Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arch BSD: Arch Linux Atop The FreeBSD Kernel

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by ncopa View Post

    PS. is there some way to filter out messages in this thread that uses font size over a given limit?
    Or better yet - is there a way to auto-ignore posts from a specific user?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by ncopa View Post
      is there some way to filter out messages in this thread that uses font size over a given limit?
      Not sure if this forum here has an Ignore button. If it has, press it. The Linux kiddies need some attention every now and then.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by staalmannen View Post
        Or better yet - is there a way to auto-ignore posts from a specific user?
        Checked. Yup: Open his profile, see the left sidebar.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by LightBit View Post
          You mean LinuxThreads library? Well that is because Linux now uses NTPL, which uses Linux specific system calls. So they had to do their own, which is probably not slower than LinuxThreads.
          I'm not freebsd user and never was, I'm occasional OpenBSD user.
          That's right and freebsd used LinuxThreads library in the past and switched later to some crap (probably, because of same political reasons like GCC to llvm switch, so not because of the reason you described).

          So Light Weight Kernel Threads are very similar to Linux kernel threads? I couldn't found any reference.
          Virtual kernel feature is similar to User Mode Linux, but it's not performance feature:
          Yes, they're similar:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-weight_process
          http://www.dragonflybsd.org/features/

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            That's right and freebsd used LinuxThreads library in the past and switched later to some crap (probably, because of same political reasons like GCC to llvm switch, so not because of the reason you described).
            Probably it was also political reason. (they could port NPTL instead)
            And of course Linux is totally unpolitical.


            Only similarity I see:
            In computer operating systems, a light-weight process (LWP) is a means of achieving multitasking.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by ryao View Post
              Do you have a reference for your Linux threads comment? If you know how a kernel works, you should know how absurd that statement is.
              http://www.freebsdsoftware.org/devel/linuxthreads.html
              http://www.unobvious.com/bsd/freebsd-threads.html

              There are two major classes of threads for FreeBSD. The first is the default FreeBSD thread package, referred to henceforth as "uthreads" or "user threads". The other is the Linuxthreads port, which is a port of Linux's kernel threads based on the clone() call (or, in FreeBSD's case, the rfork() call).
              http://static.usenix.org/event/bsdco...tml/node5.html

              TWC considered using an alternate thread library to work around these problems. Specifically, the thread library contained in the LinuxThreads port described at [LinuxThreads]. However, there are binary incompatibilities between the structures defined by FreeBSD's thread library and the LinuxThreads' thread library. Thus, any libraries used by a multithreaded application that use threads internally must be linked against the same thread library as the application. As a result, for our applications to use LinuxThreads, all of the libraries they link against that use threads internally would also have to link against LinuxThreads. As a result of those libraries using LinuxThreads, other applications that use those libraries would also have to link against LinuxThreads. This would require TWC to custom compile several packages including XFree86, Mesa, Python, and a CORBA ORB as well as other applications depending on those packages rather than using the pre-built packages from stock FreeBSD releases. Since the workarounds for FreeBSD's thread library were not too egregious, they were chosen as the lesser of two evils.
              This legacy OS was also using M:N threading implementation just to switch to 1:1 like Linux does.

              Compilers do not matter very much as far as performance goes. Better aglorithms and code that plays well with cache will always matter more than anything a compiler could do.
              Yay, Gentoo developer have spoken. I wonder why freebsd with GCC was way faster than with llvm? I also wonder why the hell you care, so much about compiler and optimization flags? Damn hippo.

              Dtrace and ZFS could be called a "tech preview" in FreeBSD 7.x and FreeBSD 8.0-8.2. It is fairly mature in FreeBSD 8.3 and later. At this point, ZFS and Dtrace are no more of a "tech preview" than DragonflyBSD is.
              Hammer was developed for years for DragonflyBSD especially and it's far more mature than zfs on freebsd.

              Lastly, DragonflyBSD has influences from AmigaOS, not Linux.
              If you have no clue, just shut up.

              DragonflyBSD has its merits, but it is different, not better.
              It's way better and modern.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                Probably it was also political reason. (they could port NPTL instead)
                And of course Linux is totally unpolitical.
                Linux is unpolitical in a very different and positive contest.

                Only similarity I see:
                Then take a look here:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonFly_BSD

                "The serializing token code is evolving into something quite similar to the "Read-copy-update" feature now available in Linux. Unlike Linux's current RCU implementation, DragonFly's is being implemented such that only processors competing for the same token are affected rather than all processors in the computer."

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
                  Checked. Yup: Open his profile, see the left sidebar.
                  Awesome. Thanks.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    Linux is unpolitical in a very different and positive contest.
                    For me switch to Clang/LLVM was positive.
                    And Ubuntu not switching to systemd is of course unpolitical.
                    Also Git replaced BitKeeper, because of political reasons.


