Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD AMD64 SMP in testing
agent dero writes "Naysayers beware, at the recent Calgary OpenBSD Hackathon, there has been some major improvements in OpenBSD's SMP support which was recently merged with -current. According to this recent article at undeadly.org the code is ready for testing, but the OpenBSD team could really use some permanent AMD64 SMP hardware for testing. Notable achievments include a kernel compile in around 80 seconds."
what i heard was is that *bsd is dead.
Imagine a distributed kernel compile with distcc. Or perhaps a beowulf cluster compile? Or is that only a Linux thing?
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD 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 surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
"Notable achievments include a kernel compile in around 80 seconds."
Hope that such compile times on the developers' systems would result in kernels that wouldn't need a recompilation/replacement for years on systems in production
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. I
Put a lily in its hand and close the lid.
Of those, only DragonFly is positioned to become one of the major BSDs, it is to FreeBSD as OpenBSD was to NetBSD.
andrey
The way I see it there are still going to be only three major BSDs though:
FreeBSD, the way I see it at least, will eventually be an ix86/amd64 only system with everything Linux does in it as well. Definately good for cheapservers right now, headed more for the desktops and laptops.
DragonFlyBSD, as ever as I see it, takes the servers. The direction they are heading in is likely to be some damned good SMP, something that would be great for a server.
OpenBSD, still how I see it, will continue expanding into the trenches of ISP warfare. They're solid and perform well, they are soon going to be able to completely replace a Cisco and they are devoted to making the system as secure as possible.
Now, what of NetBSD you say? I say that they are slowly loosing appeal, many of their supporters call Net equally as secure as Open, but it's not. The system runs on damned near everything, but why? Who is running a Dreamcast or Atari? Any significant platforms supported by Net can be ported to Open. I think that Net will eventually die out, gloomy as it is, the goal of being on every platform is hardly a thing to unite a project in my mind. Though, as I've said a few times as a chant against flamming, that is just my opinion.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
There aren't many people in any community who can claim to be as dedicated and talented at Matt Dillon or Theo de Raadt, and understaffing is a problem that I know the ekkoBSD and MirOS teams would like to solve.
That opinion isn't uncommon, but there are a notable number of people who appreciate NetBSD because of their attention to architectural and technical detail. I think NetBSD will last for a long time to come. As you disclaimed, this is all IMHO
plan9% ls -l 9pccpu
--rwxrwxr-x M 106460 andrey andrey 1554980 Jun 27 13:23 9pccpu
1554980 bytes
eee, I remember back in the days when it was less than that
--rwxrwxr-x M 9 sys sys 1485859 Feb 17 20:23 9pccpu
8s to compile, 15s to boot
if only I was allowed to use it to make weapons of mass destruction I could rule the world !!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
The problem is OpenBSD has everything NetBSD has, plus tons more, and the only thing it doesn't have is obscure ports nobody uses like acorn. The only people I know that use NetBSD do it because they got their feelings hurt by someone in the OpenBSD community telling them to read the docs, and went crying to NetBSD cause its the next closest thing to OpenBSD.
In contrast to OpenBSD, NetBSD has been the most reliable open-source OS I've used, and is the only one that runs on every single one of my systems (which are all under-5-year-old Intel and AMD PCs -- nothing exotic) without any major problems. Linux is a close second, and FreeBSD a distant third.
Based on the benchmark results here, I'm not surprised my OpenBSD experience was as bad as it was.