Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Dec 2005 23:44 UTC, submitted by Lazarus
BSD and Darwin derivatives Fans of DragonFly BSD will be getting their Christmas present late this year, and plans for 1.5 have been announced. MP safe networking code, the long awaited cache coherency management system, and a port of Sun's ZFS. Read here for more. Update: Refresh, empty cache, whatever, and check the shiny new beastie icon! And there was much rejoicing. Can we now please discuss DragonFly BSD?
Order by: Score:
comments from real users?
by theGrump on Sat 17th Dec 2005 23:52 UTC
theGrump
Member since:
2005-11-11

anyone actually using this for day to day use? any reflections?

Reply Score: 1

RE: comments from real users?
by Lazarus on Sun 18th Dec 2005 01:05 UTC in reply to "comments from real users?"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

"anyone actually using this for day to day use? any reflections?"

I did for quite a while, but because of the problems they were having with the FreeBSD 4.x ports collection, I stopped using it for day to day things because it was a real PITA to get some of the programs I tend to use (like MPLayer for example).

A lot of work has gone into making most of the packages available in NetBSD's pkgsrc work natively under DragonFly, and as soon as everything I want/need is available again, I plan to go back to using DragonFly for most of my day-to-day needs.

Up until just after 1.2 was released, I had used it almost exclusively and had no crashes, performace was not noticably different from FreeBSD (that is to say it didn't seem faster or slower, and no, I didn't benchmark anything), and except for the 3rd party software situation that arose as DF moved away from FreeBSD 4.x compatibility, it was a really solid system.

Reply Score: 2

Why this thread?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 00:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Thom, you areposting this message under a thread marked with FreeBSD new logo. While beastie, the daemon is the all BSD mascot, the new logo is just a FreeBSD thing. Dragonfly BSD has its own graphic identificator, Fred - the dragonfly. Just to clarify things.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why this thread?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Dec 2005 00:30 UTC in reply to "Why this thread?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The FreeBSD section is also the general BSD section. We can't just go about making sections for every project on this planet, I'm sorry.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Why this thread?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Why this thread?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

But you can have a dozen sections for different linux distributions. Ridiculous.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Why this thread?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Dec 2005 01:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why this thread?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

But you can have a dozen sections for different linux distributions. Ridiculous.

As if DragonflyBSD, in all its coolness, has as many users and developers as ANY one of those distributions.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Why this thread?
by Ronald Vos on Sun 18th Dec 2005 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why this thread?"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

As if DragonflyBSD, in all its coolness, has as many users and developers as ANY one of those distributions.

But undoubtedly, it's a lot more important than any of those Linux distributions from an OS-technical point of view. DFBSD innovates OS instead of repackaging software.

The most sensical/logical view if you don't want seperate categories would be to rename the FreeBSD section the BSD section, and use Beastie as icon.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[5]: Why this thread?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 02:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why this thread?"
RE[6]: Why this thread?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 02:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why this thread?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"BSD people constantly repackage a large majority of code written for and by Linux people. Starting from GCC to GNOME written largely Red Hat developers. So..."

You really have no clue what you're talking about do you. Please tell me the technical differences between Suse and RedHat? Other than a few configuration apps they might as well be the same, Linux is Linux. DragonFly is actually making technical innovations here. I'm not even a DFly user but at least I have some respect for what they're doing. As for GNOME being written largely by RedHat devs, you sir are an idiot.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Why this thread?
by abraxas on Sun 18th Dec 2005 03:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why this thread?"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

How about the fact that everything from package managers to init scripts vary in Linux distributions. Sure Suse, RedHat and Mandrake are pretty similar, but saying that something like Gentoo is the same thing as RedHat is pretty uninformed. To be honest even RedHat has a lot of differences as compared to Suse. Look at SELinux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Why this thread?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 03:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why this thread?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

""You really have no clue what you're talking about do you. Please tell me the technical differences between Suse and RedHat? Other than a few configuration apps they might as well be the same, Linux is Linux. "

I am afraid you are the one who needs to brush up your knowledge. Linux as the BSD people are very fond of pointing out is only the kernel. Starting with everything from SELinux support to cluster filesystems like GFS and Red Hat directory server, Fedora or RHEL is entirely different from the SUSE products.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Why this thread?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 03:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why this thread?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

BSD people constantly repackage a large majority
of code written for and by Linux people. Starting
from GCC to GNOME written largely Red Hat
developers. So...

