Linked by Trent Townsend on Wed 18th Jan 2006 22:03 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives DragonFly BSD 1.4 is the third major release of Matthew Dillon's fork of the FreeBSD operating system, and significant progress has been made towards reaching many of the project's numerous goals. New in this release include a more up to date version of the GNU Compiler Collection (required due to the incread use of thread local storage in DragonFly), an import of NetBSD's Citrus code (Comprehensive I18N Framework Towards Respectable Unix Systems), major reworking of all core subsystems in preparation for removing the MP lock, rewrites of various VFS related code and many updated drivers, frameworks and contributed programs.
Permalink for comment 87354
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: where's the beef
by CaptainPinko on Thu 19th Jan 2006 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE: where's the beef"
CaptainPinko
Member since:
2005-07-21

It was written from the POV of someone who simply wants to use DF as a day-to-day desktop system, and noting some of the more irritating aspects of the system in regards to that.

But that's not it's intended goal!

Why don't you run some benchmarks? Find a root exploit in a common package and see if it works on DragonFly BSD(I believe OSes like OpenBSD have extra protection against that)! Comment on various drivers. Look at various administrative tools? Run them versus previous versions of DragonFly BSD?

Instead we have yet another "newb approaches desktop" article. Really, I'm sick of reading these "Well, I was trying to eat soup with a fork and it SUCKED!!!!!111!" articles.

I know I don't have to read them but I'm trying to raise the bar here: get a little bit more depth here on OSNews.

Really there is a lot more to an OS than it's desktop usage. Why not write about it's scheduling algorithm, or it's driver infrastructure? I'm sure many people would be interested in an in-depth article about an actual OS how it compares to another.

On the desktop it's practically all the same. The installer might be different, and the package manager (the only useful thing covered) might be, but Gnome/KDE is always Gnome/KDE on Solaris or FreeBSD or Linux.

Really, did anyone _learn_ anything new from this article?

How is it Ars Technica can have in depth article about proprietary microchips while we get shallow tripe about an open-source OS?

Hell, did I even mention if DFBSD was SV init or RC scripts?

Frankly the author was unqualified to write anything. This is bad as the Jem Report on Solaris a while back. Please, if you agree with me mod me up: not for vanity but to try to encourage a little more from a site I love and have learned a lot from in the past.

Frankly, I think the most educational bits now are Rayner (sp?) comments.

Reply Parent Score: 4