Debian Gets FreeBSD Kernel Support 425
mu22le writes "Today Debian gets one step closer to really becoming 'the universal operating system' by adding two architectures based on the FreeBSD kernel to the unstable archive.
This does not mean that the Debian project is ditching the Linux kernel; Debian users will be able to choose which kernel they want to install (at least on on the i386 and amd64 architectures) and get more or less the same Debian operating system they are used to.
This makes Debian the first distribution, and probably the first large OS, to support two completely different kernels at the same time."
Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just really cool (Score:4, Interesting)
for performance? (Score:3, Interesting)
TFA doesn't give much information. It would be interesting to know whether there are some practical reasons to want this. One possibility I can imagine is that if you have a particular task that you want a server to do, you could measure its performance with both kernels. If one is 10% faster than the other, you pick that one. Another possibility would be if you want to test your software to see if it's likely to be portable, or if it contains hidden linuxisms; however, I would expect most of the incompatibilities to be in things like shells and command-line utilities, not the kernel.
APT? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (Score:5, Interesting)
FreeBSD
*is more secure (apparently, i don't know enough to be sure but they're development model and security results do tend to suggest this)
*has zfs,
*etc
while linux has other advantages,
*hardware support for many newer devices,
*faster boot (i think),
*lvm (imho when snapshot merging merges, i think it can compete with zfs)
*etc
So while I think the biggest difference though is the licensing, there are some pretty big differences that affect users.
Switching kernels for one install or? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Gentoo Did This Years Ago (Score:5, Interesting)
ZFS support (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm, I think this would be an interesting way to finally get real ZFS support in a Linux-like system.
Unfortunately FreeBSD is much more limited in terms of modern software technologies like virtualization, hardware drivers, etc. Linux is way ahead there so I guess this is still not that great. Interesting though.
I believe I speak for everyone when I say .. (Score:3, Interesting)
ZFS, woohoooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
Re:APT? (Score:1, Interesting)
So they went from being the Linux with the best package manager to being the BSD with the worst package manager?
They didn't go from anywhere to anywhere. It was the Debian operating system, and it remains the Debian operating system. They now support a different kernel for whatever reasons (some kernels support some hardware or some applications better than others), but as the kernel is a fairly small and minor part of an operating system, it's an interesting bit of news, but they remains the same OS they always were.
BTW, what OSes with BSD support also have a package manager? I take it from your comment that FreeBSD does, but do any of the others? I've used both NetBSD and OpenBSD, and neither had a package manager, just a "ports" automatic source-compiling system. And if, unlike any of the other BSD's I've tried, FreeBSD actually has package management, what makes it better than APT?
This is new? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm confused by it myself. My machines don't even go to sleep or hibernate. Sure, we don't want stupidly long boot times when we do need to reboot, but that's what, once a month, once a year, once a decade if your server is in good health?
I'd say forget fast boot times unless it's a netbook or embedded device.
Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (Score:3, Interesting)
Up until recently, I had so many problems with sleep/hibernate on every computer I put linux (whether it was fc, gentoo, debian, ubuntu, etc) that I never turned them on. I also didn't want to leave most of them running when I didn't need them so I turned them off to save power. I'm not sure about anybody else, but to me in the above scenario, boot time equated to whether or not I actually booted to linux, or just let it sleep/hibernate in windows.
Re:/usr/bin/pride, /usr/bin/ego, /etc (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, we all know the excuses. Stallman even tries to excuse his lack of desire to credit X11 and so on, saying that X11 is part of his GNU system and thus credited by "GNU"!!!
Truth is, nothing irreplacable was provided by the GNU project. At the time when Linus was writing his kernel, the legal cloud hanging over BSD (AT+T lawsuit) only concerned the kernel. The BSD tools were perfectly suitable and ego-free.
Remember that even glibc and gcc were nothing special in 1991. The modern versions were built via the efforts of Linux hackers, including major funding from Red Hat. The FSF did not create what you see today. It is unjust for "them" (Stallman really) to be claiming much credit.
As for "fundamental" stuff like "cp" and "ls", well that's just trivial.
Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (Score:5, Interesting)
Two kernels? At the same time? I'll be in my bunk.