Just because something is GPL'ed doesn't mean that it is Linux. GCC existed years before Linux let alone RedHat. Now technically RedHat does a lot of work on GCC becuase they bought Cygnus Support but it is the FSF that is responsible for releases of GCC not RedHat or any of its minions.

I ran and supported GCC on BSD UNIX years before Linux was on the scene.

Reply Score: 3

RE[8]: Why this thread?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 03:48 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Why this thread?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Now technically RedHat does a lot of work on GCC becuase they bought Cygnus Support but it is the FSF that is responsible for releases of GCC not RedHat or any of its minions.
"

No sir. It wasnt. Red Hat Micheal Tiemann OSI president wrote the first GCC C++ Compiler and ported it to Windows as part of cygnus operation which incidentally is well known as the first free software company. Red Hat people are steering commitee members and during the egcs fork merge effort, FSF explicitly agreed not to interfere in any of the decisions with respect to GCC in return for it being a GNU project

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Why this thread?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 10:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why this thread?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Most of the code is not, as far as i know, written specifically for linux, in fact, i would propose the thinking that most linux distributions repackage a large majority of code written for GNU (gcc) and free software purposes (ie X-Windows)

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Why this thread?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 04:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why this thread?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Agreed!!!!

I thought about saying something similar; however, I didn't because.

1) My statement wouldn't have been as short or as sweet.
2) Didn't feel like playing with the OSNews staff.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Why this thread?
by DevL on Sun 18th Dec 2005 11:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why this thread?"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

"But undoubtedly, it's a lot more important than any of those Linux distributions from an OS-technical point of view. DFBSD innovates OS instead of repackaging software. "

Indeed. I'm not a DragonFly BSD user, but I find it far more interesting from a technical point of view than Yet Another Linux distro. Perhaps it's time to revamp the categories of OSNews and clean out a few the least used and instead add more relevant ones?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Why this thread?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Dec 2005 11:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why this thread?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Perhaps it's time to revamp the categories of OSNews and clean out a few the least used and instead add more relevant ones?

We do that continiously. Not too long ago we created RISC OS and Zeta categories. DragonFly simply doesn't get enough news and attention to get it's own databse category, I'm sorry. Next thing you'll know we need to create seperate categories for AmigaOS 1, AmigaOS 2, AmigaOS 3 and AmigaOS 4.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Why this thread?
by DevL on Sun 18th Dec 2005 12:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why this thread?"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom, now you're just being plain silly. Yuo can't possbily compare 3 dead and 1 zombie version of an OS to 4+ BSDs that are all alvie and kicking. But, as you say, there's not enough news for DragonFly BSD for the time being.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why this thread?
by Lazarus on Sun 18th Dec 2005 01:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why this thread?"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

"But you can have a dozen sections for different linux distributions. Ridiculous."

Heh. I'm a big fan of DF, but I'd be suprised if there is even one thousand people using it. Too young, too small. For the time being, I think it fits quite happilly where it is, in the "FreeBSD and other BSDs" section.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why this thread?
by lazywally on Sun 18th Dec 2005 04:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Why this thread?"
lazywally Member since:
2005-07-06

The FreeBSD section is also the general BSD section. We can't just go about making sections for every project on this planet, I'm sorry.

Don't be sorry Holwerda. Just make a BSD section with the BSD logo and let all BSDs be a part of it. Its logical.

