It's a FreeBSD kernel and a GNU userland, with Debian package management, tools, etc. No Linux involved.

I used it for a while, a few years ago. It's pretty impressive what they have done, but then it's actually better to just install the latest FreeBSD. And there's probably no good reason to not use the Linux kernel in a Linux distribution.

Last time I checked, you can still run Debian Linux with sysvinit, just avoid gnome, etc and it won't get pulled in (but some apt pinning is advised as well). The only package which does get pulled in quite often is libsystemd0, but without systemd itself installed that serves no purpose as it's a static library which is built from the systemd source tarball (as is udev).

You can also avoid a lot of the cruft and recommended systemd packages (e.g. with Xfce, etc) by disabling recommends.

Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is not Debian-based, it's actual Debian! That said, it has seemed like the systemd cabal has been trying to marginalize it. It would make sense for it to join Devuan later, if Devuan gets further along.

A big advantage from the choice of kernel is that it uses PF instead of iptables.

This is the original article where Poettering said that GNU/kFreeBSD was a 'toy OS'.

Original French: https://linuxfr.org/news/un-entretie...art-poettering
English Translation: http://linuxfr.org/nodes/86687/comments/1249943

And if you want to get a better idea of what Poettering stands for, here are some of his opinions:

https://lwn.net/Articles/430699/

But I doubt Debian GNU/kFreeBSD would "join Devuan" (not if they want to continue to be taken seriously anyway...)

If that makes people understand that Linux is just a shortcut for Gnu/Linux, and else it is just a kernel, then it did quite some good.
Refering to third-party apps, as FreeBSD does, iirc, helps in understanding what exactly is meant when speaking of Linux as an OS too (or even putting them in local).

btw: To say: Instead of using Debian kFreeBSD use FreeBSD doesn't make much sense to me. The one is Debian (now unofficial again, but anyway), the other is FreeBSD. For the bigger part a Debian user will feel home with kFreeBSD, with FreeBSD? Rather not.
One good reason to use Debian with a non-Linux kernel i already mentioned: be done with systemd.

My main box has been on the same Debian install since 2010, still using SysV. My laptop is using Debian with systemd. In my day-to-day activies, they both run without issue.

The best method is to custom yourself
https://revcode.wordpress.com/2012/0...-linux-distro/

The current custom kernel I use gives me:
You got better?

You build your own distro yourself, drop debian, or include some debs of it.
That might be the best method to drop Systemd.


Just give a try to custom kernel and use init, this is awesome.

"the best" is not an absolute value. The best for what? For sure not for everyday usage for years and years.

And what you quoted made only clear that if one installs and want debian Gnu/kFreeBSD,one will not get a FreeBSD system (and the other way around it is just the same). People who install debian GNU/kFreeBSD want that, people who install FreeBSD want that (and people who install a selfmade distro want that, which again is a different thing).

Yes.
See my previous post.

PS: Whenever I see someone posting about busybox I always wonder if they actually know what it was made for ...

Note some of the key points by fatmac:

1. Debian can be built without system.
2. AntiX is a great example. MX-16 is another example. Both are Debian-based systems that simply utilize the techniques to build a Debian-based system with an alternative init system.

I've used lots of antiX and MX releases and they are excellent. They do not suffer at all, even on recent and current releases that still use another init system (sysvinit in this case). I also use Debian systems with systemd and they work fine too, so it is clear that the user community still has choices, and this has already been going on for a couple of years, so there is no need to fear.

AntiX and Slackware are but two of the distributions you can use with or without systemd. Arch Linux has good documentation about how to build their systems with or without systemd. I'm sure that the same is possible with any of the Gentoo Linux derivatives too, though I've not yet explored the range of alternatives that may already be out there in this space.

Gentoo for sure, and i don't even think that systemd is the default (you can install it, but it isn't default, iirc).
Void Linux.
Many others, but more obscure ones. So of the traditional, well known ones it's Slackware and Gentoo, as far i can tell.

"1. Debian can be built without system."
I wonder how you can get debian without System v and Systemd.


Even on LFS, they recommend to use Systemd.

init just basically automates the processes to be started. You could use busybox or even bash as an init if preferred. You would have to write your own scripts or manually start the processes.

It is possible to workaround installing Debian. The Xorg will need Systemd. However, you can work with something else than Xorg. Xfree86 ?

I don't think Xorg needs systemd, but some DEs such as Gnome3 and KDE do. One of my systems is still on sys-v, and only a couple packages want to bring in systemd, such as policykit-1 and udisks2.

Xorg still doesn't need systemd as a dependency as of Buster. I've so far managed to install a fairly usable base Debian system with network install and X11, without the need of systemd as a dependency. Now then you need systemd for some DEs but you run into a snag even sooner than that. There are applications (Libreoffice, Firefox, Chromium) that all have a mandatory dependency on systemd. A cardinal issue with systemd is it couples the system. It's a significant issue, certainly to me, and it's why most people don't like it.