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.
Thread beginning with comment 87354
To view parent comment, click here.
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

RE[3]: where's the beef
by Lazarus on Thu 19th Jan 2006 07:00 in reply to "RE[2]: where's the beef"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

¨Frankly the author was unqualified to write anything.¨

Oh I wouldn say that, but I am certainly not qualified to write some of the things you´d likely be interested in (really hardcore low-level stuff), so I´ve saved myself the embarrasment of even trying.

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

I agree with that statement, and quite frankly it is his comments that keep me reading the comment section, he is informative and does not whine.

Please by all means, feel free to submit something yourself if you don´t like the things that get posted here. I am looking forward to seeing what you´re capable of ;^)

Edited 2006-01-19 07:04

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: where's the beef
by CaptainPinko on Thu 19th Jan 2006 07:27 in reply to "RE[3]: where's the beef"
CaptainPinko Member since:
2005-07-21

In my family we always said 'your best doesn't mean it's good enough' and I could write something but I don't want to put more tripe out on the internet. I've written a few rough drafts over the last two years as to why Java is the ideal programming language for beginners but I realised it wouldn't really fit here and it'd be too long for most people to read.

The only other thing I think I could write about is mode/context switches and why they screw over microkernels... but even then anyone who has a CompSci or SoftEng BSc or any technical college should already know that so it'd be like "bringing salt to the ocean."

Reply Parent Score: 1

v RE[4]: where's the beef
by geopapl on Thu 19th Jan 2006 09:54 in reply to "RE[3]: where's the beef"
RE[3]: where's the beef
by danieldk on Thu 19th Jan 2006 07:35 in reply to "RE[2]: where's the beef"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Frankly the author was unqualified to write anything. This is bad as the Jem Report on Solaris a while back.

Please, be a bit kind. And look to it from another perspective. Last week two people on a Dutch slack channel asked me (on separate occasions) whether they can use DragonFly as their desktop operating system. The DragonFly website says:

"DragonFly is an operating system and environment designed to be the logical continuation of the FreeBSD-4.x OS series."

One of FreeBSDs intended uses is as a UNIX Workstation, so it seems fairly logical to see DragonFly as more as a research or distributed operating system. The bottom line is that I could point those persons to this article, and it would answer their question.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: where's the beef
by Ronald Vos on Thu 19th Jan 2006 11:10 in reply to "RE[3]: where's the beef"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

"DragonFly is an operating system and environment designed to be the logical continuation of the FreeBSD-4.x OS series."

One of FreeBSDs intended uses is as a UNIX Workstation,


Indeed. DflyBSD is intended to function as a multi-purpose OS, just like FreeBSD. For one of it's intended purposes, it doesn't hold up yet. This is exactly what I liked to learn about in this review; perhaps this doesn't hold for everyone, but this review worked for me (as someone similarly not hackerish, but at least interested in alternatives for day-to-day computer use).

And he did point out valid flaws in the installation cds after all.

Reply Parent Score: 2