That's essentially what cooperative Linux does, runs a Linux kernel and the NT kernel at the same time, often with a special X emulator to get full-blown Linux apps running in Windows userspace with better support than with Cygwin. I still can't wrap my head around how the two kernels yield to each other in respect to the PC architecture, but it's an interesting project - guaranteed to keep you in your bunk for a while ;)
Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (Score:5, Interesting)
Energy saving.
I turn off my computer every night, when it isn't downloading something. It's about 6 hours of near-zero power consumption every day. If everyone did that it would make a difference in energy use. I could just suspend, but if it isn't going to do anything anyway, let's save a couple more joules, shall we?
And when I boot it in the morning, I don't want to have to wait two minutes just to see xkcd.
Especially since Arjan demonstrated it was so easy to optimise the process.
I think if the boot was quick to begin with, people wouldn't have got this bad habit of leaving the computer on 24/7. Just because Linux can run months straight doesn't mean that it should.
Re:ZFS support (Score:3, Interesting)
"OMG but you can apt-get stuff". Who gives a shit. pkg_add -r does basically the same thing anyway, and "cd /usr/ports/xxx/foobarport && make package" makes a lot more sense to me than the commands required on linux to build packages...
My experiences with FreeBSD give me the impression that apt is worlds ahead of pkg_add, in the same way that Gentoo's portange is worlds ahead of BSD ports, both in terms of robustness and usability.
Without knowing the details, I get the impression that both apt and portage both came later and benefited from starting from scratch, whereas the BSD experience is perhaps too difficult for maintainers to improve now.
This is actually a big deal; the main reason I choose one distro over another is package support.
Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple's port too :) http://zfs.macosforge.org/trac/wiki/ [macosforge.org]
I mean they do a great work but it is basically not ready for prime time. For OS X, Prime Time means at least time machine support, data write/read (including all metadata, even Finder flags) support, Disk Utility GUI support and at last, boot support. Of course, don't forget no kernel crashes should happen and it should handle massive abuse, uptime and even sleep without any glitches. If a Mac doesn't sleep when no programs running, it is generally taken to service by end user.
Things go really complex when your potential ZFS loving users are professionals doing things with Resource (metadata) enabled files (e.g. Photoshop) and expect exact (not 99.9) feature compatibility with HFS+. If ZFS really rolled out in Leopard (10.5) release, there were even people asking for commercial, high end disk utility (like Disk Warrior) support.
What ZFS needs is a very practical use and the proof of how modern it is. Time Machine of OS X is the best thing to prove it to end users. Adding new disks easily when space runs out, snapshots etc. If there is one company which can make ordinary users say "Wow, I really need it" for such a high end filesystem, it is Apple.
I was actually expecting ZFS on XServe/RAID/OS X Server but I forgot the files stored on them are generally Apple Client files too.
First?! (Score:2, Interesting)
Apparently whoever wrote the 'news' isn't aware that Debian already supports the NetBSD and Hurd kernels.
Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who's run FreeBSD for their dedicated desktop for close to 5 years now, my only gripes are this:
I love FreeBSD, though. There have many times when I downloaded and and burned a new Linux distro CD with the intent of moving back to Linux (5 years prior to my jump to FreeBSD, I ran Redhat or Fedora on my desktop). However, when I tried the live CD, I just couldn't bring myself to go back, even with the few shortcomings I highlight above.
While the mating of Debian and FreeBSD is cool for its own sake, I really don't see how someone from either camp would be happy with the result. If you like the cutting edge hardware support, virtualization, filesystems, and software support of Linux, you'll miss them in FreeBSD. If you enjoy the Zen-like simplicity of the base FreeBSD OS (including its rock solid nature) and the "ports" system, you'll be left wanting with even the best Linux solution (which, in my opinion, would probably be Debian). I applaud the effort, but I doubt it will have much adoption in the long run.
Re:Switching kernels for one install or? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this actually work 100%? How?
And, yes, I understand you can do syscall emulation. But what about what happens behind the interfaces. For instance I find it hard to believe that TCP_CORK/mremap/epoll/etc. "works" when FreeBSD has refused (decided not to, whatever) to natively support it for years now. AFAIK FBSD doesn't have splice()/tee()/etc. either ... do they hack some of this in userspace?
