Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

DragonFlyBSD 1.0A review 41

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DragonFlyBSD 1.0A review

Comments Filter:
  • 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.
    • by LeninZhiv ( 464864 ) * on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:42AM (#9929253)
      The source of its 'ultimateness' is explained on their homepage:

      See here. [dragonflybsd.org]
    • Re:Ultimate BSD (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bhima ( 46039 ) <Bhima,Pandava&gmail,com> on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:50AM (#9929372) Journal
      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?

  • this may be stupid (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    but are GPLed programs allowed to take BSD code in their projects?
  • Summary (Score:2, Funny)

    by rf0 ( 159958 )
    Not bad but needs work. Try again in 12 months

    Rus
  • by sp0rk173 ( 609022 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @03:05PM (#9933259)
    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.
  • how are the recent x86 builds of Apple's Darwin?

A triangle which has an angle of 135 degrees is called an obscene triangle.

Working...