Arch BSD has arrived...

[Daktyl198]

Now, I'm an Arch Linux fan, and I don't know much about BSD, but I do think that this will bring BSD to the place it deserves to be in the OS ecosystem...

http://archbsd.net/

Can anybody tell me what they think this version of BSD might bring to the table over FreeBSD (aside from the dramatically updated packages and the AUR) or what the implications might be? I noticed it uses GCC 4.8 (which has to do with the "updated packages" thing).

[JS987]

BSD licensed code can be used in closed source software. If you will for example report bugs in BSD code, you will also support closed source software.

[Vim_User]

BSD licensed code can be used in closed source software. If you will for example report bugs in BSD code, you will also support closed source software.

The same is true for the MIT license. Are you implying one shouldn't report bugs in X or Wayxland? Also, BSD licensed code can be used in GPL licensed software, like for example the Linux kernel. Reporting bugs in parts of the kernel code that has a BSD license will support BSD licensed software and with that closed software. Are you implying that one should have a look which license is used in the code-parts of the kernel you want to report a bug for, so that you don't support BSD?

Maybe re-think if the world is as black and white as you think or if there is a little more grey to it.

[JS987]

The same is true for the MIT license. Are you implying one shouldn't report bugs in X or Wayxland? Also, BSD licensed code can be used in GPL licensed software, like for example the Linux kernel. Reporting bugs in parts of the kernel code that has a BSD license will support BSD licensed software and with that closed software. Are you implying that one should have a look which license is used in the code-parts of the kernel you want to report a bug for, so that you don't support BSD?

X or Wayland are used because there is no 100% GPL or LGPL replacement, but you can choose between Linux and BSD. Reporting bugs in BSD kernel bugzilla is more useful for closed source software than reporting bugs in Linux kernel bugzilla.

[JX8p]

X or Wayland are used because there is no 100% GPL or LGPL replacement, but you can choose between Linux and BSD. Reporting bugs in BSD kernel bugzilla is more useful for closed source software than reporting bugs in Linux kernel bugzilla.

Much the same logic can be used to say that using Linux supports closed source software more than using GNU/Hurd, because many more proprietry programs market towards Linux users than towards HURD users (are there any?). It's a bit weak and hilarious.

[JS987]

Much the same logic can be used to say that using Linux supports closed source software more than using GNU/Hurd, because many more proprietry programs market towards Linux users than towards HURD users (are there any?). It's a bit weak and hilarious.

I can accept that some Linux software is closed source if it is optional like games.

[JX8p]

I can accept that some Linux software is closed source if it is optional like games.

Then you do not practice what you preach. You are providing an audience for closed source software in just the same way as someone is by helping with a BSD (in other words, in a contrived and fallacious manner).

[JS987]

Then you do not practice what you preach. You are providing an audience for closed source software in just the same way as someone is by helping with a BSD (in other words, in a contrived and fallacious manner).

Closed source applications aren't such problem, but BSD code developed by someone can be copy pasted into closed application by someone else.

[Daktyl198]

Thanks for all the discussion, just to bad it has nothing to do with my original post.

Well, apparently it's not "new" anyway, which I probably could have found out with just a bit of searching, but I'm stilling looking for a comparison between Arch BSD and all of the currently popular BSD distros

[crymsonpheonix]

Thanks for all the discussion, just to bad it has nothing to do with my original post.

Well, apparently it's not "new" anyway, which I probably could have found out with just a bit of searching, but I'm stilling looking for a comparison between Arch BSD and all of the currently popular BSD distros

I ran ArchLinux for years, and before that I ran FreeBSD for several years, but I've been running Fedora and Gentoo for the three few years; so this was several years ago, which is to say Your Millage May Vary.

FreeBSD has a ports system, which inspired Gentoo's portage system if you're familiar with that. The source builds tend to be pretty up to date, not as much as Arch, but maybe closer to Fedora or openSUSE. They also provide binary packages which may be useful for some large packages (like LibreOffice and Firefox) or on old machines. I would say I like FreeBSD's ports over Arch's packages + AUR. There are better tools for working with Ports than the AUR, and the packages tend to be tested better. I never worried about a FreeBSD upgrade making my system unbootable, as I had regularly happen with Arch.

Personally, I would not run ArchBSD, or Debian GNU/kFreeBSD or even Gentoo/kFreeBSD (I'm running gentoo these days and loving it). Because the best thing about the BSD's is the stable core OS. FreeBSD isn't a Kernel like Linux, it's a Kernel + core userland. And those things are stable, with periodic bugfixes and security fixes only. Everything else is a Port or Package, and that's really nice.