DragonFly At DragonFly 1.0-CURRENT 108
CoolVibe writes "For months, the DragonflyBSD fork of FreeBSD was maintaining compatibility with the existing FreeBSD-STABLE branch by using the 'FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE' name internally. In a few commits, Matt Dillon changed all the names, and DragonFly is finally sailing under its own banner. Things that DragonFlyBSD already has that FreeBSD-STABLE doesn't are, among others, application checkpointing, variant symlinks (not unlike Domain OS), Light-weight kernel threads, a more efficient slab-allocator, a multithreaded network stack, and the rcNG system."
I wonder (Score:2, Interesting)
One has to wonder if DFBSD will die due to lack of following, or if it will be the next awesome BSD. I am currently running FreeBSD 4.8 Release on my workstation. It might be worth it to grab a spare machine and install it to see what's up. Only if the distributed.net client [distributed.net] will work on it though. ]:3}>
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
Your Distributed.net client will Just Work Fine(tm). I'm still running that KDE 3.1.4 on my laptop that I compiled under 4.9-RCmumble, and that's still working quite spiffy.
Dragonfly is almost a drop-in replacement. You can just pull it over your existing 4.x-STABLE box, and all your apps should work fine (except for kernel modules). Oh, if you have an NVIDIA gfx card, I ported the binary kernel module to DFBSD, and it's sitting smugly in the override ports. (read dfly's UPDATING about dfports)
DragonFly as of current perfectly fills that niche where people want the latest and greatest, but don't want to run FreeBSD-CURRENT just yet. It's mostly production-safe. You can always revert back to your old FreeBSD-STABLE without much hassle.
So, if you're really curious, just give it a go!
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
Even though it might not be possible in the future to 'upgrade' to DragonFly from a FreeBSD-STABLE machine, we'll try the hardest to keep the FreeBSD port system working until we have our package management sorted out. And boy, with the stuff that Matt has planned, that's going to be beautiful. Not the comp
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Ports are great, but damn does my p2 400 dislike hours and hours of compiling.
Re:What kind of chip are you running?!?! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What We Can Learn From BSD (Score:1, Interesting)
Witness Redhat keeping its CVS out of public access. At least the BSD's allow one to track changes to their kernels and back out mistakes made by the developers.
Linux (as delivered by Redhat) is effectively a closed source operating system between releases.
Variant symlinks are really cool (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought about implementing variant symlinks on Linux. Probably it would need a new system call to tell the kernel where the process keeps its environment variables, to be run at each program startup, and a new process table entry field.
Re:Variant symlinks are really cool (Score:1, Interesting)
ln -s '/etc-$(HOSTNAME)'
That's neat
Re:Variant symlinks are really cool (Score:5, Informative)
to help enable sharing the root file system. (I don't know the variable-reference syntax used in Dragonfly).
It's exactly the same. The variables for symlinks can be set with the varsym(1) tool, and of course the vfs.varsym_enable sysctl has to be set to '1'. You can set symlink variables in global, user and process context.
Re:Variant symlinks are really cool (Score:2)
Where is this documented? A google search suggests [gmane.org] that it uses "${var}" bracket notation, not "$(var)" notation as I had written.
Re:Variant symlinks are really cool (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, varsym defaults to user context, which means that the var is only 'visible' to the user. With the -s flag, the var becomes system wide, and you can also restrict the view to the process.
There isn't much more to it. It's easy, clean and simple :)
Re:Variant symlinks are really cool (Score:3, Insightful)
When DFly's VFS subsystem is getting into shape, the need for varsyms will be less and less.
Hmm, well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm, well.. (Score:1)
[snip DragonFly stuff list]... Oh, boy! Let's look at 5.1-RELEASE's features: rcNG, KSE, Mandatory Access Control framework, better SMP, fast ATA drivers. I hate to say it, but, DragonFlyBSD is all most as silly as that xMach project. :-) It's about arrogance, not software.
It wouldn't surprise me if a good deal of the 'good' things will be ported back to FreeBSD. One of the things about the *BSDs is a lot of (code) sharing goes around.
I'm kinda wondering what DragonFly-STABLE has that FreeBSD-STABLE d
Re:Hmm, well.. (Score:2)
It seems that there is one production BSD, FreeBSD, and the other ones are research projects, the best of which will be snatched later by the production free Unices FreeBSD and Linux
- NetBSD : portability, cleanness
- OpenBSD: Security, also a bit portability and cleanness, and a huge batch of stubbornness.
- DragonFly: Mach kernel experiments.
- Darwin: Also Mach kernel experiments.
It's not that the above OSes don't have a merit for the user. Th
Re:Hmm, well.. (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm happy Matt has a place to try his ideas which have been shouted down time and time again by loudmouth, arrogant Dane and Australian developers (you know who you are).
Dragonfly will either prove the latter to be the FUD frauds we suspect they are or to have been right all along.
Stay tuned, you might just learn something. Then again, maybe not.
Re:Hmm, well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
on the traditional "lock everything down" model, which has scaling problems with current hardware trends. In addition, their particular implementation will be particularly hard to maintain in the long run. Really, the only thing you mention that is
likely to be considered for incorporation in DragonFly is tht ATAng.
You sound like one of the BSD developers who dislikes Matt on principle. So you may be right in yo
i have tried a snapshot of dragonfly... (Score:1)
i think the dragonfly theory of package management will really bring something new to the *BSD table and i plan on continuing my support for the project in the future
personally, i think we need more *BSD forks
I really wish I had a spare box right now... (Score:5, Informative)
a) install freebsd-stable
b) cvsup the dfbsd sources
c) recompile everthing
d) then have my system
Now that dfbsd has it's own ISO, I might have to find an old junk box somewhere to install it on (I actually like freebsd 4.x more than the 5.x series so far... MUCH faster, but I'm sure that'll change when it goes stable (no more debugging symbols, etc.)
Re:I really wish I had a spare box right now... (Score:2)
MIDI support? (Score:3, Interesting)
The first BSD to have that will become my favourite. So far FreeBSD is in the lead
Re:MIDI support? (Score:1)
Thanks for the reminder... (Score:2)
I would say that DBSD would be as good a choice as any
Server Names (Score:2, Offtopic)
* FTP: ftp://chlamydia.fs.ei.tum.de/pub/DragonFly
* HTTP: http://chlamydia.fs.ei.tum.de/pub/DragonFly
(on the bottom of http://www.dragonflybsd.org/Main/download.cgi)
I mean, even in German, The Clap is The Clap, right?
Re:Server Names (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:BSD problems (Score:1)
Re:BSD problems (Score:2)