OSNews

The DF filesystem and ZFS does not even have to same goals, so to claim that one sees to be superior to the other is quite weird in my opinion. ZFS was considered but was rejected (though with userland FS support coming it might be ported over anyway) since it was not suitable for clustered storage on multiple machines potentially connected over slow links.

There are two main differences between DF's clustering filesystem and ZFS. First, it's intended to (eventually) manage storage devices that are distributed amongst several cluster nodes. Also, it uses live snapshots for redundancy as well as for backup, eliminating the need for an integrated storage layer.

I was surprised to learn that the Matt is developing the clustering filesystem via the userspace VFS API instead of putting it in the kernel. Perhaps there are plans to port it to the kernel once the userspace implementation reaches a certain milestone.

My theory on filesystem design calls for a heap-like storage layer that provides a logical extent abstraction to client filesystems. Filesystem consistency can be guaranteed with proper design, while physical storage is subject to unavoidable corruption and failure. So it makes more sense (to me) to implement redundancy at the storage level rather than at the filesystem level.

But Matt hails from the world of commercial database development, so he has a good handle on these sorts of things.

Edited 2007-08-07 16:14

"I was surprised to learn that the Matt is developing the clustering filesystem via the userspace VFS API instead of putting it in the kernel. Perhaps there are plans to port it to the kernel once the userspace implementation reaches a certain milestone."

The same reason he developed the virtual kernel (running kernel in userland), it's so much easier to develop. You don't have to reboot your computer to see if it worked, and if it doesn't you wont crash the whole system. I suspect that, like you said, when the code reaches a certain maturity level it will be put in kernelspace, you simply can't get enough performance in userland.

Which version did you try? pkgsrc support has improved greatly since it was first introduced. To get binaries to work all you have to do is set an environment variable containing the path to the packages and then type "pkg_add pkg_name" and all that is needed will be downloaded and installed. If the last version you tried was before 1.6 I would recommend you to try again.

That wouldn't be progress, that would be silly. The BSDs are not aimed at the desktop market, it's mainly used for servers. Of course you certainly can install xorg and a desktop of your choice. If you don't know how to do that though you probably shouldn't be using BSD.

Edited 2007-08-07 02:20

"If you don't know how to do that though you probably shouldn't be using BSD."

I agree for the most part, but there's always the ability to learn. It just takes a certain type of thinking, lots of learning (reading), and patience... I went from a complete Windows user, helpless at the command line, to being somewhat decent at the command line and able to install a GUI in certain distros... if I recall correctly, FreeBSD was one of the BSDs I got a GUI working with. OpenBSD was the only one I couldn't even get installed.

But yeah... if LightRider keeps his stance on not wanting to even install a GUI himself, I would say he might as well try PC-BSD or DesktopBSD.

[To be fair, I did mess around on the command line when I was way younger, on an Apple IIe and later a Gateway2000 with Win95/real-mode DOS. Said "good riddance" to the command line years ago never expecting to come back, and now I'm using it more than I have since the Apple IIe days (though the GUI takes top priority, by far... I'm just too used to it). :p ]

Edited 2007-08-07 05:06

"If you don't know how to do that though you probably shouldn't be using BSD"

what kind of a response is that. you cant say that, if he does not know how at least lead him to couple sites that will show him how.

http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~justin/handbook/x11.html

Maybe what the poster was really saying is: If you can't figure out where to learn how to do it, you probably shouldn't be using BSD.

It's not a matter of what you know / what you don't know, but your ABILITY to LEARN or teach yourself. If an individual is lacking knowledge, that's a totally different problem than a person lacking the ability to gain knowledge.

People who lack knowledge but are able to gain it on their own are typically the types of people you'll find using BSD. Critical thinkers and problem solvers - which are skills you're going to need if you want to do anything useful with BSD.

I agree with the original response, and I don't think it was unfounded. If the person can't figure out how to get a desktop installed on it, they probably don't know how to learn to do it, and they probably shouldn't be using BSD in the first place.

Call me elitist, but I'm tired of pandering to idiots.

It should also be pointed out that the original post was pretty ignorant to begin with.

If the poster has had asked for information on how to get Dfly to boot into GUI mode, it would have been a different story. As it stands the poster looks like someone who installed Ubuntu for the first time then goes around saying he's a 'leet hacker.

Just huge nonsense. The self-proclaimed goal of FreeBSD is the desktop too (Scott Long, 2006) and people from Open or Net didn't refuse the desktop at all. In fact there are a lot of people using all kind of *BSD at the desktop without any problems.

Managing a BSD desktop requires a lot of knowledge and time. BSD is not for casual computer users, saying otherwise could lead to disappointments.

Or you could install desktopBSD or PC BSD and have most things working right out of the box.

it doesent really require much more knowledge than managing any other desktop.. perhaps a bit more than linux for some hardware compatibility, other than that, not really.

and as far as desktop goes, its a hell of a lot easier to manage than winblows..