Reply Score: 3

ZFS License
by hurdboy on Sun 18th Dec 2005 01:24 UTC
hurdboy
Member since:
2005-09-02

Maybe someone can clarify for me, but the OpenSolaris CDDL doesn't seem to be compatible with the revised BSD license under which DragonFly is released. Maybe I'm missing something?

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/opensolaris_license/

Still, I'd really like to see a new FS option for a BSD. I was kind of hoping for HFS+, myself, but ZFS seems neat, too. UFS/FFS is old, slow, and very difficult to deal with on large filesystems (fscking a large partition takes a loooong time....I've seen 140GB take nearly two hours). UFS2+softupdates still isn't data-safe (since it essentially requires async operation), and doesn't improve performance. 1TB+ filesystems. woohoo. How long have other filesystems supported that?

Reply Score: 1

RE: ZFS License
by mezz on Sun 18th Dec 2005 01:59 UTC in reply to "ZFS License"
mezz Member since:
2005-06-29

I think, it might be same as how all BSD are doing with GPL stuff, nve (nic driver, NVIDIA license) and other stuff in the system. I might be wrong as I don't know about CDDL that much, thought.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ZFS License
by rayiner on Sun 18th Dec 2005 02:06 UTC in reply to "ZFS License"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

You complain UFS is old and slow, but were hoping for HFS+? We're talking about Apple's HFS+, are we not? The biggest relic of a filesystem still in common use after FAT32?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ZFS License
by hurdboy on Sun 18th Dec 2005 02:30 UTC in reply to "RE: ZFS License"
hurdboy Member since:
2005-09-02

HFS+ was completely new for OS8.1. It's a very nice modern filesystem.

HFS wouldn't help matters in BSD, no. :-)

To put it another way, there's good reason why Apple did work to make HFS+ Unix-friendly, rather than try and improve UFS for use with OSX. NeXT/Openstep used standard FFS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ZFS License
by rayiner on Sun 18th Dec 2005 03:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS License"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

HFS+ is simply an extension of the old HFS code. It's the same basic filesystem that's been in Macs forever, it's just that the block address sizes have been extended to cover larger filesystems. In a very real way, HFS+ is to HFS as FAT32 is to FAT16.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: ZFS License
by hurdboy on Sun 18th Dec 2005 04:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ZFS License"
hurdboy Member since:
2005-09-02

The first Mac filesystem was MFS.

It'd be more accurate to say that HFS+ is to HFS as NTFS is to HPFS (which is 16-bit, and 100% MS....why IBM went to JFS in later versions of OS/2). NTFS is 32-bit, includes journalling, is currently being developed and improved, etc. etc.

Still, having dealt with macs running HFS+ since 8.1 was brand new (afaik, one of those is still in use at my former job, doing ProTools work every day), I can say that it is a) fast, and b) very stable.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: ZFS License
by rayiner on Sun 18th Dec 2005 05:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ZFS License"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

The first Mac filesystem was MFS.

I never said HFS was the first. I said it has been around forever. Wikipedia shows that HFS was introduced only a year after MFS (in 1985), so my point still stands.

NTFS is 32-bit, includes journalling, is currently being developed and improved, etc. etc.

IIRC, NTFS is based on HPFS, but is significantly different in many regards. NTFS is a a generalization of the HPFS design. HFS+, in contrast, keeps almost precisely the same structure as HFS, except it makes various control structures larger. Beyond that, HPFS is a far less primitive base for a modern filesystem design than HFS!

I can say that it is a) fast, and b) very stable.

I wouldn't call anything filesystem related on OS X "fast". It's hard to give numbers relative to other FSs on OS X, because its UFS implementation is poor, but compared to Linux on comparablely fast disks, OS X is much slower for things like compiles. Compiles exercise the filesystem much more heavily than media processing, since they touch a lot of metadata and a lot of small files, as opposed to just touching the extent maps in a few large files.

