Hacker News Reader

Comment by yjftsjthsd-h | Hacker News Reader

Well, no, my exact argument is that there is a base system, even if it is composed of assorted components. If you install Debian (or whatever) on a machine, the software installed by the package manager ships as a unified release that has been adapted to work together. I think it's reasonable to call that the base OS. And then, separate from that base system that is managed by the package manager, the local admin my install things into /usr/local.

View on HN

They're talking about Linux, the kernel. The kernel has no concept of a base system. There is initramfs and init.

Okay, that's true but other than the slight semantic point of "Linux" vs a "Linux distro" or "GNU/Linux" I don't think it matters. Whatever words you use to describe it, there is a base OS which is composed of a variety of components from different sources but which ultimately amounts to a single thing.

> there is a base OS

In most distributions yes, there is Linux and then there is userspace on top of it. What you call "base system" is actually part of userspace, which has nothing to do with Linux itself.

No, what I call the "base system" is the result of running debootstrap, and encompasses all the packages that make a complete operating system. The kernel is just one part of the OS.

If you can remove GNU coreutils and replace them with something else (like that Rust garbage) then you don't have a base system. You have a loose collection of packages around a kernel.

Replaces the GNU Coreutils with the Rusty ones on BSD

Which BSD ships GNU Coreutils?

Every occasion I’ve seen GNU coreutils installed on BSD, it’s been outside of the base and thus installed outside of /bin. Eg /usr/local or /opt/homebrew

BSD has its own coreutils, in fact they even predate GNU.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com