My suggestion to the project please read and see


Can we just get along. We don’t have to like each other (as kernels), but we can exchange few tools (compatible libraries) to get the job done. Ask Oracle, Google or Amazon why they’ve made such a mess with their Linux sharing ideas on everything and in everything with bits of Java cloning here and there, JS, go and who knows what :slight_smile:

If you insist on Linux in everything, ask Bill Gates wtf happen to Xenix. He owned and licensed AT&T UNIX . And, why MSOS, after over 30 years in OS kernel for PC biz, and the owner of UNIX(Xenix), still doesn’t have at least *NIX compatible libraries in MSOS or complete UNIX-like OS for PC called MSOX :)))

Tho, FreeBSD does have some Linux compatible libraries, that’s why one can run Linux in FreeBSD jail or use some Linux drivers in FreeBSD.

Trovalds did not make Linux kernel out of thin air and Apple OSX was not made in haven. They needed UNIX core and C to brew their own *INX, and so did *BSD

Read this so you can maybe understand what UNIX was/is and who was/is using it. Who cares what you call it. Though, it’s important which path and hardware platform you choose to make UNIX-like kernel and what audience or customer you want to satisfy with your UNIX.


I’m reading:

  1. UEFI only, GRUB, Btrfs + shell-scripts
  2. Static iso-images for OS/updates + AppImage/Snaps/Flatpack for applications and drivers(?). Then, when you select one of those images, it extracts the kernel and the initramfs file and boots the system normally.. Then FUSE for appimages.

(1) Requires a complete re-write to be used with BSD, since it’s heavily linux-based and uses discarded Btrfs under the hood. Why’d I wanna do that, when I already have working ZFS and BEs for reliable atomic updates.

(2) Might be good for live CDs, but doesn’t look like being very efficient, especially for embedded systems. In addition, it will require a complete overhaul of the packaging system.

(3) Then there is that GPL licensing stuff as well.


maybe it will be useful
it’s just developing


“discarded btrfs” – What are you talking about? It is the default file system on opensuse and I presume their enterprise version. I have been running for 2 months on my new system through several power failures with no damage to the file system and rollbacks for user supplied package that did not install properly. The only problem that I had apparently was with systemd claiming it cannot mount the swap after an update. Now the problem has gone away after a subsequent update. Btrfs may not have all the features equivalent to ZFS , but it is useable for selected features. Your comment on it may be based on stale data that is no longer true today.


In August 2017, the release notes of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.4 indicated that Red Hat was going to stop supporting Btrfs; RHEL 7.4 includes updates for Btrfs from upstream, but there are no further updates planned to be included, and Btrfs will be removed from Red Hat Enterprise Linux in a future major release.[30] Suse reaffirmed its commitment to Btrfs.[31]

You could be right. However, it seems SUSE is the only distro still committed to support it. TBH I couldn’t care less about Btrfs, but if it works for you that’s great.


What is the purpose of this software? What problem is it solving and is that an issue with BSD today? Will this being ported to BSD enhance the current BSD experience? If so how? Usually software porters in the BSD community scratch their own itch. There is a lot of information on how to port software from other OS’es to the BSD’s so maybe you should look at that and give it a shot. If it is software there is no such thing as impossible you just have to be willing to put in the effort.