Slashdot Mirror
NetBSD 1.5ZB
Dahan writes: "I just saw that the development branch of NetBSD is now at version 1.5ZB. A change log is available for those interested. Note that although the title of the page says it's a list of changes from NetBSD 1.5 to 1.6, NetBSD 1.6 is not out yet--the page lists changes that will be in 1.6 whenever it's released. (And when will that be? "When it's ready," of course.) Standard caution about not running development kernels on mission-critical systems applies, although I've been running 1.5ZA on my DEC^H^H^HCompaq Alpha PC164 web/mail/DNS/whatever server for a few months now, and it's been great. And for those of you used to the Linux version numbering scheme and are wondering what all these letters mean, here's an explanation of NetBSD's version numbering."
Not entirely clear what you're asking. We implement POSIX pthreads (the really good version of that, which uses scheduler activations, is on a branch pending the cut of 1.6 -- it will be integrated into -current shortly.)
Anyway, pthreads, which is pretty much the Unix standard, has a set of mechanisms available for synchronizing the multiple threads.
Inter-process communication between threads, processes, etc. happens pretty much the way you want it to -- message passing via sockets, shared memory, whatever you like. It is pretty much the way any POSIX style system works.
The advantages of NetBSD are not primarily in the API, which it shares with most POSIX systems, but in the license and the quality of the implementation.
Out of curiosity, how real is this advantage? Are there things that make NetBSD more portable than OpenBSD?
I presume that someone is just forging Theo's name as I doubt Theo would be foolish enough to put up a post like that.
However, just to set the record straight, I will point out that:
0) NetBSD is very much alive and vibrant. If you look at the sheer number of commits per day to the NetBSD tree, one will see that pretty quickly. There are a lot of NetBSD developers and users, and the developers are very active.
1) Multi-platform portability is pretty damn useful in the embedded systems world. Maybe running on a StrongARM or a low power MIPS design isn't interesting to you, but it is very interesting to people building things like routers and set top boxes. We pay our bills at Wasabi thanks to this. How many platforms will we ultimately port to? Well, people keep paying Wasabi to port to new things, and there are people outside of Wasabi doing NetBSD ports, too. As long as people keep designing new computers, I don't think NetBSD will stop adding ports.
2) NetBSD is successful enough in terms of design wins to support our company fairly nicely. It is also successful enough in terms of developer resources that I'm proud to say we've got a damn good operating system and it keeps getting better all time. There are a couple hundred very good engineers who commit to the NetBSD tree, and a cast of thousands submitting patches and updates.
3) Generally speaking, the OpenBSD guys are smart and nice people -- I get along with a lot of them very well. Guys like Todd, Niels and Angelos (to name a few) are fine engineers and I have plenty of respect for them.
When moving between Linux distributions or Free/OpenBSD architectures, there is always an adjustment period where you must learn the intricacies of the new environment. Not so with NetBSD.
- NetBSD works exactly the same, whether you run it on an old Atari ST or a 2GHz Pentium 4.
- Linux works slightly differently on every platform, because the core operating system tools aren't perfectly portable from architecture to architecture. There is also a different set of distros available for each platform, which adds to the confusion of moving from, say, an old PPro workhorse to an IBM RS4000 workstation.
- FreeBSD is not portable at all, and the two platforms it does support (x86 and alpha) are so horribly different in so many ways that FreeBSD/x86 and FreeBSD/alpha may as well be different operating systems.
- OpenBSD may be nearly as portable as NetBSD, but it's nowhere near as comfortable. The anal-retentive "security first" philosophy forces the user to jump through an incessant number of hoops to get anything done. The only reason OpenBSD is secure is because you can't do anything with it. I have no idea what the authors were thinking when they wrote it.
I bet you're just another whining Slashdot teenage kiddy, and that you've never had a real job in your life. You talk about OpenBSD and NetBSD as if you wrote them! I hope for your sake you're not this full of yourself in real life.Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
As someone involved in NetBSD release engineering, I'm guessing 1.6 is going to branch "soon", likely within weeks (though no promises.)
Our hope is to pick up the pace of releases now that we have a lot more infrastructure for doing fast release engineering. A lot of that was developed only in the last six months.
While a fine beginners troll, you missed some finer points. Theo DeRaadt isn't this polite, for one. Secondly, the real Mr DeRaadt would probably PGP sign even a slashdot post. And thirdly, since OpenBSD also lacks SMP support, I really don't think he'd be attracting attention to the fact.
