DragonFly BSD Introduces A 'Stable' CVS Tag

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DragonFly BSD Introduces A 'Stable' CVS Tag

Posted by timothy on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @03:07AM from the steady-as-she-goes dept.

bsdman writes "The DragonFly BSD project have recently introduced a new 'stable' tag in their cvs. If you ever wanted to use DragonFly BSD but was scared of any instability - now is your chance!"

36 of 64 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Which one? by El+Icaro · 2004-09-29 03:24 · Score: 1

What are it's advantages over other BSD's? I have a starange feeling that even if there isn't such a huge difference in required knowledge between linux and BSD, BSD is for more professional uses. I can clearly see the differences in linux distro's. But other than portability, and security, what other differences/uses are there? (Just in case, i'm referring to Open, Free, Net and Dragonfly BSD)
1. Re:Which one? by Dan+Ost · 2004-09-29 04:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  My understanding is that rather than continue to make incremental improvements
  to FreeBSD, the DragonFly BSD folks are ripping out entire subsystems and
  replacing them with new designs that they think will scale better, be easier
  to maintain, and, ultimately, make it much simpler to make incremental
  improvements on than the current FreeBSD design.
  
  Take a look at their website. They have some excellent explanations of their
  goals.
  
  --
  
  *sigh* back to work...
2. Re:Which one? by Santana · 2004-09-29 04:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's the main difference: goals.
  
  Goals make you take different decisions. They all write very good and consistent operating systems. All of them share code. OpenBSD takes drivers from Net and Free, and these have taken pf, OpenSSH and spamd; the list of shared code is huge (and that's the point of BSD).
  
  But every BSD has different policies. OpenBSD is the more pedantic about licenses and code quality. For some people it could seem absurd, but time has proven OpenBSD is right.
  
  It's my impression that OpenBSD is in the perfect balance between NetBSD (privileging portability) and FreeBSD (privileging efficiency and software availability).
  
  But I'm biased :>
  
  --
  The best way to predict the future is to invent it
3. Re:Which one? by noselasd · 2004-09-29 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone know if they'll change the VM subsystem?
  Pulling in NetBSD's UVM would be great.
4. Re:Which one? by El+Icaro · 2004-09-29 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm... licenses.. code quality... That's all great but now look at it from a sixteen year-old geek's point of view. My intention is to learn as much as I can about IT and to increase my knowledge about all this stuff (It's cool ;)). I've tried TONS of distro's and there are clear differences. Now I don't know about marketing and economics, but people would probably look at ease of use, support, and software-base (that's shared code probably, so that's out of question) among other superficial stuff like preformance (BSD is for servers and not gaming, I think). If someone mentions goals, it might seem very honorable, but my goal in life is to become an excentric millionaire and it probably won't happen. Maybe "goals" are a new concept i'll have to assimilate. What about actual "ooo.. shiny!" features? I mean those that actually make you decide that THAT is your OS of choice. I haven't googled for it cause i'm a bit lazy but the main websites don't seem to be very informative about that aspect.
5. Re:Which one? by Santana · 2004-09-29 06:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  One shiny feature that might not be obvious the first time you see a BSD box is ease of administration. Which is a consequence of a clean and integrated system. OpenBSD specially has a proactive approach to security, which is an important "feature".
  
  Maybe this doesn't seem like fancy features to a teenager geek, but they are so important if you want to take *nix administration seriously.
  
  --
  The best way to predict the future is to invent it
6. Re:Which one? by Brandybuck · 2004-09-29 07:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I can clearly see the differences in linux distro's. But other than portability, and security, what other differences/uses are there?
  
  Frankly, who cares about the differences? The purpose of the BSDs isn't to be different.
  
  This is very different from the Linux community. Linux users, in general, tend to chase after the latest "hot" distro. Almost like flash mobs. The latest seems to be Ubuntu skyrocketing up the distrowatch charts. I can't understand why someone happy with their current distro would switch just because everyone's talking about something new. But apparently a lot of you do.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
7. Re:Which one? by Eivind+Eklund · 2004-09-29 08:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Seems unlikely - the last rewrite of the FreeBSD VM system was done by Matt Dillon, the founder of DragonFlyBSD.
  And I don't know of any particular advantage of UVM in practice; as far as I've understood, the performance in practice is not as good with FreeBSD.
  If you've got information to the contrary, please share!
  Eivind.
  
  --
  Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
8. Re:Which one? by Draco_es · 2004-09-29 08:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's my impression that OpenBSD is in the perfect balance between NetBSD (privileging portability) and FreeBSD (privileging efficiency and software availability).
  