But even that seems like the easy stuff, what does FBSD do when I open("/proc/*") and start parsing stuff? What about closing sockets that are only referenced in the poll() call of another thread? Anything that hits the drivers "deeply" like X, pulseaudio, etc. seems like it'd be impossible to support. SELinux is just not going to work, probably dito. somewhat releated stuff like the audit interface / netlink (maybe that classifies as "deep" driver knowledge though).
Then there's the really crazy stuff where you have the same interfaces natively but they operate subtley differently in weird corner cases, DJB has a page on some stuff [cr.yp.to], but I doubt anyone sane enough to have commit privs. knows all of these (if anyone at all does).
Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is, S3 suspend is damn near "soft-off" power usage anyway. On my Kill-A-Watt, both result in a power consumption of 3W. This is with an Antec EA-380 80+ PSU (Seasonic manufactured).
If you really want to save power, flip the switch and make your consumption zero. Better yet, kill your monitor, printer, speakers, and every other standby-consuming device at the same time by using the switch on your power supply.
The reality is, though, it's a bit stupid. If you really want to save power, use a notebook. My ThinkPad is around 26W at idle, compared with around 90W for my Core 2 Quad Q9300 / 8GB DDR2 / Radeon HD3850 desktop.
My power usage is around 220 kWh/mo. That's down from around 400kWh/mo (after I replaced a 1980s fridge with a new Energy Star fridge), but the refrigirator is still over a third of the total usage at 90kWh/mo. Add the electric dryer, electric range, and some lights, and you see that my power usage is dominated by heating, refrigeration, and lighting. Cutting the 20W or so of standby power usage that's around the house would only save 15kWh/mo, or less than 10%.
Re:/usr/bin/pride, /usr/bin/ego, /etc (Score:3, Interesting)
Excuses, excuses. It's not about ethics/ideology (and, BTW, I'm mostly in the Stallman camp on the freedom issue) but about ego. "GNU" is a name chosen by Stallman.
BTW, since I know you're thinking it, Linus did not name the OS after himself. Some FTP site admin in Finland did that, via the creation of a directory to hold the OS. In typical hacker fashion, Linus had chosen the truly dreadful name Freax for his OS.
Fact is, a group of people clustered around the kernel developers put the system together. Theodore T'so, a kernel developer who doesn't care for the "GNU/Linux" thing, is the person who made the mistake of building the first Linux install disk with GNU odds and ends rather than BSD odds and ends. He certainly couldn't predict that this would result in an aggressive and hostile campaign to rename the OS.
Unfortunately, the name is damn important. You can be sure that Microsoft and Apple put lots of effort into choosing marketable names. Linux is marketable. GNU is not very marketable; in English it is unpronouncable or bad-sounding. (sounding like guh-noo, noo, jee en yoo, etc.) The three-letter acronym looks technical and complicated before you even mention the recursion.
If Stallman's selfish renaming efforts have done anything related to software freedom, the result has been negative. Making the OS sound less friendly and approachable ensures that fewer people will end up running free software.
Does FreeBSD support Xen servers? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not surprised that somebody's done a FreeBSD client that runs on top of Xen - but can you run a Xen server on a FreeBSD base?
Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually NVIDIA has stated before that they wish to improve their FreeBSD support and would like it to achieve a feature parallel with Linux, as seen here [freebsd.org].
They even did an interview with bsdtalk to try and drum up some support but it has yet to really materialize, here [blogspot.com].
You can see current progress at the FreeBSD wiki [freebsd.org].
Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (Score:3, Interesting)
btfs is nice, but i like abstraction, lvm lets me run snapshots and re-sizable volumes over any filesytem format that linux supports (ntfs, reiserfs, ext4, etc). Unless btfs's snapshots offers major performance benefits over lvm's , ill always stick with the filesystem neutral solution.
Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (Score:3, Interesting)
There is really solid work for live patching a Linux kernel for security updates in http://www.ksplice.com/ [ksplice.com] - saw a demo of it last week at Eurosys, really impressive: http://www.ksplice.com/paper [ksplice.com] .
Re:In any case... (Score:4, Interesting)
"a Linux binary would no more run under a BSD kernel than it would under DOS"
Errr... yeah... [freebsd.org] that's not completely accurate.
