/bsd/fbsd/

http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200604/gentoo-bsd_interview.html

http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/08/1219254

(Noting that DragonFly BSD is making progress, and wondering if a Gentoo+DragonFly ....) htom 22:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Orthogonal1 (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

---

I propose that Gentoo/FreeBSD be merged into Gentoo/Alt. There is not really that much text in this article, so it would be quite easy to put into the section Gentoo/Alt#Gentoo.2FFreeBSD. Also, I'm not really sure that Gentoo/FreeBSD is notable enough for its own article, especially seeing as we already have an article on Gentoo/Alt. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:Silence and consensus, since nobody has objected to the merge, I'm going to proceed with it. If you object to this, remember that consensus can change, and start a proposal for the pages to be split again. Orthogonal1 (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.