Slashdot Mirror
Interview With Matt Dillon of DragonFlyBSD
animus9 writes "There is an interesting interview with Matt Dillon regarding the current status and future of DragonFlyBSD. In it he compares the difference between serializing tokens and the mutex model (a nice contrast to the previously posted Scott Long SMPng interview). He also describes the work being done in the VFS, along with his plans for Journaling, SSI Clustering, packaging, and more."
poo
n/t
I was just watching the movie "Over the Edge" the other day, and wondered whatever happened to Matt Dillon.
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 the Amazing 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
What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
Grieving is a process, and it's totally normal to go through feelings of shock, sadness, anger even guilt. The healing process is different for everyone. It might take you six weeks to move on, or it might take you six years. Don't beat yourself up because you're not "over it" yet. It takes time to heal wounds.
So what else can you do to feel better? It might sound corny, but try writing a letter, making a collage, or planting a tree in memory of the operating system you've lost. Remembering and celebrating all the good things *BSD brought to your life might help give you some closure, and having a keepsake to honor *BSD may help you get through some tough times in the future when you'll be missing it.
It's true that life won't be the same without *BSD around. It may seem like you'll never feel better, but eventually you will. Take some comfort in the old saying, "Time heals all wounds," and remember that *BSD will always be with you in your heart.
"There is an interesting interview with Matt Dillon..."
Nearly 3 hours later and nothing but Troll/AC posts. Either BSD really is dead and no one cares, or some people have a different understanding of the word interesting.
I don't usually answer AC & trolls, but in this case I have to put something straight.
Jordan Hubbard resigned mainly (AFAIK) because he was offered a job at Apple, which incorporated FreeBSD in OSX, making the # of UNIX installations in general and *BSD installations in particular a multiple of before in a flash.
At the moment, including OSX, FreeBSD is by far the most widespread Unix variant.
is not the kernel, which is nice, but the complete lack of *BSD developers' interest in the outside world. The systems lack a good UI, the distributions lack a real support for more than a very limited core system.
A year ago I wrote a short article on this subject (as a response to some BSD fanatic rant posted to /.). The antirant can be read here.
The BSDs will be a good and interesting Operating Systems, when someone will strip them of the whole Unix legacy and make a GNU/BSD distribution. Especially when Debian/BSD will produce something useful.
The interview is another sign of this problem - Matt Dillon concentrates on kernel issues while forgetting the Real World(TM). I still remember and respect Matt's work on AmigaOS, but his software was much more user-oriented then than it is now.
First, put it in the Apple section. Then re-write it as:
"Jordan Hubbard, Apple's Darwin OS leader, and Matt Dillion, DragonFlyBSD founder & head guru, both formerly leading developers at the FreeBSD project that was the basis for Darwin, are refusing to confirm that the awesome new multi-processing and clustering technologies in DragonFlyBSD will be the rocket fuel that takes Darwin, Mac OS XI (G6 CPUs), and Mac OS XII (Cell-based CPUs) to #1 on the TOP500 Supercomputer list and keeps them there.
"With the run-away successes of the G5 Xserver and Mac Mini, Apple is clearly positioning itself to deliver blockbuster breakthrough distributed computing everywhere from average people's homes to the world's cutting-edge research laboratories...
"Continuing their 'hide it in plain sight' development of these awesome new technologies, Matt Dillion gave an interview..."
Do it that way, and i'll guarantee you 1000+ responses in 3 hours.
In a more sober vein, there probably aren't many people here who know much about DragonFlyBSD or are interested in the low-level technologies that Matt's focused on.
It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
The *BSDs must be dead by know! I've been hearing the same thing for the past 7 years! (Thats when I dropped Linux in favor of using FreeBSD)
:).
:)
BSD users in general love *NIX for *NIX sake! we don't dilike other OS's as much as some groups of people, so we tend to be lurkers with less political motivation driving us(there are always exceptions)
Hell is still a very hot place, just ask the Beastie
RPR.
Hopefully Matt Dillon and his team of developers can come through for us, and make a great OS that meets the hype. Currently, I feel that DragonflyBSD has a high sticker-to-horsepower ratio, which is not so much the fault of the developers, but rather the fault of a large pack of fanboys having premature ejaculations over an OS that is by no means finished yet.
Years ago, FreeBSD fanboys said that FreeBSD's SMP implementation was going to be the best the world ever saw. Now, those same people are saying how much it sucks, and that DragonFlyBSD's is the boss of the boat. How about instead of all of this talk, we let the installations speak for themselves? FreeBSD is approaching a fully mpsafe kernel (albeit somewhat asymptotically) and I continue to be impressed with each release of the 5.x series. DragonFlyBSD has had one release, and it looks fine, but fact of the matter is, it's just not finished yet. I'm getting a little tired of all of the talk. Show me these DragonFlyBSD machines making water into wine. What we are dealing with is the classic "penis size" argument, and yet no one has brought a ruler to the scene.
I hope that DragonFly _does_ trounce FreeBSD in both performance and useability, so that I have a new OS that is greater than the greatest. I'm just going to wait until it's finished and showing it's stuff before I start playing with myself.
reminded of DeForest Kelley's prescient observation:
All joking aside, I would like to see a *BSD get to the point where its "year of the desktop" might be as close as Linux's currently is. I tried Free and OpenBSD, and although they are both nice systems, they hold little appeal over Linux outside of the server market, and especially lag behind on the issue of desktop usage. That being said, I would pick OpenBSD for a public server over any Linux distro in a heartbeat... if it was important enough to justify learning the *BSD ins and outs.