Re:In any case... (Score:4, Interesting)
FreeBSD supports Linux binary compatibility as a kernel compile time option (and now available as a module I think).
This could mean in theory you would "only" need to have a base package with the FreeBSD kernel and have it load FreeBSD specific kernel modules and that could be a base install from which existing Debian packages could be installed. Although, in practice I can image it would really mean updating other packages as well as the installer, e.g. like those for bootloaders, to ensure they were aware that using a FreeBSD kernel was an option.
As a point of interest, Solaris 10 is also compatible with Linux binaries, if you have the appropriate compatibility package installed. In theory (license permitting) the same thing could be done with Sol 10.
Bit off topic:
Solaris could REALLY do with better package management - Sun's own patches are inconsistent and some of the defaults are terrible (such as being insecure by default) and of course it lacks both the sophistication and convince of apt+dpkg on Debian. Often Sun packages don't even check for pre-requisites properly, I find them very sloppy and haphazard - this is frustrating especially as without some essential packages software may still run, but behave unexpectedly.
I raised this with Sun at an open event in London, while they were launching the Sun Fire x86 range (which are really excellent servers) which Andy Bechtolsheim gave a presentation on. They asked for general open questions and made a polite enquiry regarding package management. They seemed to have no idea their existing solution was so poor (compared to package management on Debian, Red Had and even FreeBSD) and were _very_ dismissive of the polite inquiry. They looked at each other for a moment, a bit confused and responded "Most of our vendors run hundreds or thousands of systems" they sniffed, "and have no trouble managing their packages".
Of course having seem hundreds of Solaris boxes over the years I know most major Sun customers they only /think/ they have no problem keeping their systems patched and up to date. The reality is they slap them behind private networks, are usually not patched after installed and are almost never patched thereafter (despite having a a number of essential bug fixes in their patches). This accounts for not only security holes but also a great deal of bugs.
Re:Switching kernels for one install or? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, Linux binary emulation actually works. A couple of years ago, the usual Linux ABI breakage - of which they are very proud of - made me unable to use Maple 8 (for which you have to buy an expensive license) on Ubuntu.
I installed FreeBSD and the Linux emulation layer, tweaked some stuff on the Maple side (basically, some scripts) and there you go - Maple ran on FreeBSD with the Linux emulation layer, while it refused to run on Linux itself, whcih it had done, just a release earlier (i.e., a couple of months).
I've tried this on other commercial software and it worked too (but this on a tweak-it-yourself basis).
This emulation layer is great and I wish more people (i.e., commercial software) used it, because you can write software for Linux and get FreeBSD customers, too.
This experience convinced me FreeBSD hackers were a notch higher in skills and experience than their Linux (Debian, Ubuntu, whatever) counterparts.
I've moved to Mac OS X since but still hang on to my FreeBSD. Don't want Linux anymore, thank you.
Re:I run Debian, and I run FreeBSD. (Score:3, Interesting)
"Sure, we don't want stupidly long boot times when we do need to reboot, but that's what, once a month, once a year, once a decade if your server is in good health?"
I work for a company providing telecom equipment designed for 99.999% uptime.
The general recommendation is to have at least one backup machine, then once a week or so switch activity to the backup and reboot the formerly-active machine. This will uncover certain types of hardware glitches as well as ensuring that you can boot from disk in case of a power outage.
Anyone who hasn't rebooted for a year could be in for a surprise if they ever get a power outage.
Re:Servers (Score:2, Interesting)
You're missing the point drastically. With my Mac (and I'd assume with any decent Windows laptop, but I haven't tried it), when I want to stop using the computer, I just close the lid, and it goes to sleep. When I want to use it again, I open it up, and it wakes up within a few seconds.
The consumers you're thinking of don't really care about the difference between cold boot and waking up from sleep. They want their computer to be available when they want it, without having to wait for a while. It's OK if sometimes the computer is unavailable for 5 minutes because of updates, as long as they have control over when it happens.
If you want to make things good for consumes, what you want to do is to make sure that sleep/hibernate modes are rock-solid, and minimize the number of situations that require a cold reboot. The latter can be solved with techniques like microkernel design (so more parts of the system can be replaced while it is up), or with kernel hot-patching features. Improving the speed of cold boots comes a very far third behind these.