Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 16th Jun 2007 21:15 UTC, submitted by _DoubleThink_
BSD and Darwin derivatives "Matt Dillon, one of the FreeBSD kernel developers, decided that several of the approaches being used in the 5.x series were dead-ends, and in July 2003 forked the stable 4.x codebase to form DragonFly BSD. The 4.x FreeBSD Foundation meant that DragonFly has been a solid platform from the start. DragonFly, like the other BSDs, imports code from other members of the family when it makes sense, such as the malloc() security features from OpenBSD, parts of the WiFi subsystem from FreeBSD, and USB code from NetBSD. In spite of this, development has been pushed in some unique directions."
Thread beginning with comment 248480
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Unix for clusters.
by chicobaud on Sun 17th Jun 2007 02:31 UTC
Member since:

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,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.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Unix for clusters.
by Chreo on Mon 18th Jun 2007 16:59 in reply to "Unix for clusters. "
Chreo Member since:

In my humble opinion, FreBSD has not fullfilled the needed multi core (CPU kernel) tasks that the future brings.

Well, recent performance numbers where is scales better than Linux for multi-cpu systems shows that be an incorrect conclusion. SMPng for FreeBSD was a long project but the fruits are beginning to show very nice promise.

This does in no way invalidate what Dragonfly is doing as the goal is simply very different

Reply Parent Score: 3