3 ms·

I'm wondering if anybody has an explanation for the relatively few BSD distros as compared to Linux? Is it just due to the smaller community and limited resourc

I'm wondering if anybody has an explanation for the relatively few BSD distros as compared to Linux? Is it just due to the smaller community and limited resources or is there something different with BSD that leads to less division?

drewg123 3y ago
I think a lot of it is because unlike Linux, FreeBSD is a not just a kernel, but an entire OS, with a kernel, utilities, compilers, and a package manager. There have been different distros (PC-BSD, debian kfreebsd, etc), but I think the "default" upstream distro has most of what's needed. And there are likely "distros" that you don't see. Eg, we run our own private "distro" on the CDN at Netflix, which is basically upstream FreeBSD + some kernel patches queued for upstreaming + a limited number of ports + some netflix specific stuff. I imagine other companies using FreeBSD (NetApp, Sony, etc) also have their own private distros.
- TyroneBlack 3y ago
  I guess my question was more about something like Debian which would be more comparable to FreeBSD. Ubuntu is based on Debian. PopOS and Mint are built off of Ubuntu. They are all separate, but still pull the code from their upstream. Why isn't there a situation like that with the BSDs? As far as I know the only ones that exist like that are GhostBSD and HardenedBSD. Why do the BSDs split for good instead of just pulling from upstream and making some changes? There are also private linux distros. I wasn't really getting into them since they aren't available.
  - toast0 3y ago
    OpenBSD split from NetBSD about philosophy, and the changes go deep. I never used PC-BSD, but I gather it is (or was?) mostly a few changes on top of FreeBSD, so it would fit your model. FreeNAS/TrueNAS core is more or less a specialized distribution of FreeBSD. Otoh, DragonflyBSD is a fork of FreeBSD; there were big differences in opinion on how SMP should be implemented, and then big differences in implementation, making it hard to just pull and make changes.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
Linux is just a kernel, anybody shipping it for use has to include a seperate userland. FreeBSD is an entire operating system, it ships with a kernel and userland as one completed piece. So you could build a "distro" on top with just things like a desktop environment, but there wasn't the same need to. This also means that most of the BSD's are fundamentally different operating systems. There are some "distros," but FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and DragonflyBSD are all seperate operating systems.
- TyroneBlack 3y ago
  I understand when the BSDs are forked they become their own thing. I guess my question was more about something like Debian. Ubuntu is based on Debian. PopOS and Mint are built off of Ubuntu. They are all separate, but still pull the code from their upstream. Why isn't there a situation like that with the BSDs? As far as I know the only ones that exist like that are GhostBSD and HardenedBSD.
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    With Linux, there was an independent need for a "pull from upstream" model, so one was built then further developed. That wasn't necessary for the BSD's, and by the time someone would consider rolling their own "distro" they would probably already be part of the FreeBSD project. A part of it is certainly userbase size, but the project seems to allow more competition while still being part of FreeBSD. An example, FreeBSD ships with three different firewalls. With Linux, each one would probably have built their own distro with that being the key difference between them.

drewg123 3y ago

I think a lot of it is because unlike Linux, FreeBSD is a not just a kernel, but an entire OS, with a kernel, utilities, compilers, and a package manager. There have been different distros (PC-BSD, debian kfreebsd, etc), but I think the "default" upstream distro has most of what's needed. And there are likely "distros" that you don't see. Eg, we run our own private "distro" on the CDN at Netflix, which is basically upstream FreeBSD + some kernel patches queued for upstreaming + a limited number of ports + some netflix specific stuff. I imagine other companies using FreeBSD (NetApp, Sony, etc) also have their own private distros.

TyroneBlack 3y ago
I guess my question was more about something like Debian which would be more comparable to FreeBSD. Ubuntu is based on Debian. PopOS and Mint are built off of Ubuntu. They are all separate, but still pull the code from their upstream. Why isn't there a situation like that with the BSDs? As far as I know the only ones that exist like that are GhostBSD and HardenedBSD. Why do the BSDs split for good instead of just pulling from upstream and making some changes? There are also private linux distros. I wasn't really getting into them since they aren't available.
- toast0 3y ago
  OpenBSD split from NetBSD about philosophy, and the changes go deep. I never used PC-BSD, but I gather it is (or was?) mostly a few changes on top of FreeBSD, so it would fit your model. FreeNAS/TrueNAS core is more or less a specialized distribution of FreeBSD. Otoh, DragonflyBSD is a fork of FreeBSD; there were big differences in opinion on how SMP should be implemented, and then big differences in implementation, making it hard to just pull and make changes.

boomboomsubban 3y ago

Linux is just a kernel, anybody shipping it for use has to include a seperate userland. FreeBSD is an entire operating system, it ships with a kernel and userland as one completed piece. So you could build a "distro" on top with just things like a desktop environment, but there wasn't the same need to. This also means that most of the BSD's are fundamentally different operating systems. There are some "distros," but FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and DragonflyBSD are all seperate operating systems.

TyroneBlack 3y ago
I understand when the BSDs are forked they become their own thing. I guess my question was more about something like Debian. Ubuntu is based on Debian. PopOS and Mint are built off of Ubuntu. They are all separate, but still pull the code from their upstream. Why isn't there a situation like that with the BSDs? As far as I know the only ones that exist like that are GhostBSD and HardenedBSD.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  With Linux, there was an independent need for a "pull from upstream" model, so one was built then further developed. That wasn't necessary for the BSD's, and by the time someone would consider rolling their own "distro" they would probably already be part of the FreeBSD project. A part of it is certainly userbase size, but the project seems to allow more competition while still being part of FreeBSD. An example, FreeBSD ships with three different firewalls. With Linux, each one would probably have built their own distro with that being the key difference between them.