FreeBSD Support

[FalloutZone]

Support FreeBSD Binaries and System Calls

Expected Result:
Run FreeBSD on the subsystem

FreeBSD is a very popular server operating system with deep roots in web and cloud development. Please support FreeBSD in the Windows 10 "WSL" feature.

[drsn0w]

This is Windows Subsystem for Linux, not FreeBSD or other *NIX environments.

[FalloutZone]

Yes, you are correct - WSL is for ELF/Linux. This is a request to make this, or a similar system on Windows 10 WSL to support other open source *NIX environments - specifically FreeBSD.

[sunilmut]

@FalloutZone - Thanks for the feedback. What you are essentially asking for is "WSB" (Windows Subsystem for BSD). User voice ticket would be a great way to provide that feedback. Something that we look at for our future prioritization.

[maphew]

"This UserVoice instance is no longer available."

[eeboaz]

I would like to see this as well. I prefer the FreeBSD operating system over Linux for server and development use cases and this would make Windows 10 a much more viable option for a development platform for me. I will look at the User voice ticket link provided.

[iz0eyj]

it may be that it becomes useful in a possible version for use on servers, but the use of *BSD in desktop machines is really very limited.

[Onepamopa]

I would also like to see Windows Subsystem for FreeBSD.

[eeboaz]

it may be that it becomes useful in a possible version for use on servers, but the use of *BSD in desktop machines is really very limited.

There's no good reason to arbitrarily permit *BSD only on servers but not on desktops.
The use case for WSL is not the server market - it's the developer desktop market.

BSD is much the same. This would let me have one system at work where I have to use Windows for corporate stuff (exchange/email/calendar, visio, etc.) and BSD where I code for servers running FreeBSD
Apple is continuing to make a mockery of macOS and isn't really viable any more.

[iz0eyj]

@eeboaz:
I have absolutely nothing against BSD, but his primary field of use are the servers and network devices. The WSL we have now is not suitable for use on any of the two types of object, and the effort needed to create in "WSB", at least in my opinion, it would be totally unjustified.
If later the characteristics of WSL will change in a direction that will be suitable for those uses, then it will change my opinion.

[eeboaz]

@iz0eyj
Why are you insisting on this view point that we're wanting to run production systems on WSL/WSB?

This is exactly counter to the purposes of WSL in the first place, straight from the FAQ:

Who is this for?

This is primarily a tool for developers -- especially web developers and those who work on or with open source projects. This allows those who want/need to use Bash, common Linux tools (sed, awk, etc.) and many Linux-first tools (Ruby, Python, etc.) to use their toolchain on Windows.

[iz0eyj]

@eeboaz:
where you see reported the BSD say in what you brought? if anything at all WSL documents contain references to Linux and exclusively to Linux. For a project to be successful it needs there are users who then use it ... the development team has a cost, are not eople who work for the glory.
What do you prove by that passage? which it is directed ONLY to the developers? is not the case, this is what he would like some of them but it does not. For any developer who receive WSL exist thousand and thousand ordinary users; It will be sufficient for an ordinary user of a hundred active WSL to see them dominate much the number of developers.
There are no end-user Windows interested in BSD, they want Ubuntu Linux.
WSL is not a product for the community "free software" but it is a Windows component, whose main target will be Windows users, be they end users or developers.

[eeboaz]

@iz0eyj

There are no end-user Windows interested in BSD, they want Ubuntu Linux.

I did't know you spoke for the entire Windows community. Right, you don't.
You're not going to dissuade me from being vocal that I would like this support.

We're just asking the development team at Microsoft to consider supporting FreeBSD in addition to Linux when they've reached their primary goal of supporting Ubuntu Linux. I don't see how having options harms you at all, so please be considerate and let me and others ask for the same option: using the Windows subsystem to support the user-land of the operating system we prefer to use for our development work.

[rustyx]

I'm surprised this "issue" is still open - this project is about Linux emulation, after all.
BSD user mode is way more tightly coupled to the kernel than Linux. Given that, plus the dynamic nature of the FreeBSD ecosystem, emulating a BSD kernel would be an exercise in futility.
Which is no problem at all because there is very, very few reasons to emulate BSD anyway.
You can never use it for testing - if your code doesn't work, you'd always want to try it on a real BSD.

It's not about having the option, it's about spending hundreds or thousands of development hours to create and maintain something that is marginally useful.

[aseering]

G'day all -- there are some valuable opinions here, but could I request that we keep this thread on topic?

The topic here is a request for support for a BSD userspace. That is a valid technical request. It is up to the WSL team to pick it up or not. I, for one, trust them to have sound judgment. If you have supporting use cases or technical commentary on making that happen, please post it here.

If, on the other hand, you think this is a totally silly idea, stop replying and bumping up the ticket's post-count :-) According to this repository's README, issues remain open until the "discussion has run its course." So I encourage you to resist the urge to correct the thing that you see as Wrong On The Internet, and let the thread come to a stop.

[therealkenc]

User Voice is here.

