DragonFlyBSD 1.0A review

ValourX writes "NewsForge has a review of DragonFlyBSD 1.0A. If you recall, this was forked from FreeBSD 4.8 a little more than a year ago, and has since achieved several of its goals. According to the review it's not quite ready for prime time yet, but it looks like DragonFly is shaping up to be the ultimate BSD."

Ultimate BSD

[byolinux]

What really makes the ultimate BSD?

I've not had all that much experience with BSD, but I'd say that packaging always seemed quite difficult, for me coming from a Debian GNU/Linux background.

This is explained on their homepage

[LeninZhiv]

The source of its 'ultimateness' is explained on their homepage:

See here. [dragonflybsd.org]

Re:Ultimate BSD

[bhima]

Given the disparity of their intended use I'd say that there is no one ultimate *BSD. But rather several:

A BSD that can run on a toaster or on EarthSim which is compiled from the code tree

A BSD which is very, very secure and runs on at least a couple of different CPUs.

A BSD that runs really well on the most prevalent architecture and has a large software selection that is as easy to install (or easier) than on Windows or Mac OS X. Dragonfly isn't any of things right now but in the future, who knows? That's one of the interesting things about BSD: if an idea turns out to be really useful eventually it makes into all of them (at least where it makes sense) if it sucks, well evolution it pretty ruthless.

Honestly though it does seam like there is lot of acrimony (I suppose that's to be expected in cases where more than one person is involved) and I hope that resources that should have been programming weren't used in the non-technical parts of the effort to fork (i.e. a totally new website &tc.) but I suppose there is no avoiding that. I hope all of this works out, I find LWKT fairly interesting and have successfully launched a product running NetBSD which turned out really groovy.

Can't resist this: OtterBSD?

Re:Ultimate BSD

[bhima]

Typically, I don't respond to ACs but the drink has me!

with most of NetBSD's packages all you type is "pkg_add" or if you need source (like I do mostly) you use pkgsrc and "make && make install in the correct directory. I think this is the case with the rest of *BSD (sub ports with package)

With the windows & OS X you have to find the package on the 'net first

Use Samba for example (disregarding the fact that Samba takes over 16 hours to compile on my platform) You go to the Samba directory in /usr/pkgsrc/net/samba2/ and execute the commands all of the source is downloaded, compiled and installed and because my system already knows it's a 64bit MIPS system I need not remind it so the right config and make file are processed

Having said that I must admit that SuSE's YAST is nice also because of the search & GUI and the YOU update thingy.

I use OSX daily and it's not that convenient! (It would be if Other stuff was in software update rather than just Apple

While I'm ranting about how cool things are OpenOfficeOrg native file formats are truly cool (zipped!?) and I despise XML (Disclaimer I'm an developer for embedded devices and find *ML way to verbose)

YaST

[bluGill]

YaST seems nice, but I've been running Suse 9.1 pro on my laptop for a month now and already I want my BSD port system back. Sure it doesn't have a fancy GUI (or at least I never used it), but portupgrade and an always up to date ports tree rocks.

I've been playing battle for wesnoth lately, and while it is great, I only have 0.7.1, and .8 is current. YaST however doesn't have the update, nor updates for most of the other programs I've installed. Sure libpng was there soon after the exploit, but the re

Re:YaST

[bhima]

I've noticed that to and had assumed the SuSE was making different packages that are generally around. What SuSE does not have (and would be nice) is an "unstable" branch for YAST.

Re:Ultimate BSD

[mccoma]

I love OpenBSD, but I still think the typical software installation on OS X is easier than any BSD. How much easier do you get then dragging the software to the Applications folder. Even including the download, there is no typing - Download, (maybe unzip, unstuff, or open disk image), Drag to Applications folder, maybe add to Dock.

As a side comment, I'm not sure I got the review, it seemed a little unfair. Dragonfly is new, but it seems a lot more stable and friendly then the review would wish you to believe.

Re:Ultimate BSD

[Hatta]

I love OpenBSD, but I still think the typical software installation on OS X is easier than any BSD. How much easier do you get then dragging the software to the Applications folder. Even including the download, there is no typing - Download, (maybe unzip, unstuff, or open disk image), Drag to Applications folder, maybe add to Dock.

