Still a mach kernel. Note that the word mach contains neither a "B" an "S" nor a "D".
Mach is a microkernel. There are a lot more pieces that compose whole kernel.
From the The Unofficial Darwin FAQ:
# What is Darwin's lineage?
Justin Walker's description of Darwin's heritage is:
Mac OS X began life as a child of OpenStep 4.x. The first stage in the evolution was the move from OpenStep 4.x to Rhapsody, which was based on BSD Lite2, with a batch of NeXT-instigated changes. When we shifted to Mac OS X from Rhapsody/Mac OS X Server, we incorporated FreeBSD 3.2 changes for the networking piece. The rest of the BSD portion of the kernel remained more or less as it was. At the same time, we (i.e., Fred, with your [Darwin's] help) pulled in command and library updates. Most of these are from FreeBSD, although I'm not positive about the heritage of the pieces that are now in the system.
Now, I am seeing FreeBSD users jumping on the SCO bandwagon and claiming the GPL is bad, and the BSD License is the only way to go
FreeBSD users claimed GPL was bad for ages. It's irrelevant to SCO. BTW SCO's does not care about GPL, they try to take over Linux for allegedly stolen code.
You are trying to smear BSD using SCO. Why? Are you envious?
They have the same choice and peer pressure as adults. They might as well start getting used to it at an early age.
Kids are more brutal and ruthless than adults.
Adult may say "I don't think so" to another adult.
Kid may yell, threaten and beat up another kid.
You don't talk much to kids, do you?
I still STAND when they play their national anthem with their flag waving
I also stand when they play their national anthem, because I want to, not because I forced to.
If I'm forced to, than they do not respect me - so why should I respect them?
I completely agree on the dependencies issue, but isn't calling the SysV init mess "thin" a little bit off? Honestly, how many runlevels exept "multi-user", "single-user" and "turned off" do you really need? Do you collect symlinks as a hobby?
"network" and "nonetwork"?
;)))
Look at Gentoo - they simplified things a lot.
Look at NetBSD and FreeBSD - they have start scripts which allow start/stop daemons and allow dependencies but do not have runlevels at all if you don't count single-user and multi-user.
I agree - current runlevels as in Red Hat or Solaris are messy.
/bin/sh is not interpreted ? You don't consider it bloated ? Look better at Python, it's actually very elegant.
Python may be elegant as many other interpreters,
but Linux supposed to be more or less Unix-compliant and if you already have/bin/sh there then just use it. There is no justification to complicate things.
Automating the deployment is very difficult, obviously the developers expect you to spend hours changing hard coded paths in lines of source code and config files every time you want to deploy it.
You have to have policies for developers for not to hardcode anything. BTW with mod_perl httpd.conf could have scripts inside for automating things.
And deploymentwise I didn't have problems with mod_per and apache. You just have to set up it once, create package and deploy it on any number of servers...
Another problem with that article it shows perfomance of one particular program - Mailengine on different OSes. Perhaps different programs could show different performance patterns.
Another thing - everybody interested in performance and nobody in reliability. Try yank powercord from computer and look how different OSes behave after boot. Ext2 I believe would be loser. Journalled FS could do better but then there is a performance impact...
For example in Gentoo you would install gaim by typing 'emerge gaim' compared to 'cd/usr/ports/net/gaim' then 'make install clean' in FreeBSD.
In FreeBSD I'd rather type
pkg_add -r gaim
to install it. I do care about my time. It's
kind of insane wait for computer to compile things if there are already available packages.
If you want a small base install, the best thing you can do is pick a scripting language and rewrite as much stuff in it as possible: init, cron, various command line utilities, etc. Besides generally making the install smaller, that has the other advantage that you can have a system that is easily fixable on-the-fly without having a complete C compiler installation.
Whoa! The full Perl distribution is: /usr/local/lib> du -s perl5
47143 perl5
It's 47 MB - is it "small"?
It's already bloatware.
And about your suggestion to have init rewritten in scripting language - you are not an administrator, are you?;))
Could you tell me what is the point to fix on-the-fly utilities which are not needed to be fixed? Only thing to be changed is configuration data. It is Unix and BSD way. Maybe in Linux it is other way;))
One of problems FreeBSD encountered was complain from Perl developers that included with FreeBSD Perl was "not complete". It did not include CGI stuff and other pieces not really needed for just scripting language. One more thing - it was not easy to separate needed and unneeded pieces.
So removing it made life easier for maintainers. And you still can have it installed with FreeBSD.
But converting utilities into C code is just completely the wrong direction.
You got it backwards.
If you are talking about BSD utilities - almost everything was written long before Perl ever existed. Only some recent additions like sockstat were written in Perl. And there already exists scripting language - shell.
Soviet Union did not exist in 1917. It was created in 1922, Dec 30. What you are relating to is RSFSR.
US participated in Allied intervention. Even Soviet propaganda called it intervention, not invasion. There were 339th Infantry Regiment in Nothern Russia and 8th Infantry Division in Vladivostok. There were 174 US KIA in Russia. Does not look like much of action.
Slashdot Mirror
No - mostly it was Tagged Command Queuing on SCSI and issuing command - waiting execution on IDE.
Lastly, I suspect that his mail directory was built over time on the 40GB drive, then copied over to the SCSI drive.