Speed aside, HFS+ is certainly a less interesting filesystem from an FS theory point of view than either ZFS or Reiser4.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ZFS License
by kaiwai on Sun 18th Dec 2005 05:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS License"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

To put it another way, there's good reason why Apple did work to make HFS+ Unix-friendly, rather than try and improve UFS for use with OSX. NeXT/Openstep used standard FFS.

No, its more the need to for file forks support and the need for case preserving but case insensitive support - that and the fact that HFS+ isn't that broken, as much as the nay sayers would love to make out.

Sure, its the not the prettiest file system out there, but at the same time, is it worth replacing it with something else? I mean, if they're going for something that has 'teh cool' factor, they may wish to talk to SUN and see if they can port ZFS over to Mac OS X.

As for DragonFly, its looking like its really ontrack, and the gamble to try a new route to MP capabilities has really paid off in the end rather than the approach which the FreeBSD team took - thats not to say that Dragonfly got everything right, but at the same time, when you compare the resources that both teams have got, they've come a long way, very fast.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ZFS License
by binarycrusader on Sun 18th Dec 2005 06:23 UTC in reply to "ZFS License"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe someone can clarify for me, but the OpenSolaris CDDL doesn't seem to be compatible with the revised BSD license under which DragonFly is released. Maybe I'm missing something?

You are.

1) CDDL is a file based license, not everything under DragonFly is under a "different" BSD license.

2) The DragonFly license is file based too.

3) Matt is no stranger to licensing I am fully confident that he knows what he's doing.

4) It is my personal belief that even the modified DragonFly BSD license could be considered compatible since again CDDL is a file based license...

Reply Score: 1

aliquis
Member since:
2005-07-23

No further comments ;)

Reply Score: 3

Anonymous Member since:
---

I second that! (in regards to the subject)

Reply Score: 0

v Dragon Fly logo
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 06:29 UTC
RE: ZFS License
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 11:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Still, I'd really like to see a new FS option for a BSD. I was kind of hoping for HFS+, myself, but ZFS seems neat, too. UFS/FFS is old, slow, and very difficult to deal with on large filesystems (fscking a large partition takes a loooong time....I've seen 140GB take nearly two hours). UFS2+softupdates still isn't data-safe (since it essentially requires async operation), and doesn't improve performance. 1TB+ filesystems. woohoo. How long have other filesystems supported that?

http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html

[quote]
Linux is well known for its reliability. Servers often stay up for years. However, disk I/O is non-synchronous by default, which is less reliable for transaction based operations, and can produce a corrupted filesystem after a system crash or power failure.
[/quote]

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: ZFS License
by aliquis on Sun 18th Dec 2005 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE: ZFS License"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html ?

lol, that one is so old it's not even fun, I do like FreeBSD but currently I guess linux 2.6.x wins most or everything when it comes to speed.

How hard is it to change a flag in /etc/fstab for your filesystem if you want whatever behavior?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ZFS License
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE: ZFS License"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"
http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html

[quote]
Linux is well known for its reliability. Servers often stay up for years. However, disk I/O is non-synchronous by default, which is less reliable for transaction based operations, and can produce a corrupted filesystem after a system crash or power failure.
[/quote]"

That link is choke full of misinformation. Just a few examples,

"Linux does not use any version control system so all bug-fixes and enhancements must be emailed back and forth on mailing lists and ultimately submitted to the one person (Linus) who has authority to commit the code to the tree."

Wrong. Linux uses a distributed source code management system called git and for several years before that bitkeeper. You can find all the change sets at http://kernel.org/git

"[Bad]The Linux ext2 filesystem gets its performance from having an asynchronous mount."

Incorrect. Linux ext3 filesystems mount it the same as freebsd mount by default


"The situation has improved somewhat recently and the 2.4 release of the Linux kernel introduced a new virtual memory system based on the same concepts as the FreeBSD VM system."