  I think OpenBSD is the less performant and scalable of the three, has less ports and suffers at high loads much more than the others. But it has better security defaults and pf is great. Don't you agree?
9. Re:Which one? by sp0rk173 · 2004-09-29 12:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  FreeBSD, and BSD in general, is an OS that once you learn...you will love forever. It's an OS you can love without becoming a zealot. It's pragmatic, intelligently designed, and the code is very clean, relative to linux. You'll also be working in an OS that really just has one goal - to be as good an OS as it can. Not to overthrow microsoft, not to overthrow linux, not to fight against Mac OS as the primary underdog. That, in my opinion, is the main appeal of the BSDs. They're there just to be there, to represent different models and ideas in computer science, and show how these different ideas might work. Linux does this, too, but there are ulterior motives that sometimes draw away from the goal of being the best that it can be. Though, Linus does a damn good job of keeping things on track and focused.
  
  Now, BSD is mainly for servers, but i would venture to say that most BSD developers use it daily as their main workstation. It's a completely viable system to fill that role, and it does a damn good job. Also...nvidia puts out 3D drivers for FreeBSD, you can play almost all linux games in FreeBSD, usually as fast, if not faster, than under linux. I have no evidence of this...but it's what I hear...and people do play linux games on FreeBSD (think wolfenstein, 3D FPSes). So...it can be a platform for gaming. But yeah, to enter the BSD world you have to realize goals. If you want a firewall or a gateway, you can't go wrong with OpenBSD. If you want a nice fast workstation or a high-load network server Get yourself a copy of FreeBSD-STABLE (the 4.X series) or track DragonFly's development. If you want to see BSD die, get a copy of FreeBSD-RELEASE (the 5.X series). If you want to see somethign that will run on anything, and run pretty damn well, then it's all about NetBSD. If you want point and click prettiness with a terminal, OS X is BSD-based. I recommend trying all of them, because they all offer something different for the 16 year-old nerd to learn.
10. Re:Which one? by tedu · 2004-09-29 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  if goals aren't really your thing, there's a few other OSs out there with lots of "features" but short on goals. :)
11. Re:Which one? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-29 17:47 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Every other OS out there pissed me off because of haphazard system layout, and pain-in-the-ass administration; and there was usually also some poor-quality code - which always seemed to exist in the distro's highly-touted admin tools and/or highly-touted upgrade mechanism.
  
  The ports system just plain WORKS, dammit!
  
  I think that the older geeks value the BSD's goals because they also remember being pissed off by OS's that only focused on the "shiny" factor.
  
  The shiny stuff is fun for a while, but someday you'll be using a new Linux distro and you won't be able to print that all-important term paper because you're stuck in some circular-RPM-dependency hell (sure you can fix it, but not before you have to take an Incomplete) - then you'll wish to God you had an OS that just worked, and the shiny new distro won't seem so damn shiny any more.
  
  BTW, don't let other geeks hear you say that performance is "superficial"!
12. Re:Which one? by JamesTRexx · 2004-09-29 18:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Maybe they don't want to admit they're not as happy with their distro as they say? Or maybe they're just the kind of poeple that want to "oohhh shiny!" kick from installing something new. (and maybe installing stuff is the only thing they do with it because they use their Windows box for games)
  And then there might still be people who want to try them all because they can.
  
  --
  home
13. Re:Which one? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-29 19:42 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Well, a linux user is used for ages to:
  
  * Pretend things work when they don't (90's USB, ext2, etc)
  * When busted, explain things were fucked but are really ready now (desktop environment, packages dependencies, robust filesystems, vm managment, etc)
  * Upgrade and break its system every other week (new kernel, new gnome, new X, new nvidia driver, etc, etc)
  * Ready to jump to whatever fad is current (live CD, rebuild everything from source including the base distribution because some asshole said it was better, etc)
  * Live in a undocumented perpetual beta state (which is, btw, now official in lkml)
  
  Of course, this population is trained to change distro instead of fixing the current ones.
14. Re:Which one? by FullMetalAlchemist · 2004-09-29 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the deal was that it fitted better in with the NetBSD philosophy, that the code is simpler and therefor better in the long run for the project.
  
  Matt has the same goal, but not in code, but in concept. I could be wrong though, I have not done my homework on UVM.
15. Re:Which one? by the+chao+goes+mu · 2004-09-30 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  A bit unfair to the 5.X series, don't you think? Don't get me wrong, I have in the past stopped upgrading BSD (at 2.2.8 and 3.4, if I recall) because of shortcomings in a given release(3.[01] and 4.[012], also if I recall), but I don't think 5.2.1 is anywhere near as bad as you suggest.
  