He already answered this - he used new directories on both drives.
I believe if he'd tried reading/writing big files (hundreds of MBs or GBs) he'd found their performance comparable. He just found soft spot in IDE.
Scsi could put many (tens or hundreds) commands into queue and get results when they are done.
IDE usually use one command a time.
At least IBM produce IDE drives with tagged command queuing capability but they have problems with it and your ATA subsystem should support it.
Mach is a microkernel. There are a lot more pieces that compose whole kernel.
From the The Unofficial Darwin FAQ:
# What is Darwin's lineage? Justin Walker's description of Darwin's heritage is: Mac OS X began life as a child of OpenStep 4.x. The first stage in the evolution was the move from OpenStep 4.x to Rhapsody, which was based on BSD Lite2, with a batch of NeXT-instigated changes. When we shifted to Mac OS X from Rhapsody/Mac OS X Server, we incorporated FreeBSD 3.2 changes for the networking piece. The rest of the BSD portion of the kernel remained more or less as it was. At the same time, we (i.e., Fred, with your [Darwin's] help) pulled in command and library updates. Most of these are from FreeBSD, although I'm not positive about the heritage of the pieces that are now in the system.
Please try again with some correct facts.
Yes, please ;))
Whatever he's saying FreeBSD does not start to drop incoming packets because tests succeded.
FreeBSD users claimed GPL was bad for ages. It's irrelevant to SCO. BTW SCO's does not care about GPL, they try to take over Linux for allegedly stolen code.
You are trying to smear BSD using SCO. Why? Are you envious?
exception of the 802.11G wireless cards. There are no Linux drivers
p ters.html
Take a look here - it's a driver for Atheros chipset:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/madwifi
Here you may search for adapters with that chipset:
http://www.linux-wlan.org/docs/wlan_ada
You don't talk much to kids, do you?
I still STAND when they play their national anthem with their flag waving
I also stand when they play their national anthem, because I want to, not because I forced to. If I'm forced to, than they do not respect me - so why should I respect them?
Why don't you run 2 natd processes?
Or you may use ipfilter and it's ipnat kernel module..
On FreeBSD it locks text screen and allows to scroll buffer with PgDn/PgUp or arrows keys.
That's exactly the same as two mediocre programmers equal one decent ;))
Perhaps this way, the code will be commented blah blah blah
Perhaps you don't need to pay to second programmer to do this - you just need a secretary for each programmer..
Oww, gawd!
Not Emacs, vi!
Was that Yoda speaking?
Look at Gentoo - they simplified things a lot. Look at NetBSD and FreeBSD - they have start scripts which allow start/stop daemons and allow dependencies but do not have runlevels at all if you don't count single-user and multi-user.
I agree - current runlevels as in Red Hat or Solaris are messy.
Python may be elegant as many other interpreters, but Linux supposed to be more or less Unix-compliant and if you already have /bin/sh there then just use it. There is no justification to complicate things.
What philosophy?
There was nothing new in that movie..
Maybe just spoon
Generally I see it (first Matrix) as eye candy movie.. And second one just boooring.
How come you satisfied with them if they are unstable?
You have to have policies for developers for not to hardcode anything. BTW with mod_perl httpd.conf could have scripts inside for automating things.
And deploymentwise I didn't have problems with mod_per and apache. You just have to set up it once, create package and deploy it on any number of servers...
Another thing - everybody interested in performance and nobody in reliability. Try yank powercord from computer and look how different OSes behave after boot. Ext2 I believe would be loser. Journalled FS could do better but then there is a performance impact...
In FreeBSD I'd rather type
pkg_add -r gaim
to install it. I do care about my time. It's kind of insane wait for computer to compile things if there are already available packages.
Whoa! The full Perl distribution is :
/usr/local/lib> du -s perl5
47143 perl5
It's 47 MB - is it "small"?
It's already bloatware. And about your suggestion to have init rewritten in scripting language - you are not an administrator, are you? ;)) ;))
Could you tell me what is the point to fix on-the-fly utilities which are not needed to be fixed? Only thing to be changed is configuration data. It is Unix and BSD way. Maybe in Linux it is other way
One of problems FreeBSD encountered was complain from Perl developers that included with FreeBSD Perl was "not complete". It did not include CGI stuff and other pieces not really needed for just scripting language. One more thing - it was not easy to separate needed and unneeded pieces. So removing it made life easier for maintainers. And you still can have it installed with FreeBSD.
You got it backwards. If you are talking about BSD utilities - almost everything was written long before Perl ever existed. Only some recent additions like sockstat were written in Perl. And there already exists scripting language - shell.
TenDRA
http://www.tendra.org/
Not exactly since. Maybe since World War I ending...
The Soviets are going to be surprised by this one since they adopted their constitution on July 10, 1918.
It was Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic. The Soviet Union was created on December 30 1922 by 6 Soviet states.
Soviet Union did not exist in 1917. It was created in 1922, Dec 30. What you are relating to is RSFSR.
US participated in Allied intervention. Even Soviet propaganda called it intervention, not invasion. There were 339th Infantry Regiment in Nothern Russia and 8th Infantry Division in Vladivostok. There were 174 US KIA in Russia. Does not look like much of action.