[ruffianeo]

The one reason I would love to see FreeBSD support (even instead of linux) is that I have a deadly GPL allergy and I try to stay clear of such (legal) issues by avoiding Linux whenever I can. The "mostly for network and servers" argument does not cut it IMHO. FreeBSD is THE Unix for people who hate GPL.

[SharpBritannia]

Same

[SharpBritannia]

I would've announced that I can finally breathe properly with a joke but I can't think of any

[SharpBritannia]

BSDs being actually free as in freedom could've meant that Microsoft could just copy a lot of kernel code directly and just implemented a sort of shim between BSD interface and NT kernel. Maybe even contributing a proper NTFS driver back to upstream.
It still isn't late though! WSBSD can still be what WSL 1 could've never been.

[osen]

Microsoft used to have Services for UNIX (SFU): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX

This was in part based on BSD (OpenBSD) for the userland as a remnant of MKS Toolkit.

This (sadly) did not see the same popularity as the WSL hype. I can understand why Microsoft won't invest here.

[SharpBritannia]

I believe SFU was actually ports of Unix software using a compatibility library like Cygwin or libbsd for Linux. You couldn't actually run any old OpenBSD ELF using SFU. WSL however runs Linux binaries just fine.

[osen]

(Edit: Sorry for so many edits, the history of SFU, SUA is messy!)

SFU was more like WSL1 rather than the more virtualization / Hyper-V based approach of WSL2.
But it was actually a subsystem, Obviously unlike something like Cygwin, the executables built for SFU couldn't be made standalone to run on Windows without the subsystem.

You couldn't actually run any old OpenBSD ELF using SFU. WSL however runs Linux binaries just fine.

SFU needed to be thought of as a distinct UNIX platform. So no it couldn't run unchanged OpenBSD binaries any more than Solaris could. However I believe it did run unchanged Interix binaries as part of its Interix Subsystem.

It was all there, we are just going in circles these days ;)

[SharpBritannia]

Perhaps if Microsoft did a better job of informing people like me what SFU was it wouldn't have been such a flop.
Still... I'd love WSBSD

[kevincrans]

It's available on windows 7 based os. I think both ms and apple could do a better job as for their own os. However, it's hard since every bsd and version number is different.

[SharpBritannia]

osen's post and my comments kept the thread active; Seems like my weekly cry for attention to this thread isn't needed at this time....
Oops I did just that I guess

[LegalizeAdulthood]

I'll add that I'd also like to see BSD support in a supported Windows Subsystem type product.

[SharpBritannia]

gimme ma bsd!

[starXultra]

I honestly want windows subsystem for BSD because of the userland, couldn't care less for the kernel.
The kernel isn't going to make much difference here, because the BSD tools you use are the userland, and the structure and benefits of the BSD kernel aren't going to have much benefit because you are running it on top of the NT kernel (The kernel that is used by windows)
Trying to port BSD userland to Linux and putting it in WSL could work, as this has been done in a native Linux distribution called Chimera Linux
Maybe we can get the source code and rip the userland from either the Chimera Linux code or FreeBSD.
Source: The Chimera Linux official website

[kevincrans]

That's a good starting point! however people like their own bsd. I read that crux linux also has bsd style init.

[starXultra]

I don't think init will matter because wsl uses its own init
I think WSL just uses a hacky program pretending to be a linux kernel so that binaries can run, so kernel still doesn't matter. Linux is a clone of unix and BSD is unix, so it doesn't matter.
I'm going to try and bootstrap chimera and chroot into it in WSL, as I have downloaded chroot tarballs and used them in WSL before, and they worked with no problems.

[kevincrans]

Interesting, but my point still stands. BSD is not officially unix (macos aside), but that may have worked in Chimera Linux' advantage.

[starXultra]

BSD is a descendent of unix, but they slowly worked on removing at and t code. It works exactly like unix, even though it has no unix code, unlike linux, which just pretends to work like unix.

[SharpBritannia]

Well not exactly like Research Unix but I'd argue that they've done a far better job in improving on it (kqueue, jails, etc)

[SharpBritannia]

[SharpBritannia]

knock knock

[Anonyming]

How to patch KDE2 for FreeBSD? 😂

[ris-work]

I'd love to see any BSD support as well. NetBSD already runs as a RUMPkernel (and has been compiled to JS as well!) so I suppose it should not be very different to what's done for Linux. Moreover, I suppose the license is far more lenient, too.
Since it already uses a hypervisor anyway, it should at least be bootable?

[netjune]

I think it should be easy to support FreeBSD using hyper-V like WSL2.

[trungnt2910]

For the NT kernel driver devs out there:

As of Windows 11 23H2, it is possible to create custom Pico providers/library OSes on Windows.

Currently I have created a toy subsystem that can print "Hello World" using a custom syscall ABI. In the mid-term future, I might attempt OSes of mid-complexity like Haiku OS, before proceeding to newer Linux/Darwin/FreeBSD in the long run.

I'm current wading through the NT kernel internals and learning new things every day, join me if you can contribute or just wanna have a chat.

[SharpBritannia]

[Nolram12345]

+1 on this. BSD for WSL (WSU?) would be awesome.