2.4 is not recent by any stretch of imagination

"This problem is compounded by the fact that distributions like Red Hat tend to turn on notoriously insecure services by default.
"
Outright lies. Majority of daemons on RHEL or Fedora only listens to the local loopback device and not to any external network by default. They both are the first mainstream operating systems in the world to come with MAC based security by default using SELinux and hence are much more secure than any version of BSD

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: ZFS License
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE: ZFS License"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Lol. That comparison wasn't even accurate when it was first published about five or six years ago, and now it is woefully out of date.

Reply Score: 0

RE: RE[6]: Why this thread?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 12:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Tom, what people say is that the new FreeBSD logo is FreeBSD _only_. The common logo to cover _all_ BSD's is the deamon. You've been asked to only use the FreeBSD logo on FreeBSD articles and not on *BSD articles. Is that so hard to understand?

Reply Score: 2

allright
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Dec 2005 12:56 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Yuo can't possbily compare 3 dead and 1 zombie version of an OS to 4+ BSDs that are all alvie and kicking

Dead? Zeta has sold more copies of its OS than Be Inc has done. There are more regular Zeta users in the EU alone than DragonFlyBSD has over the world. For RISC OS, there are more users of that in the UK alone than DragonFlyBSD has over the world. As for Amiga-- the Amiga is something with such an heritage, I wouldn't be too dismissive of it if I were you.

Tom, what people say is that the new FreeBSD logo is FreeBSD _only_. The common logo to cover _all_ BSD's is the deamon. You've been asked to only use the FreeBSD logo on FreeBSD articles and not on *BSD articles. Is that so hard to understand?

Take a look at the database category's name. It's "FreeBSD and other BSDs"-- but FreeBSD constitutes the major part of the category. THAT is why it has the FreeBSD logo.

I don't hear people complain over AROS being placed in the Amiga category, even though AROS and amigaOS differ more than DragonFlyBSD and FreeBSD. I find this discussion quite pointless and really, as if there aren't more important things in the world.

But fine, then you guys get the generic OS icon. A fork of FreeBSD 4.x gets the generic OS icon even though there's a general BSD category. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Reply Score: 5

v RE: allright
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 13:41 UTC in reply to "allright"
RE: allright
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 14:41 UTC in reply to "allright"
Anonymous Member since:
---

What people have been asking all along, and apparently you have missed, is that you don't use the FreeBSD logo for all BSD projects, but rather a BSD icon for all of them.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: allright
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Dec 2005 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE: allright"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What people have been asking all along, and apparently you have missed, is that you don't use the FreeBSD logo for all BSD projects, but rather a BSD icon for all of them.

Apparantly you don't understand how it works in the world of OS communities. When we revert back to the old FreeBSD/beastie logo for the "FreeBSD and other BSDs" category, I will get emails from FreeBSD people who demand I put up the new logo-- exactly what happened not too long ago when the new logo was announced.

And I'm sorry, but FreeBSD items make up for 95% of the content in the "FreeBSD and other BSDs" category, so they get to "choose" the icon.

Now, I'll place any news related to DragonFly BSD in the general category-- which is much less appealing and defining, and it degrades DragonFly BSD to the hobby status, but I have little choice.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: allright
by Ronald Vos on Sun 18th Dec 2005 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: allright"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Now you're doing that just to spite us. This is the least sensical option.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: allright
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Dec 2005 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: allright"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Now you're doing that just to spite us. This is the least sensical option.

No, as I explained, you guys leave me with no other option. You don't want it under the "FreeBSD and other BSDs", because for reasons I still do not understand, it doesn't fit that description. Fine, I'm okay with that.