  --
  Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
16. Re:Which one? by m.dillon · 2004-09-30 12:34 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  No, the VM subsystem... that is, the concept of using stackable VM Objects, is going to stay in. I do want to implement a copy-on-write mechanism for pages owned by in-progress I/O to avoid stall situations that still exist in FreeBSD (despite Kirk's filesystem bitmap hacks, which only really fixed the worst of the stalls). There are also some kernel memory subsystem interactions with the VM system that need cleaning up to make things more MP friendly, and vm_map's and a few other areas need some algorithmic cleanups... but it's just cleaning up, not a rewrite. Generally I believe the VM Object based VM subsystem used in FreeBSD and DragonFly to be superior to the mechanisms used in other BSDs and in Linux.
  -Matt
17. Re:Which one? by Rich · 2004-10-05 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  > It's my impression that OpenBSD is in the perfect balance between NetBSD (privileging portability) and FreeBSD (privileging efficiency and software availability).
  
  I think that's a largely a question of what you want to do with the machine. For example I like linux because it works with all my hardware from TV tuner cards to my NVidia graphics card.
ISO's only? by Coneasfast · 2004-09-29 03:28 · Score: 1

is there any other way to install other than ISO? i want to test it out, would be nice if there was another option, at least install from fat partition or something.

--
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
1. Re:ISO's only? by Holi · 2004-09-29 07:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  From the download section of their website:
  
  CD Images
  DragonFly CDs are 'live', meaning these CDs will boot your system and let you log in as root (no password). You can use this feature to check for hardware compatibility and play with DragonFly a little before actually installing it on your hard drive. The CD includes an installer that can be run at the console, or (experimentally) via a web browser. Make sure you read the README file for more information. To activate the installer, boot the CD and login as 'installer'. See the 'Download Site' list below for a list of download locations.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Great, but... by ArbitraryConstant · 2004-09-29 05:06 · Score: 3, Funny

"BSD
4 more"

When was the last time anyone saw that? It's like a creepy zombie movie. /hopes the mods can tell a joke from a troll

--
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
1. Re:Great, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-29 09:20 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Don't you just love the sweet smell of desperation. :)
2. Re:Great, but... by be-fan · 2004-10-05 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  I don't get it.
  
  --
  A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:Nice, but... by sp0rk173 · 2004-09-29 11:46 · Score: 5, Informative

it's the OSI approved version of the license. Apparently some old files had the old 4-clause license hanging around.

This is an improvement, and isn't making it any harder for Matt and other's ideas to get out. It's actually making the code MORE open, from the GNU/FSF/OSI standpoint. Nice attempt at a troll, though.
Re:poor grammar by torstenvl · 2004-09-29 16:11 · Score: 1

Two sentences, one mistake.

The DragonFly BSD Project (TDFBSDP) is not *just* Matt. It's multiple people. It's plural. "have"

Silly American. </playfulness>

Seriously though, we don't have a verbal inflection category for collectives. Americans conjugate as though each noun were singular. Brits conjugate as though each noun were plural. It's rather arbitrary and neither one is "right" or "wrong".

In fact, the way it was before was more grammatically correct than yours. "have...their" is correct, but if you write "has...their" you're wrong; "their" is only used as a gender-neutral singular possessive for ANIMATE nouns (as opposed to "his/her". As it's an inanimate noun, if you deem that TDFBSDP is singular, you need to use "its".
Re:poor grammar by d'fim · 2004-09-29 18:29 · Score: 1

"The DragonFly BSD Project has recently introduced a new 'stable' tag into its CVS."

"The members of the DragonFly BSD Project have recently introduced a new 'stable' tag into their CVS."

A single project with multiple members.

The project is not the people - unless you're a motivational speaker or some other such person who's paid to speak in warm fuzzies. The project is (at least) the sum of its parts: the people, the ideas, the sweat, the worry, the capital resources, et cetera. In other words, the project is a superset, and thus gets the status of singular noun.

<Yakov Smirnov> But only in America - what a country! </Yakov Smirnov>

Of course, all of the above is only true for those who accept set theory into their paradigm of what constitutes logical speech. Remember: "the members of a set are not the set itself." (Note British punctuational style - gotta admit that that's the better way to go!) Unless it's a self-inclusive set, but that would be strangely loopy...

--
Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
Re:poor grammar by Burb · 2004-09-29 23:31 · Score: 1

We would, in fact say "This car has petrol". But there has been a tendency in recent years to treat collective nouns as plurals, as in "The Manchester United football team are overpaid". I don't see this as a Brit/Yank difference.

--
Don't worry by Inf0phreak · 2004-09-30 05:13 · Score: 1

By the Axiom of Foundation such a set does not exist in ZF so there is no such problem.