But, I mean, not bad - and I eagerly await future works.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
NetBSD's got a very nice rc (startup) system; as opposed to the monolithic (Open|Free)BSD approach, NetBSD's is a highly modular dependancy based model; no more giving scripts esoteric names like "000.wibble" to try to get it executed before "001.wobble"; just add a dependency in wobble on wibble and the rc system will make sure wibble is executed first.
There's an interesting PDF paper on the design and implimentation, some conciderably more terse and less interesting official documentation and a Daemon News article, and for those uber geeks, the CVS repository where you can compare with the other BSD's.
You'll note FreeBSD -CURRENT is looking at adopting it, while Open sticks with the tried and tested BSD4.4-type setup
If NetBSD is so obsolete, why are other projects like say, FreeBSD importing NetBSD code? Oh, and they are intending to use the NetBSD startup rc scripts too... How's that for an 'obsolete' system?
Ah well, you are probably a troll and an imposter... Back to getting a make build done on my rickety SparcStations... I just upgraded them to 1.5ZA... And those things aren't speed demons... Now I can do it all again.. Sheesh :-)
WTF are you talking about? 1.5ZB most certainly is out. Please try to be less clueless in the future. I'd also appreciate it if you wrote comprehensible sentences.
I was referring to the FACT that 1.6 IS NOT out. Which is like when slashdot posted FreeBSD 4.5 _was_ out, when it wasnt. I know how difficult the english language is, but please try to understand the grouping of words as sentences is a simple concept, i'm sure thats difficult for you.
Who said that 1.6 was out? Seriously, you need to take some remedial reading and writing classes. Thanks in advance!
Er, you seem to be confusing userland and kernel threads. The two are not connected. The way you implement pthreads in users space and whether you have a preemptable kernel and such aren't connected at all.
In terms of pthreads, NetBSD has chosen the approach used in Solaris, Digital Unix (now Tru64) etc. of using Scheduler Activations. On an MP system, two threads will indeed run on different processors if you like.
It is true that NetBSD does not yet have a preemptable kernel and that our SMP support is not incredibly stunning yet. We're working hard to fix that.
Ok, i'll try to break this down for you, so your tiny little brain can comprehend, ok? First, slashdot put on the front page that FreeBSD 4.5 was out, WHEN IT WASNT. That was about a month ago. Then in THIS VERY ARTICLE, the guy that submitted the article said: "Note that although the title of the page says it's a list of changes from NetBSD 1.5 to 1.6, NetBSD 1.6 is not out yet--the page lists changes that will be in 1.6 whenever it's released." Then I posted that it was a good job that (s)he clarified that so slashdot authors don't get confused. I hope you understand and I didn't confuse you with any big words like "the" and "that". Yeah, thanks for the random stupidity, as well.
I was referring to the FACT that 1.6 IS NOT out. Which is like when slashdot posted FreeBSD 4.5 _was_ out, when it wasnt.
This implies that slashdot (or someone) claimed that 1.6 was out, when it wasn't. Only problem is that it's not like when slashdot posted that FreeBSD 4.5 was out--nobody is claiming that NetBSD 1.6 is out.
Yeah, thanks for the random stupidity, as well.
No prob, glad to have been of assistance.
Dude, you sure are on slashdot alot. Are you one of those guys that hits refresh on his user page to see if his comment got any replies, 500 times a day? But anyways, I never said 1.6 was out or that anyone did.
I'm sure NetBSD does the same?
But, I'll bite. Check the device naming conventions. They really make (for my mind anyway) a lot more sense.
Your linux
Try mount -t ext2fs
Hope that works for you. If not man mount_ext2fs(8). Also, you shouldn't have to recompile the kernel explicitly with ext2fs support either. Usually the system will auto load these modules if it needs them.
Also, check out the handbook and the FAQ
Let me know if it works.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Agreed...I actually laughed out loud at this.
Is that a salami in my pants or am I just happy to be me?
PKB!!!
Actually, /. has this feature that lets you know when someone's replied to one of your comments. It's sort of like the difference between interrupts and polling. Sounds like you're still using the polling method.
anyways, I never said 1.6 was out or that anyone did.
If so, you're -1, Redundant for repeating what I said with an awkardly-structured sentence. Looks like someone gave you -1, Flamebait instead though. Heh
Excuse me for not caring enough about slashdot to have it send me useless emails that would clutter up my already filled inbox. Also, pardon me for trying to set the record straight for someone who obviously didnt have the capability to comprehend a comment on their own.