Timeline for Conceptual difference between Linux and (Free)BSD Kernel
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2018 at 0:31 | history | edited | Rui F Ribeiro | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 27 characters in body |
| Jul 3, 2015 at 1:16 | comment | added | goldilocks | @JoshRumbut Existentialism is off-topic here. | |
| Jul 2, 2015 at 18:32 | comment | added | Josh Rumbut | Really @goldilocks, you can't see the benefit of a third thing that's neither too linuxy, nor too BSDish, but just right? | |
| May 3, 2014 at 9:28 | vote | accept | binaryanomaly | ||
| May 3, 2014 at 1:21 | answer | added | Ouki | timeline score: 26 | |
| May 2, 2014 at 13:45 | comment | added | binaryanomaly | @0xC0000022L: You're certainly right and I didn't want to say that licensing questions are not important - I just wanted it not to become the main focus in this particular discussion. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 13:06 | comment | added | 0xC0000022L | @binaryanomaly: different licenses are very much of importance to both sides. To an extent even that one could call it an ideology on either side of the aisle. For example GCC used to be a sore point in the BSDs and FreeBSD now switched to Clang as their default for this very reason: license issues. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 12:57 | answer | added | slm♦ | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 2, 2014 at 12:52 | comment | added | binaryanomaly | No, not at all, rather the other way round - establish a cooperation for parts that are the same for both. I think for certain drivers this is already the case if I'm not mistaken. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 11:58 | comment | added | goldilocks | Are there any joint efforts to concentrate forces for one common kernel or certain modules or would that be pointless anyway? My first thought is what point could that possibly have...to create a third kernel "based entirely on a mix of linux and freeBSD"? | |
| May 2, 2014 at 11:07 | history | asked | binaryanomaly | CC BY-SA 3.0 |