However, then you only leave me with one other option, and that is the general category, because making a new category specifically for DragonFly BSD is out of the question, and changing the icon for the "FreeBSD and other BSDs" category to a general BSD icon is also out of the question, because 95% of the stories in that category ARE FreeBSD stories.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: allright
by DevL on Sun 18th Dec 2005 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: allright"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

May I suggest a compromise? Add a topic specifically for Other BSDs (DragonFly, DesktopBSD; PcBSD etc etc)? That way the FreeBSD topic would be pure FreeBSD which makes sense given the fact that FreeBSD is the dominant BSD. If anything, the "Other BSDs" should end up with the smallest of the traditional BSDs (either NetBSD or OpenBSD).

By the way, you still call the original BeOS category "Zeta, BeOS & Derivatives" and since you've created a specific Zeta topic you may wish to change that.

Reply Score: 1

RE: allright
by DevL on Sun 18th Dec 2005 19:29 UTC in reply to "allright"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

"Yuo can't possbily compare 3 dead and 1 zombie version of an OS to 4+ BSDs that are all alvie and kicking"

"Dead? Zeta has sold more copies of its OS than Be Inc has done. There are more regular Zeta users in the EU alone than DragonFlyBSD has over the world. For RISC OS, there are more users of that in the UK alone than DragonFlyBSD has over the world. As for Amiga-- the Amiga is something with such an heritage, I wouldn't be too dismissive of it if I were you."

I was referring to AmigaOS of which I have over 10 years of experience of. AmigaOS has indeed quite some heritage, but I failed to see how you could compare giving DragonFly BSD its own topic to giving AmigaOS 1.x its own topic. That is ALL. There is no need fo you to be so defensive especially since you've misinterpreted me. Perhaps I was not clear enough.

Reply Score: 1

Great potential
by jonas.kirilla on Sun 18th Dec 2005 13:49 UTC
jonas.kirilla
Member since:
2005-07-11

The goal of single system image is what makes DragonFly BSD interesting. An industrial-strength, truly clustered, free UNIX. This is what will set it apart from Linux and the other BSDs.

Reply Score: 3

The current icon does not make sense
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 16:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed OSNews site, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen, http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/1/1d/Chewbacca.jpg this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm a geek defending the general *BSD mascot icon, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!

And so you have to remember, when you're in your computer rooms deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed OSNews site, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must use the general *BSD mascot icon! The defense rests.

Reply Score: 4

Anonymous
Member since:
---

In regard to the debate about the FreeBSD icon, I must say that Eugenia was very opinionated as editor of this site, and whenever her opinion solidified on a matter, she would not budge, but when she expressed her opinion, she sounded rational. Her arguments made sense, even if you disagreed with them. I must say I think putting all the BSDs in a single, general BSD category makes the most sense. Thom, I'm sorry but you haven't articulated your to the satisfaction of your readers. Maybe we all are in the dark, but frankly, I think you are being immature and childish.

You have two ways you can run the site: you can listen to the feedback the members of OSNews give you, or you can dictate the policy based on any irrational whim. You could justify the current icon system to your readers' intellectual satisfaction by saying "because I said so," but please don't pretend that your argument makes sense. If the form of the website is dictated by self-centric feelings, rather than thoughtful rational design, you run the risk of alienating your readers,
because a tech news site is a poor example of a space where feelings are paramount. If you want a personal web space, I can suggest one to you: http://www.blogspot.com/

Though I can't offer any sort of objective "betterness" measure, the consensus here stands STRONGLY against your argument, and strongly FOR the creation of a general BSD category. They are all derived from a common code base, and continue to carry the BSD moniker. Additionally, and probably most importantly, they all occupy a certain mindspace for the readers of your site. I can scant think of FreeBSD without association to the other BSDs.

Claiming that the FreeBSD folks would balk at this idea presumes their immaturity. Frankly, I don't believe you they would have any problem whatsoever with this. If the developers of FreeBSD were all clones of Theo DeRaadt, then we might have a situation, but there's no reason to postulate about negative feedback which is only marginally likely, when the readers of your site have given you real honest-to-goodness feedback.

