On 9 September 2014 06:52, Steven Roberts <[email protected]> wrote:
> OpenBSD could have been an option too, possibly. I set that up on an > ancient laptop a couple of years ago. Good fun and it taught me a lot about > Linux! *Nit-Pick alert! (please don't be offended - it's not meant to deride)* That's interesting because, as we should all be aware, OpenBSD (and FreeBSD and others) is NOT Linux. At all. It uses both an entirely different kernel and prescribed userland* which means the only similarity (besides similarly named utilities which aren't based on the same code as each other causing subtle differences in function such as bsd sed vs gnu sed's accepted command-line arguments) is that BSDs and Linux distros are POSIX compliant which allows software to be recompiled to work on either. The point here is the re-compile step - you can't take linux software in binary-form and expect it to work on a BSD (ignoring FreeBSD's linuxulator for now because that muddies the water a bit). Instead you need to compile it from source code specifically for the BSD you're running. * The Debian project has a release which takes the Debian GNU-based userland and the FreeBSD kernel and marries the two to make a GNU/Debian/kFreeBSD hybrid which is decidedly NOT FreeBSD because it uses GNU instead of the FreeBSD userland and decided NOT Linux because there is no trace of the Linux kernel (the requirement for something to call itself Linux). The only similarity between Debian/kFreeBSD and a GNU/Linux is the GNU part. -- Daniel Llewellyn
-- [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