Once I had a cat who had feline leukemia, and we tried to keep him alive, with numerous trips to the vet. But, in the end, the disease just overwhelmed him. He had such a hard time. If I had another cat with the same diagnosis, then I would just have it put away immediately. Not being dismissive, but just realistic.
You are a very kind to have nursed FreeBSD along and looked after it. At least this pathetic OS is being looked after. It is not out there frantically searching for a "home". No, it's found its final resting place.
If FreeBSD does have to be euthanized, this is not a cruel act - it will pass away immediately without suffering.
"so we tend to be lurkers with less political motivation driving us(there are always exceptions)"
What I find interesting is that so many of the prominant BSD people are former Amiga users. This is true of both Dillon and de Raadt (leaders of the two BSDs with recognizable leaders).
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
... facts are facts. ;)
FreeBSD:
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004)
"[FreeBSD] has secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004)
"FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."
NetBSD:
NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (30 Sep 2004)
OpenBSD:
OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)
*BSD in general:
..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)
Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
"The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Same old Linux FUD, that has been disproved countless times... :)
In short: the MIT research is *11 years old* (1994), and the Rice study uses FreeBSD *2.2.6*
BSD has a bigger wanker than than RMS?
What a lame post. Even if you have a point, your anger makes you sound like a linux user more than a bsd user... ;)
And:
"They do it because you respond".. nope. He does it (it's one person, if you still have't realized) to spread FUD over BSD.
But I totally agree that it's better *not* to reply.
It is a rhythm as old as life itself, and is an integral part of the evolutionary process.
The classical symptoms of a species in crisis include:
- Increased aggression
- Sexual dysfunction
-
And disease.
It is a fact: *BSD is dyinga) linux is FAR more diverse, both in distros and in software available
b) linux performance in LAMP applications is generally accepted to be better now, sorry but it's true. Unless you take your statement to mean that performance AND tranquility in which case it's just a preference either way.
I am tired of the constant BSD trolling that linux is technically inferior, they both have pros and cons so stfu.
NeXT is no more BSD Unix based or descended from then OS X is based or descended from FreeBSD.
No more than, perhaps, but both statements are true to a certain extent. NeXTStep was the Mach microkernel with a 4.3 BSD userland (plus some GNU software, like gnutar and gcc) and NeXT's proprietary GUI (DisplayPostcript, etc.). OS X is the Darwin kernel with a (mostly) FreeBSD userland plus some GNU software and Apple's proprietary GUI (some parts of which are quite similar to DisplayPostscript, but PS is no longer used to due to Adobe's expensive licensing fees).
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
a) linux is FAR more diverse, both in distros and in software available
A smaller, but stable and fully functional software base is far better than a greater software base full of software that is broken and can't even build (Gentoo has bad bad kung fu and you know that USB support on Linux is a joke). Not every kind of diversity is productive and Linux proves that point very well, its diversity is typical of inbreeding, you keep getting more and more horrible freaks all in the same family.
b) linux performance in LAMP applications is generally accepted to be better now, sorry but it's true. Unless you take your statement to mean that performance AND tranquility in which case it's just a preference either way.
Keep dreaming, FreeBSD beats the pants off Linux (1Mpps vs. 100kpps). And if you were not a Linux user you would see the poem was a counter-troll to a troll about BSD dying. Linux has its merits, but BSD is my favorite for many reasons and as long as you Linux folk keep badmouthing BSD you will get a very bitter taste of your own medicine because it's based on undeniable facts. Read it and go weep with Tux, he could use some company.
>>b) linux performance in LAMP applications is
>>generally accepted to be better now, sorry but
>>it's true. Unless you take your statement to
>>mean that performance AND tranquility in which
>>case it's just a preference either way.
>
>Keep dreaming, FreeBSD beats the pants off Linux
>(1Mpps vs. 100kpps). And if you were not a Linux
In case you didn't know, they supposedly reached 1Mpps _forwarding_ in a highly specialised environment. The most significant thing was that fast forwarding was turned on, which basically takes the operating system out of the equation and does NIC-NIC forwarding on the bus. Of course, this breaks down if you want to do much useful with the packets.
But what's even funnier is that the FreeBSD guys have no idea what Linux can do. This guy is routing 2.1Mpps on a dual opteron with 4 NICs, 2 bound to each CPU. This shows that he could do over 1Mpps on a single opteron CPU with 2 NICs - more impressive than the FreeBSD result of 1Mpps with DUAL Xeons.
>user you would see the poem was a counter-troll
>to a troll about BSD dying. Linux has its merits,
>but BSD is my favorite for many reasons and as
>long as you Linux folk keep badmouthing BSD you
>will get a very bitter taste of your own medicine
>because it's based on undeniable facts. Read it
>and go weep with Tux, he could use some company
And what's funnier again, is that the routing performance document you cited is a *very* specialised workload that not a lot of people will use FreeBSD (or Linux) i386 PCs for.
The OP was talking about LAMP performance, which is to say, a typical database driven webserver. In which case, you might find this enlightening.
DragonFly??? Can we get a name that doesn't
suck so much?
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.
LiMP = Linux, Mysql, PHP
That speed record is a joke because NetBSD doesn't even support SACK, which is basically a requirement for doing real work over long fat pipes.
Count on an AC to know what needs to be done to a long, fat pipe.