Slashdot Mirror
Dynamic Root Support For FreeBSD Now Available
Dan writes "FreeBSD's Gordon Tetlow has committed his enhancements to enable users to build /bin
and /sbin dynamically linked on FreeBSD. His reason to do this is two-fold. One is to give better support for PAM and NSS in the base system. The second is to save some disk space. Currently (on his x86 box), /bin and /sbin are 32 MB. With a dynamically linked root (and some pruning of some binaries), the /bin, /lib, and /sbin come out to 6.1 MB. This should be great for people with 2.x and 3.x era root partitions that are only about 50 MB. Gordon says that there will be a performance hit associated with this. He did a quick measurement at boot and his boot time (from invocation of /etc/rc to the login prompt) went from 12 seconds with a static root to 15 seconds with a dynamic root."
not only will this affect performance, but it will also make it impossible to recover a server if you accidentally delete /usr,
there are less and less reasons to use seperate partitions for root directories, and this is *NOT GOOD*
Mostly because very, very few people think that this is a good idea.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
That's a 25% peformance hit for booting! Just imagine a script that runs those programs often.
I'll keep 4.X thanks. Maybe I'll try DFBSD.
I'd imagine that if NetBSD and OpenBSD don't already have this ability it will be a matter of time as the BSD's share much between each other. Just look at the realpath vulnerability that they all were affected by.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
"Because Linux does it" is not always a good reason to do something. Linux developers tend to throw anything and everything they can into the mix. BSD developers tend to watch what others do, research the pros/cons, then develop a plan on how to do it right ... before tackling the coding.
:)
Hence, while Linux distros tend to get things first, BSD tends to get things right.
By the way, what are your credentials? I've never seen you contributing anything technical to any operating system project.
...was that, in earlier *nixes, sbin programs were always statically linked, to avoid problems with requiring
Not necessarily FreeBSD, but just some flavor of Unix. The versions of Digital Unix (under different names) which I teethed on were designed like this.
It's always annoyed me that Linux's [/usr]/sbin was dynamically linked.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
It's good that they are trying to save disk space, but why don't they just rewrite them so they don't use libc? Linux assembly.org is working on such a project, though it doesn't have to be in assembly. I've done some work using direct syscalls in Linux with C (look at /usr/include/asm--start with unistd.h). I haven't looked at FreeBSD in this way yet, but I think it can be done. At the very least, simple utilities like cp and ln could be written this way. Save disk space and be staticly linked--good all the way around.
Yeesh, lighten up, eh? There's a reason for the :) in the above post.
:D
All I was saying was that "Because Linux has it" is not a good enough reason to implement a feature. That would be like saying "Why doesn't Linux support VBScript in the kernel? MS Windows has it, so it must be good."
As to my credentials, what does that have to do with anything??
Ah well, what can one expect when posting to Slashdot?
BSD is Dead??
http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/Hosters
I guess Linux-Kiddies can't read.
Choke on it and die.
Hence, while Linux distros tend to get things first, BSD tends to get things right.
:-). More recently, first to implement IP6, Serial ATA, Hyperthreading, etc. I would have to check, but I think they got USB and Firewire first as well.
Actually, BSD gets a lot things first. First to have a commercial support, first to have a free and complete operating system, and first to get sued by obnoxious companies
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
First to die, sure. It will be in 2027, with Linux close behind in 2028. SCO will finally wither and blow away as there's no one left to sue to keep their cash flow positive.
ROFL the joys of BSD jealousy!
... ... ... ... ...
-- Start --
1 www.nyi.net New York Internet FreeBSD 0.00 0.387 0.034 0.075 0.186 176 20
52 www.he.net www.he.net Linux 6:52:39 31.94 0.203 0.152 0.348 0.571 50 11
-- End --
Look at the numbers. The loss of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
Really? Where are these numbers? And, do us a favor when you show these numbers, clean the fecal material off of them.
NetBSD was the first (free unix-like OS) to have USB indeed.
Subsequent runs of said binaries will be just as fast (and perhaps faster) as your cache usage will be optimized with libc mapped once.
Isn't this the tradeoff for lots of neat optimizations? A little extra overhead at the start for amortized gains?
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Yes, these programs don't work on non-IA32 systems, but if someone needs to save space or wants more speed and they have an IA32 system, why not use them? The same thing could be done in C, thus preserving portability...
USB - shipping brefore Apple shipped USB based macs
FireWire - There was one project in the 1990's (1995 I believe) that used the IEEE spec for moving about files.
Video capture - Matrox Meteor drivers back in 1995.
The Failure of *BSD
.
Of course we can all agree that BSD is a failure, but why did BSD fail Once you get past the fact that BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know BSD keeps losing market share but why Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players Or is it larger than their troubled personalities
The record is clear on one thing no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for BSD.
As you all may know, BSD has been part of the "B" team for quite some time.
