Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 31st Aug 2006 01:29 UTC, submitted by sequethin
NetBSD Charles Hannum, co-founder of NetBSD posted to 3 major BSD lists saying that "The NetBSD Project has stagnated to the point of irrelevance. It has gotten to the point that being associated with the project is often more of a liability than an asset. I will attempt to explain how this happened, what the current state of affairs is, and what needs to be done to attempt to fix the situation."
Thread beginning with comment 157674
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Linux
by nick on Fri 1st Sep 2006 02:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux"
Member since:

I think you are confusing OS-X and FreeBSD.

No, I'm not. FreeBSD is usually referred to as having
a MACH VM based architecture. I'm surprised you don't
know that.
"FreeBSD and NetBSD have different VM systems.
FreeBSD's (which I am the primary implementer), is
really a corrected and filled out MACH VM for UNIX."
-- John Dyson, 2001

That diatribe was written by Matt before he

I'd call it an informed, objective comparison rather
than a diatribe. From someone who took the time to
understand both systems, and articulate the reasons
for their claims.

helped in the redesign of the VM. I think many in this thread are confused about Matt's part in all this. He was an active FreeBSD developer for quite some time. NFS problems prodded him into rethinking the VM and and doing a stacked design (which did not exist in FreeBSD in 1999).

A stacked design? What's that? Do yo have a link?

Here's a paper from 2000, with some updates, authored by Matt:

"I rewrote only small portions of the code. In the VM arena the only major rewrite I have done is to the swap subsystem. Most of my work was cleanup and maintenance, with only moderate code rewriting and no major algorithmic adjustments within the VM subsystem."
-- Matt Dillon, 2000

Reply Parent Score: 2