You mean I have to find my mouse?! And, uh, does it automatically check for upgrades?

Re:Ultimate BSD

[mccoma]

Most of the programs I own for OS X, do check for upgrades. It seems to have become a tradition for OS X to have a "check for update" menu item and a preference for automatically doing so each time the program is started.

and yes, a mouse is required (well, unless you love the wacom tablets)

this may be stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

but are GPLed programs allowed to take BSD code in their projects?

Re:this may be stupid

[IIEFreeMan]

Short answer : yes

However the opposite is not true without the consent of the contributors to the GPL code.

Re:this may be stupid

[hummassa]

Slightly longer answer: yes, if it is 2- or 3-clause BSD; 4-clause BSD code must have exemption from all copyright-owners-GPL-licensors to be used.

The opposite is not true - period. If all copyright owners relicense their software under BSD license, then it can be used in BSD'd code.

Re:this may be stupid

[n0nsensical]

No, the copyright owner(s) can give explicit permission for ANY uses of their code regardless of whether it also happens to be licensed under the GPL.

Cleaning up

[hummassa]

the "opposite" meant "using GPL'd code in BSD'd projects". This is not possible. You can get another license from **ALL** the copyright owners (one that is BSD'd compatible -- not the GPL), but then it's not "the GPL'd code" anymore, is it?

Re:Cleaning up

[geminidomino]

The code doesn't have to change, it can be the same code that's in the GPLed software. Splitting hairs over semantics doesn't help anyone.

Beg to differ

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD projects use GPL code all the time.

I've been flogging gcc for a few weeks now, upgrading all my FreeBSD ports, and I'm pretty sure gcc is GPL.

Many of the ports I run are GPL projects. I suppose that means that the port itself (set of patches, mostly) becomes GPL, although I've never really looked.

Now if you mean that BSD projects can't take GPL code, stir it with BSD code and release it under a BSD license, then I agree with you.

Re:Beg to differ

[phats garage]

I think gcc is LGPL.

Re:Beg to differ

[Eunuchswear]

I think gcc is unwashed socks.

Doesn't make it so.

Re:this may be stupid

[nacturation]

but are GPLed programs allowed to take BSD code in their projects?

Yes, if done properly. Here's an interesting discussion on how not to do it. [slashdot.org]

Summary

[rf0]

Not bad but needs work. Try again in 12 months

Rus

Ehh...this guy's on crack.

[sp0rk173]

But seriously, I wonder if he looked through the DragonFlyBSD website at any great length, or read through any of the mailing lists before he tried to install. I used dragonfly as my main desktop OS (but wait, it's not able to be used as a desktop os, right?) for a few months prior to the 1.0 release. X compiled fine from ports, so did gnome and a multitude of other programs. I rebuild world and the kernel atleast every other day (major changes are always going on, bugs are always being fixed, etc), and never had, at any moment, an unusable system. There is a guidebook/handbook [forknibbler.com] in development. As for the SMP issues, I can't really say anything, since I don't have a SMP box, but I know that area's a little shakey.

I have a feeling the author of this article was expecting to jump into a 1.0 release OS the same way he would jump into FreeBSD 4.x stable. That's just not the way it works. You have to do research before you dive into a hyper-actively developed OS in the state that DragonFly is currently in. It's like running FreeBSD-current, only with the steel insides ripped out and replaced with titanium, gear by gear.

Re:Ehh...this guy's on crack.

[oxygene2k2]

well, it does..

the major complaints of the reviewer were temporary issues at the time he tried it, so if you take 1.0A-REL now, eg. building X would work again (the freebsd people changed the way the port works at that time, and dfly still reuses their ports system)

similar things apply to the other issues (slow connectivity to the main server for cvsup - solved now, and a pretty usable mirror list on the main website all the time - WTF?)

Re:Ehh...this guy's on crack.

[sp0rk173]

What I'm saying is the issues are known, and it's a young OS. It's really just a preview of what's going on in development for those who aren't tracking it currently. And it does work.

on the topic of alternative OSes...

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

how are the recent x86 builds of Apple's Darwin?

Re:on the topic of alternative OSes...

[hunterx11]

You can build an x86 Darwin if you want, but the binary download is actually a fat x86/PPC. I might just be ignorant, but I don't even know of any other fat kernels.