Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 16th Jun 2007 21:15 UTC, submitted by _DoubleThink_
Permalink for comment 248480
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-08-14
Claiming FreeBSD options, in the multi-threaded department, are a dead end does not mean, necessarily, that it's not a valid project !
It doesn't mean a negative criticism either. Both communities should interchange opinions and visions. Hence, it's normal to see, friendly, developers posting in the same mailing lists ! This is NOT Linux ! (Sorry for plenty of exclamations signs).
Remember that BSDi gave some training on SMP (Symmetric Multi-Processing) to the FreeBSD team where there were a lot of divergent opinions, right away, and it became evident along the years...
In my humble opinion, FreBSD has not fullfilled the needed multi core (CPU kernel) tasks that the future brings. It's also a "not so good" implementation for the multi-threaded future; as it just «imitates» the common approaches to multi-threaded kernel when it could be more "fearless" in design... (design comes before implementation).
DragonFly, at least, is trying a new approach.
Check this
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,62021390,00.htm
The necessity of a new (clustering) file system was detected and, immediately and fearlessly, announced. That's development...
That's what I would call the "crystal clear" approach to problems from free open codding.