How much is 'much more'? I like FreeBSD, manage FreeBSD Gnome desktops for couple close friends, it's easy and fun for both, but they're hooked on me. This is not very good, so I often recommend other systems to other people.

it is an artificial dependency which only exists because they believe they can not manage without.

both linux dists and freebsd is quite userfriendly, more so than winblows is, yet people say they cant figure out how to use it, that its too hard, all that crap, it only exists cause they bbelieve it to be so.

like when children are taught to ride the bike without helping wheels, they do not believe themselves able to drive, and the parents will lie and say that they are holding the balance on the bike, when in reality they do not, and the child is driving the bike excellently.

so the thing is, its not changes in the systems thats required, its an extremely simple mindset change, one which also shouldnt be required in the first place. its quite disturbing actually that people would simply be convinced that they cannot use something, that they would consider themselves inferior, though, i suspect that they do not see it that way, they probably consider the other thing inferior and ugly hard to use, when in fact its them that are morons..

anyway, you get the point.

Maybe not completely true, but I like the spirit

*Computer* is not for casual computer users,
saying otherwise could lead to disappointments.

Would be the correct saying.

"Computers Are Hard

Accept it. Move on. Your life will be much simpler.

Accept that it'll take work. Accept that it'll take learning. Accept that it'll take trial and error. Accept that it'll mean just accepting things without understanding why until further down the road. Once you do that, you'll discover that learning computer technology isn't like opening an envelope and seeing what's inside; it's like watching a rose open, petal by petal... and no matter how long you watch, there's always another petal with another layer of beauty beneath it."

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/winstupid/winstupid5.php

Maybe this is *your* problem you're talking of

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/winstupid/winstupid5.php

"Computers Are Hard

Accept it. Move on. Your life will be much simpler.

Accept that it'll take work. Accept that it'll take learning. Accept that it'll take trial and error. Accept that it'll mean just accepting things without understanding why until further down the road. Once you do that, you'll discover that learning computer technology isn't like opening an envelope and seeing what's inside; it's like watching a rose open, petal by petal... and no matter how long you watch, there's always another petal with another layer of beauty beneath it."

BSD is easy as hell, if you're able at least able to complete high school.

"BSD is easy as hell, if you're able at least able to complete high school."

Yeah, if it was that simple Anyway, my job is to make computing easy and I don't accept any other reality.

Scott Long, 2006

Well after the DragonFly fork.

DUH!

So, Scott Long is the only developer of FreeBSD then? This happened in 2006 you say? Honestly, you'd think they'd have let us know that.

I got gnome up on it once a long time ago, in an early version. Haven't really played with it since... but I am sure it will be a kick-butt distro once it is stable and polished (by stable I mean development has reached the point where all major goals have been reached - if it hasn't already gotten there).

LightRider, if your looking for a Desktop oriented BSD then PC-BSD is probably the best choice. It comes up with a complete graphical based installer and KDE out of the box:

http://www.pcbsd.org/

Odd. I managed several VMS clusters years ago and we ran X-Windows on them. I guess someone should have told DEC that having X-Windows on a clustered time-share/file server is a stoooopid goal.

Nothing is stopping anyone from running x-windows on BSD either. If you are managing clusters you should certainly know how to install a GUI if you want one. Many servers don't even have a monitor attached, and even for those that do a desktop manager is simply not needed. How does it make any sense for DragonFlyBSD to automatically boot up into Gnome or KDE? If you want it install it, it's not hard. Again, that's a silly and invalid complaint.

Edited 2007-08-07 02:45

No, but someone should have taught you how to read more closely.

Although crudely spoken, BSDFan didn't say anything negative about DEC, X-Windows or people who use them. He didn't say that they were impossible, impractical or stupid.

He said that "a monitor is usually not even a requirement " for nodes in a cluster, which is true. He even added a smiley so as not to piss folks off. With limited success.

His facts are sound. BSDFan's tone could use an adjustment, though, as could yours. And mine, for that matter.

OSNews could stand a little more civility all around.

[Edited for manners]

Edited 2007-08-07 05:05

You are probably right.

1. Drivel
2. Not so harsh, it hurts BSD.

>> .. posting such useless dribble?
> 1. Drivel

according to my dictionary, both words are correct:

> dribble .. foolish talk or ideas; nonsense .... Sense 2 of the noun may have been influenced by drivel.

You must have one of those "new age" dictionaries full of words that uneducated idiots use.

What's it say for "shizzle"?

And I suppose it also has "mute point" to boot.

You too, *BSD is more than a niche for some specific area. *BSD are allround operating systems ready to conquer every area.

"*BSD are allround operating systems ready to conquer every area."

From my individual experience, this statement can be judged to be true. FreeBSD is not "for servers only", or "for desktops only". In fact, it's a great OS for both of them, and even for combined systems (desktop meachines with server functionality). DFBSD offers a great approach to clustered computing. This develops chances for BSD in another important field of computer use.

If you do look into special fields of computing, you'll see different requirements. Just the same kind of relation as between TSO and MVT applies here.

My final statement, as usual: Just use the right tool. :-)

It sounds interesting. I've run FreeBSD 5x, 6.1, 6.2.
Is DragonflyBSD similar to FreeBSD? Just curious:-)"

DFBSD is derived from the FreeBSD 4 series (fork after FreeBSD 4.8 according to /usr/share/misc/bsd-family-tree), so it should contain most stuff you know from the FreeBSD 4 series operating systems, for example, rc.* startup insted of /etc/rc.d mechanism. Kernel and userland are optimized for clustering operations, but DFBSD would be a viable desktop OS, too - if you don't mind installing desktop typical software.

Yeah, i have heard about those huge mountains of "waste" at the end of sewer pipes.. how does it feel up there on the top?