Slashdot Mirror
NetBSD 2.0 Release Engineering Process Underway
jschauma writes "James Chacon of the NetBSD Release
Engineering team has announced that the Release Engineering process for
the much awaited NetBSD 2.0 release
has begun! At this time, the expected final release is scheduled for the end
of May 2004. Please see James' message to the netbsd-announce
mailinglist for details."
OpenOffice.org 1.1.1 is here, get slashdotting it! If your lucky, you can get it before it gets a front page Slashdotting!
No BSD version, only avalible for real OSs such as Windows, Solaris and Linux
Speaking of google, they have redesigned their site! Go check it out, its much more interesting than this toy os!
I'm just going to try to stem the flow of ridiculous, made up claims before they start. If anyone would like to start claiming how much better some scheduler is over another, or how much better Linux is or vice versa, please include something to back up your claims.
And no, "in my experience...", or "my friend did..." is absolute rubbish when coming from an OS zealot. You guys do realise that most people realise you're lying here too, and "your experience" counts for absolutely zero when it comes to a debate that you would win at any cost anyway. The only people who mod you up of course, are other OS zealots on the same side. Nobody is actually falling for your crap.
I've been running NetBSD -current (a bit like running Debian unstable for all you Linux types) since a little before the scheduler activations were merged in last year. I'd stuck with stable releases before that, but switched as -current got around some quirks in my oddball laptop that stable didn't.
My intial experiences with scheduler activations (which has a pthread compatible library layered on top of it), were a bit disappointing. Complex applications like Mozilla and some other desktop applications broke, as they relied on less than POSIX compliant features in certain other OS'es. Once those wrinkles were ironed out, -current became as rock solid as the stable releases.
The only thing NetBSD lacks once 2.0 is released is an ALSA compatability layer. Having read the scant, poorly written documentation on the ALSA website I'm at a loss to see what it really has that OSS doesn't, but that seems to be what Linux based MIDI and audio apps are migrating to.
Chris
I have been tracking (more or less on a weekly basis) -current on my laptop (Omnibook 6000, before that - -4000, using the same disk without reinstall...), as well as on a couple of servers and a workstation in the office, including an old IPX, some dual Athlon MPs, even a dual Opteron system. One needs a bit of time to get used to some quirks in the process, but the result is most rewarding, especially with the native threads (scheduler activations) in place. I do have occasional glitch - most likely due to my habit of using 'make replace' way too often to upgrade packages, but the stability generally has been excelent. I started with NetBSD at the time as it was the only BSD to support both the modem and the Ethernet part of my Xircom adapter (OpenBSD did not support the modem part, FreeBSD and - at least - Mandrake up to 9.2 - refused to install on the laptop for some reason - never bothered to check, as NetBSD did all what was required...).
If only there were a native pkg for OpenOffice (recent - the earlier port did not work at all under -current for me).
Frankenstein type experiments are illegal in the US.
That's why the OpenBSD dev team is already in Canada.
This stuff is legal in Canada due to the Aboriginal Culture and Burial Rites Act (ABCRA) which allow you to revive corpses, create zombies and do assorted necromancy.
btw: this act holds in all common wealth countries besides UK itself - the ABCRA interferes with EU hygine regulations.
But it does not work with a really important component of my hardware inventory: USB wifi adapters. Once it does, I'll put it all on it.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Check this out:
;-) I'm NetBSD lover.
http://www.io.com/~kazushi/filesystem/
Especially the transfer rates. Linux clearly wins!
Author's comment:
"""
I tried Linux since it was sooo fast, but I couldn't live with Linux. It's not an OS for me.
"""
Anyone willing to comment those rates from a tech point of view?
Smorgrav, you're a fucking idiot.
Troll Glass
I use to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.
Q. Why don't LUsers have sex?
A. Short uptimes, frequent core dumps.
poor little thing, I pity you.
Does this mean that OpenBSD's packet filter don't make it to 2.0? Well, I don't worry much because some one will surely port it later.
* 9/2003 is really old for current.
Oh yeah, and the Linux 2.6 kernel is out too...
* Softdeps != journaling, of course journaling is going to win vs. soft deps. Duh.
Oh? Most BSD people always say how much better SU is than journalling. I guess they would say that though.
* RAIDframe still has a ways to go
Looks like it.
* Default file system creation options for NetBSD ffs are far from optimal on high power systems. Tweaking those would probably give a significant performance boost, with or without softdeps.
What options? What are their default settings, and what should they be on high power systems?
* BSD developers typically do not sacrifice portability for speed.
Neither does the Linux kernel. In fact, they are ported to more CPU architectures than NetBSD, and are faster than FreeBSD and NetBSD in most recent benchmarks.
It was not so long ago that Linux distros had async file I/O on ext2 without journaling. Naturally async is going to be faster than the default safer sync option on ffs.
That has no relevance to this test, which tested a journalled filesystem. And most Linux distros I think have been using journalled file systems for about 4 years.
Can anyone make a guess as to when some i386 ISO images might be available for testing? Thanks.
From Improving
Passive Packet Capture: Beyond Device Polling.
"Linux, a very popular OS used for running network appliances,
performs very poorly with respect to other OSs used in the same
test" (FreeBSD and Win2k).
"The Linux kernel module is almost as fast as the userspace
FreeBSD application".
Percentage of packets captured (in user space), using device polling, at
80,000 packets per second? Linux 5.6%, FreeBSD 99.9%. Linux manages
99.5% only using a kernel module.
SO LINUX MUST GO TO KERNEL SPACE TO ALMOST BE AS FAST AS FREEBSD
WITHIN USER SPACE!
Maybe if you BSD is dying trolls stopped crapping on here about BSD
dying and instead actually learned a language apt for your OS of choice,
you might actually be able to bring Linux up to "dead status" with the
BSD's.
But wait, it gets worse! While trying to capture packets from a
DoS application, Linux could only manage capture rates of 0.8% in user
space and 9.7% in kernel space, while FreeBSD managed 74.7% in user
space!
"FreeBSD performs much better than Linux"
"it is obvious that a vanilla FreeBSD systems is much more
efficient than a vanilla Linux system when used for packet
capture."
Admittedly, this is a fairly obscure platform, so the install scripts probably aren't as well developed as, say, i386, but still, it'd be nice...