Upon a second reading of your posts, I realize the problem with the FreeBSD logo. The problem is really that no logo has been formalized as an offical common BSD logo. De facto, though, they all have a demon, or similar as their mascots. http://www.freebsd.org/ STILL has the beastie on the front site, so it gives credibility to the notion that we can easily designate the BSDs as a group with a demon.

This is all intended as constructive criticism, Thom. I thank you for all of the hard work you and others have put into OSNews. The new moderation system is great! I hope to see you grow as an editor, and I hope that this disagreement between you and the members of OSNews finds a resolution that is satisfactory to all, even if it's not exactly what everyone wanted. (Your more mature readers will understand the necessity of compromise.)

Reply Score: 1

DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

"This is all intended as constructive criticism, Thom. I thank you for all of the hard work you and others have put into OSNews. The new moderation system is great! I hope to see you grow as an editor, and I hope that this disagreement between you and the members of OSNews finds a resolution that is satisfactory to all, even if it's not exactly what everyone wanted. (Your more mature readers will understand the necessity of compromise.)"

And constructive criticism it is. I'd like to emphaszie that I appreciate the hard work the OSNews folks put into the site and that it is the first stop for me during my news sweeps. Thom, I understand that it must be difficult to fill ou Eugenia's shoes, but never ever forget that your greatest resource is your readers. Learn to listen to them. Even if they post anonymously. :-)

Reply Score: 1

v Childish and Inane Editors
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 19:27 UTC
RE: Childish and Inane Editors
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Dec 2005 19:40 UTC in reply to "Childish and Inane Editors"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You guys got what you wanted-- we probably created a whole new set of enemies because we eliminated the Darwin category/logo.

Stop being a childish little prat Thom!

Excuse me? Childish? Who started this silly discussion over an *icon*?

and "95%" of the articles are FreeBSD related under the BSD category do

For what it's worth, and I've only mentioned it like, what, 12874239340438682356348583045 times, there was no such thing as a "BSD" category. We had a "FreeBSD and other BSDs" category. But now, you have your "Other BSDs" category.

And there was much rejoicing.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Childish and Inane Editors
by DevL on Sun 18th Dec 2005 19:47 UTC in reply to "Childish and Inane Editors"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

"Stop being a childish little prat Thom!...Please!! You are just alienating BSD users to further your own ego."

Too bad I've run out of mod points. I'll just have to shortlist this one so I can MOD IT DOWN!

Reply Score: 1

Hijacked
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 19:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This entire article was hijacked by the Free BSD logo debate. Doesn't anyone find it interesting that they are going to rewrite huge amounts of their core OS in version 1.5 so that it will work over clustered systems and tie in ZFS into this same work?

This is really quite a bit of important work! Being that this is an OS News site, I would think the level of work that is being done in this project would be exciting and certainly be noteworthy! More noteworthy than the type of icon the article used.

Reply Score: 1

Work Continues
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 20:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If the DragonFly BSD project is successful in geting their goals completed for the 1.6 release - including getting the cache coherency scheme functional (clustered systems where processes can be migrated based on load) and succeed in getting their code fully MP safe using LWKT, and (perhaps) XIO all whilst using ZFS for their filesystem - would their then be considerable interest in this operating system?

In other words, if DragonFly is successful in becoming a technically superior operating system, is there a possibility that this operating system would make significant inroads. Or is it possible that no matter how technically correct or advanced an operating system is, if it doesn't have enough hype it won't flourish?

Reply Score: 4

Re: Work Continues
by jonas.kirilla on Sun 18th Dec 2005 22:59 UTC in reply to "Work Continues"
jonas.kirilla Member since:
2005-07-11

Thank you! I wish I could mod you up.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Work Continues
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 06:17 UTC in reply to "Work Continues"
Anonymous Member since:
---

In what ways would it be "technically superior" to other operating systems?

Clustering, clustered filesystems, etc have been around
for quite a long time and operating systems like OpenVMS
and Linux are quite good at them.

