Comments on: Debian Solaris? http://ianmurdock.com/solaris/debian-solaris/ on emerging platforms and the power of aggregation and integration Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:28:31 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Stefan http://ianmurdock.com/solaris/debian-solaris/comment-page-1/#comment-373 Stefan Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:48:22 +0000 http://ianmurdock.com/?p=267#comment-373 There are two Debian GNU/BSD ports (that I know of). http://www.us.debian.org/ports/netbsd/ and http://www.us.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ Alvaro links to both in the body of his blog posting. Like Debian GNU/Hurd they are Debian systems with GNU utilities and a non-linux kernel (unlike fink and Debian GNU/w32 which are Debian packages and tools augmenting some otherwise complete system). There are two Debian GNU/BSD ports (that I know of).

http://www.us.debian.org/ports/netbsd/

and

http://www.us.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/

Alvaro links to both in the body of his blog posting. Like Debian GNU/Hurd they are Debian systems with GNU utilities and a non-linux kernel (unlike fink and Debian GNU/w32 which are Debian packages and tools augmenting some otherwise complete system).

]]> By: Ian Bicking http://ianmurdock.com/solaris/debian-solaris/comment-page-1/#comment-372 Ian Bicking Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:15:13 +0000 http://ianmurdock.com/?p=267#comment-372 There was talk of a Debian BSD at one time too, wasn't there? Seems like the same idea, different kernel. I don't know what happened to that project; probably something to think about for anyone going into this project. There was talk of a Debian BSD at one time too, wasn’t there? Seems like the same idea, different kernel. I don’t know what happened to that project; probably something to think about for anyone going into this project.

]]> By: James http://ianmurdock.com/solaris/debian-solaris/comment-page-1/#comment-371 James Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:16:00 +0000 http://ianmurdock.com/?p=267#comment-371 Well, whether it's DFSG approved is a matter of argument ... some on debian-legal say yes, some say no. From my extremely brief review, it's got something to do with patents. And I'd say more, but I really don't know, so check out debian-legal yourself. Well, whether it’s DFSG approved is a matter of argument … some on debian-legal say yes, some say no. From my extremely brief review, it’s got something to do with patents. And I’d say more, but I really don’t know, so check out debian-legal yourself.

]]> By: Ian Murdock http://ianmurdock.com/solaris/debian-solaris/comment-page-1/#comment-370 Ian Murdock Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:17:58 +0000 http://ianmurdock.com/?p=267#comment-370 The CDDL is free according to the OSD but not the DFSG (the former has to be true, or the OSI wouldn't have approved it)? I didn't realize the two documents had diverged.. The CDDL is free according to the OSD but not the DFSG (the former has to be true, or the OSI wouldn’t have approved it)? I didn’t realize the two documents had diverged..

]]> By: Nick Price http://ianmurdock.com/solaris/debian-solaris/comment-page-1/#comment-369 Nick Price Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:31:25 +0000 http://ianmurdock.com/?p=267#comment-369 I would love this except that DFSG would put the OpenSolaris kernel into non-free :( I would love this except that DFSG would put the OpenSolaris kernel into non-free :(

]]>