--
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
Re:poor grammar by norkakn · 2004-09-30 09:57 · Score: 1

If I was good at grammer, I'd pay more attention to what you say.
" If you want to see BSD die, get 5.X series " by Ricin · 2004-09-30 11:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Insightful, my rim!
Not that big a deal. by m.dillon · 2004-09-30 12:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Oh for heaven's sake. It's not *that* big a deal! It's there so all the new VFS work, which is virtually guarenteed to create some destabilization despite our best efforts (because we are literally ripping out and replacing the entire VFS interface), doesn't screw up people trying to use DragonFly as a production platform.
Wait a few months and there will really be some new cool things to brag about. The new VFS layering is going to allow us to implement a generic journaling interface (read: real time continuously streaming fs backups and other cool things).
-Matt
Re:New MOD category needed by torstenvl · 2004-10-01 06:33 · Score: 1

Woah woah woah.

I seem to be a grammar nazi?

I was responding to SOMEONE ELSE'S criticism of the grammar of the original poster. I didn't say anything about anyone's grammar being wrong.

Don't be a troll.
Re:New MOD category needed by d'fim · 2004-10-01 08:36 · Score: 1

Far from being a "Flame", I thought that torstenvl's comment was pretty cool - and informative.

If I thought that he had been flaming then I would not have replied to his comment.

It is possible to point out grammar issues without resorting to flames, and torstenvl did just that.

If you want humor then you've got the whole internet from which to choose.

Grow up.

--
Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
Re: new cool things by phoenix_rizzen · 2004-10-03 00:53 · Score: 1

Read through the archives of the kernel mailing list archive. These kinds of questions pop up now and then and Matt and co have responded to them in length over the past month or so. Very informative, and not too technical.
Mod parent down by HenryKoren · 2004-10-03 05:17 · Score: 1

How did this guy get modded insightful? By having proper grammar?
If you want a firewall or a gateway, you can't go wrong with OpenBSD. If you want a nice fast workstation or a high-load network server Get yourself a copy of FreeBSD-STABLE (the 4.X series) or track DragonFly's development. If you want to see BSD die, get a copy of FreeBSD-RELEASE (the 5.X series)
This poster is slinging poo, but has he even tried 5.X or does he just not like it's "goals"?
The 5.1 gateway server I have running at my company has performed flawlessly.
The 5.2.1 server I have at my home has 547 packages on it, and is used as a desktop machine as well as a server. It also is an excellent performer.
So where does the hate for 5.X come for? I'd really like to know.
I'm a FreeBSD zealot, and I'm proud of it. What's bad for BSD is the forking and the in-fighting amongst the leaders of the respective forks who can't come to a consensus on their "goals". Parallel efforts are a waste. We need unity in the BSD community. And that means supporting the most prominent release: FreeBSD, not some disgruntled developers fork of an older version.

--
To blog is sublime
1. Re:Mod parent down by sp0rk173 · 2004-10-12 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for the late reply. I do use 5.2.1 as my webserver at home. It runs, and it runs well. But I've read the technical flaws that Matt has with it, and I agree with them. I think Matt's fork is more than just a "disgruntled developer's fork." He's making major, major changes to the base, and the resulting API design is just much nicer, from a programmer's point of view. The theory behind his model also just makes sense to me. I recommend you put down your religious zealotry, put on a nice little "skeptic" hat, and review Dragonfly for what it is. Check out the actual code changes, the clean ups, etc, and see what you think. I'm not here to change your mind, I'm just here to open it. And for the sake of all truth, the FreeBSD developers are still people. They can make wrong decisions, go down the wrong design path. Just because it works doesn't mean it's ideal, or that it's the best solution. For example, Linux runs beautifully...but compared to FreeBSD it's code is a mess, for a while it's TCP/IP stack was inferior...but it still ran, and people still rallied behind it. FreeBSD had a better solution, technically speaking, but since the stack in linux worked, there wasn't much of a drive to change it.
  
  It's important to point out that I don't *hate* FreeBSD. It was my first real OS love. It's still, speaking from a strictly pragmatic standpoint, a better choice than Dragonfly when you take into account the flux that Dragonfly is currently going through. Which will be better in the long run? Only time will tell, but Dragonfly definitely presents an interesting alternative to the status quo in the BSD world.
  
  I do take strong issue with one thing you said, though:
  
  Parallel efforts are a waste.
  
  I really don't believe this is true. Parallel efforts provide the community with choice and a deviance from the status quo. The status quo might be the best solution, or it might not. How would you know if it is or not if you don't challenge it? Simply because it works well enough? I don't accept that as an answer. Competing efforts are good.
  
  Anyway, Keep using FreeBSD if you're happy with it, but I'm becoming to be annoyed with the way things are being done. To each their own, right?