SSI shared memory clusters are possible today with Linux
using a page based coherency protocol. I don't think
they're particularly practical because non-transparent
cluster software is really mature now and one actually
needs to program for a cluster in a non-transparent
way (far more important than even a slow NUMA) to get
decent performance.

However I'm not sure about what sort of SMP scalability
DFBSD would have if all code was fully MP safe using
LWKT as you say, nor advantages of XIO or ZFS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Work Continues
by Ronald Vos on Mon 19th Dec 2005 14:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Work Continues"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Now the iconbusiness is out of the way, let's discuss.

ZFS no advantages? ZFS has numerous advantages over older filesystems, all to do with data-coherency, capacity and speed. Being one of the first BSDs to implement it would be a good thing.

And if the LWKT model works out, it would provide an excellent basis for SSI, wether or not Linux does it as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Work Continues
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Dec 2005 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Work Continues"
Anonymous Member since:
---

ZFS is not an *advantage* as such because it is available
on another system.

Sure it may be an advantage for DFBSD + ZFS versus Linux + something worse, but if you're talking about innovation
and advantages of DFBSD project then ZFS is not so interesting.

Now if you can do something with DFBSD + ZFS that you
cannot do with Solaris, that too would be interesting.

I fail to really see how LWKT (lightweight kernel
threads?) is a basis for SSI...

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Work Continues
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Work Continues"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well that is the the reason (cache locality) that Light Weight Kernel Threads were developed. The processes themselves are per CPU and are migrated (and communicate via a light weight messaging protocol.) This suits itself to clustering because you have an increased L2 utilization and a means of migrating processes to systems with heavy loads to other non-taxed systems in a cluster. Cache coherency systems are not new, however they are new to this system and because of the way the system is developed it has a potential to perform and scale really well in a clustered environment, talk on ZFS which Matt Dillon thinks will work very well in such an environment and you may end with something that works VERY well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Work Continues
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Dec 2005 09:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Work Continues"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Per-CPU scheduler and CPU affine processes which migrate
between CPUs are nothing new. Nor would it particularly
be of help for a cluster because migrating processes
between CPUs with a per-cpu scheduler is by no means
equivalent to migrating processes between nodes in a
cluster.

Now if the cluster is SSI on a page level (like Linux's
virtual iron capability AFAIK), then you may not have to
explicitly migrate processes but they could migrate
naturally according to the scheduler. This also seems
like a pretty bad idea unless the scheduler is very
specialised, because you could have a process with local
memory scattered all over your cluster.

"and because of the way the system is developed it has a potential to perform and scale really well in a clustered environment"

Well yes, we are talking about software cache coherency
schemes for SSI clusters. So what exactly is it about
the way this system is developed that gives it this
potential?

"talk on ZFS which Matt Dillon thinks will work very well in such an environment and you may end with something that works VERY well."

I recall him saying ZFS is a clustered filesystem or can be used over a cluster. This is not the case.

Reply Score: 0

RE: RE[2]: ZFS License
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 21:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Incorrect. Linux ext3 filesystems mount it the same as freebsd mount by default

Anyway a Linux filesystem is still currupted after power failure, I am talking about Fedora now. I've never seen FreeBSD crashing on that.

They both are the first mainstream operating systems in the world to come with MAC based security by default using SELinux and hence are much more secure than any version of BSD

Yeah right. Never heard of TrustedBSD i guess.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: RE[3]: ZFS License
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE: RE[2]: ZFS License"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I think the key thing you're missing here is the "by default".

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: RE[3]: ZFS License
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE: RE[2]: ZFS License"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Actually, the progress made by the TrustedBSD project seems to have largely been merged back into the mainline FreeBSD system starting with 5.0, possibly earlier.

Since 5.3 was considered production quality, when was it shipped? November 2004. When was RHEL4 shipped? February 2005.

From that data it seems like FreeBSD was the first mainstream system with MAC-based security.

Reply Score: 1