Results 1 to 5 of 5
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Other Unix Kernel Porting Based Projects; System V anyone??
One thing i have noticed about Linux open source in general is that alot of the big projects like Debian or Arch end up not just creating usable systems around Linux but start porting other kernels like FreeBSD & Hurd.
So i am curious to know what makes projects like Debian or Arch choose certain kernels to port to GNU and not others, besides licensing.
For example i can think of many kernels that could be ported but one that never has been mentioned, System V...
It only has one distro that is even closely related to it which is Solaris, and Solaris is limited because of Oracle.
Maybe SysV doesn't offer much over BSD or Linux. But it still surprises me at least that besides Solaris or OpenIndiana there is no other opensource distro that as either ported or created a OS running System V.
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
There are projects such as StormOS and Nexenta OS which you may want to have a look at.
Yes, true. But if i remember correctly both StormOS and Nexenta are based of Solaris (aka SunOS 5.10 & 5.11) which is a fork of System V Release 4 (SVR4). Not being finicky or anything but that would be like saying FreeBSD and NetBSD are the same.
Maybe I'm wrong and SysV is proprietary by what was SCO Unix, but i always thought it was SVR5 that was proprietary and System V was open source.
It's not just System V that was an example. But ones like Plan9 or Minix are others
Last edited by SL6-A1000; 10-09-2011 at 02:25 PM.
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
System V is proprietary. As far as I know StormOS and Nexenta are based on the Illumos kernel, with a GNU userland (Debian/Ubuntu based).
But isn't the illumos kernel based of OpenSolaris?? which basically makes it a Solaris Kernel. It still doesn't really explain why projects choose to expand from there main kernel (i.e. Linux) to another (i.e. Hurd or FreeBSD), or what are the reasons behind choosing those certain systems over others.
I mean, is it motivated by the difference in kernel architechure & structure? or is it how complete the system is on a whole? or just the directors or CEO's fascination with that system?
What iam getting at is why don't projects like Debain, Arch or even Red Hat focus on systems that don't have much support if they are going to branch out? Instead of choosing systems that already have a huge backing like FreeBSD. It's not a critism just an observation... Like Arch or Debian for example they choose to make a FreeBSD variant of their system, which is all well and good, but it isn't really giving anything new. A person can get FreeBSD anywhere from several already well known projects. They can't get a Hurd or Plan 9 distro very easily though with up-to-date software and good support.
To me it would make more sense to branch somewhere that there isn't a huge following, if they want to increase popularity and their community, if you get what iam saying.
Last edited by SL6-A1000; 10-12-2011 at 03:08 AM.