4 ms·

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 userl

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.