The Year of Our Lord 2003 has been a particularly bad year for the "B"s,
- Bob Hope
- Buddy Ebsen
- Buddy Hackett
- Barry White
- BSD
This honored list of dead is but a small tribute from the many fans of the deceased.These dead were truly some American Icons. They will be missed.
BSD is more or less dead. It doesn't mean that no one at all uses it. However, BSD is slowly fading into oblivion. That is the truth. It is a hobby project mostly. Of course I don't care what anyone wants to play with. That is your business. But nevertheless there should not be an intentional cover up of the truth.
enable users to build /bin and /sbin dynamically linked on FreeBSD
/bin or /sbin; for some executable library $L in /lib; there exists some subroutine $p in $P and some object $l in $L such that $p uses $l.
/bin or /sbin. The new behavior is achieved by removing the arbitrary, stupid prohibition.
I am having difficulty parsing this, and neither the article nor the comments here help me. This is my best guess. Someone please correct me.
SITUATION: For some executable program $P in
OLD BEHAVIOR: When building $P, static-linker resolves name "$l", yielding an address or the desired data.
NEW BEHAVIOR: When executing $P, dynamic-linker resolves name "$l", yielding an address or the desired data.
DETAILS OF CHANGE: The kernel enforced the old behavior by examining every request sent to the generic 'dynamic-link' facility and blocked any requests which involved programs which happened to be in
ALTERNATIVE DETAILS OF CHANGE: The old behavior was enforced by the build scripts for $P and $L; we didn't want our super-important $P to be disturbed if something as lame as the dynamic linker crapped out on us. The new behavior is achieved by changing some compiler flags. We will all die when the dynamic linker craps out.
When the day is long and the night, the night is yours alone,
when you're sure you've had enough of this OS, well hang on.
Don't let yourself go, everybody cries and *BSD hurts sometimes.
Sometimes everything is wrong. Now it's time to sing along.
When your day is night alone, (hold on, hold on)
if you feel like letting go, (hold on)
when you think you've had too much of this life, well hang on.
*BSD hurts. Take comfort in your friends.
*BSD hurts. Don't throw your hand. Oh, no. Don't throw your hand.
If you feel like you're alone, no, no, no, you are not alone
If you're on your own in this life, the days and nights are long,
when you think you've had too much of this life to hang on.
Well, *BSD hurts sometimes,
everybody cries. And *BSD hurts sometimes.
And *BSD hurts sometimes. So, hold on, hold on.
Hold on, hold on. Hold on, hold on. Hold on, hold on. (repeat & fade)
(*BSD hurts. You are not alone.)
But not as we know it.
It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying. Everyone knows that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The loss of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is extremely sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.
Fact: *BSD is dying
I fail to see the benefit of this.
/bin and /sbin, only those critical
to basic system functioning (or better yet,
something like a FreeBSD equivalent to
BusyBox (which I've used to create embedded
Linux distros that needed to fit in 8MB of
flash and have basic X functionality),
for a whopping 300k).
A 25% absolute performance penalty, at the relative "gain" of 82% of a small part of the filesystem. However, compared to even an incredibly small (by today's standards) 1GB partition, you talk about saving only 2.5% of the total disk space. On any reasonable drive, this would equal far less than 1% savings.
Now, in an embedded environment, such a savings might make a noticeable difference. However, in an embedded environment, you wouldn't have every app ever considered useful in
As for "people with 2.x and 3.x era root partitions"... C'mon, really... Throw in the "older means better" towel and upgrade. Seriously. I have single OGG files (of full CDs) larger than 50MB. Hell, I gave up on DOS 3.3 because of the 32MB partition limit nearly a decade ago. Upgrade. Upgrade. Upgrade! Sometimes "obsolescence" doesn't need to have the word "planned" in front of it, you just need to accept that PC-level hardware has vastly improved since limitations like that seemed even remotely acceptible.
So... Can someone explain why this matters, beyond the "because we can" factor?
Does any version of FreeBSD support the silicon image SATA controllers ?. I tried a few months ago and couldn't find anything about it. I spent a evening trying to install either freebsd 4.8 and 5.0 and the boot disks/cd's didn't seem support it. Nor could I find any reference online for enabling SATA support :). I gave up in the end and install gentoo.
Unless I counted wrong, there were 11 BSD hosts and 14 Microsoft hosts in there.
The original poster was talking about MacOS, and this troll was very slightly altered to say BSD.
Keep this at hand as a lot of you seem to be falling to "YHBT".
-uso.
isn't that all the shit that windows does and part of the reason those that have to use it end up rebooting quite often?
Arrgh! If you're not going to statically link the stuff, don't put it in /sbin! Arrrgh.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Eh. It's not exactly universal though. OpenBSD doesn't even do MP, much less hyperthreading (if you think these are two very different issues, go read the god damn IA-32 System Developer Manual). Acttually, I think NetBSD is the same deal right now. FreeBSD has MP though.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Everyone knows: *BSD is dying