                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    Then take a look here:

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonFly_BSD

                    "The serializing token code is evolving into something quite similar to the "Read-copy-update" feature now available in Linux. Unlike Linux's current RCU implementation, DragonFly's is being implemented such that only processors competing for the same token are affected rather than all processors in the computer."
                    OK, this is similar.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by blackout23 View Post
                      Now if only someone would develop ArchWindows.
                      I dunno?,
                      but seriously, and especially after Win8, I'm definitely sure an ArchDOS would be infinitely better, (even for a modern Tablet), than any "ArchWindows" -?! - ewww.
                      IMHO, ArchBSD is all that foronicks would need, 'ya know, like it's BSD, but it feels like Linux. It's the best of both UNIX worlds, and we'd never know the difference.
                      ...waiting.
                      Last edited by scjet; 01-25-2013, 11:23 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                        For me switch to Clang/LLVM was positive.
                        And Ubuntu not switching to systemd is of course unpolitical.
                        Also Git replaced BitKeeper, because of political reasons.
                        Both cases you mentioned are nothing, but stupidity. Switch to llvm was stupid and Ubuntu not switching to systemd is stupid as well. Git is probably the best tool, so it was a practical decision.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by phoronix View Post
                          Phoronix: Arch BSD: Arch Linux Atop The FreeBSD Kernel

                          The Arch BSD operating system is moving forward, an attempt at a BSD platform that's inspired by the Arch Linux distribution and using its package-set...

                          http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI4MTk
                          Obvously Phoronix got it wrong this time, since ArchBSD is "pure" FreeBSD + Userland + pacman _ OpenRC, + ...
                          But, BSD dev's gotta start looking into some Linux help too, in the "free-spirit" of things. -it goes both ways soon.

                          "Clang,..."? fine, that's good for BSD, strip gpl* code, who cares, but as Picard once said: "...just make it work Number 1...!" -It's all good for us.
                          pacman, OpenRC can be built/ported for this, but it still leaves me with the obvious questions of FreeBSD 10 and beyond, where are the "DRIVERS'" ???
                          This is a continual ongoing issue, whether we're in Linux-emulation or not, at present. Linux-emulation is outdated and non-senseicle anway, in BSD -other than see, we can be you but you can't be us, right now?
                          On the other hand, this Linux tool-assisted "visibilty" can only help BSD in more ways than less. At the very hopeful best, it's a chance for OpenHardware, finally to exist, as well. (I mean it's still hardware, DUH, and we still gotta pay for it).

                          Also, BSD-community/dev's should welcomely-embrace endevours such as ArchBSD, Gentoo/FreeBSD, (not so much kFreeBSD), but anyway, these are big Linux players' who recognize BSD for what it's worth. If torvalds can be curiously-respectful of Microsoft lately (ya, I thought that too, mmmm???!!!) then he can darn well start being a little respectful of *BSD/Unix, it has 'bin around before even any of us, or him. I mean, "...it's just a kernel" right ? -LoL.

                          So whats it gonna be Beaver(s)?, we all work together, in the "free-spirit" of unix sharing ?, or, divided do we continually fall to the obvious M$/MacO$'s out there -and 'fer nuthin' ?

                          BSD ain't goin' away, and it ain't dead -by a long shot.
                          Yes it does need HELP though -but who doesn't, for f* sakes. ?
                          Last edited by scjet; 01-25-2013, 12:36 PM. Reason: 'cause of certain unreasonable BSD-haters' here.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            Both cases you mentioned are nothing, but stupidity. Switch to llvm was stupid and Ubuntu not switching to systemd is stupid as well. Git is probably the best tool, so it was a practical decision.
                            Switch to llvm was good for llvm and it's good to have more good compilers. Git was started because of political reasons.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                              Both cases you mentioned are nothing, but stupidity. Switch to llvm was stupid and Ubuntu not switching to systemd is stupid as well. Git is probably the best tool, so it was a practical decision.
                              http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/...levant-anymore
                              Let me guess, you actually believe this marketing-teddybear-puppet from IBM, regarding systemd, along with pulseaudio ? ya ya I know, it's mounted in the bathroom right >?
                              it's ok, toilet is a good place for to do a a lot of things, or is it "thongs" ?
                              Last edited by scjet; 01-25-2013, 12:40 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by scjet View Post
                                http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/...levant-anymore
                                Let me guess, you actually believe this marketing-teddybear-puppet from IBM, regarding systemd, along with pulseaudio ? ya ya I know, it's mounted in the bathroom right >?
                                it's ok, toilet is a good place for to do a a lot of things, or is it "thongs" ?
                                I don't have to trust him... I figured this myself. BSD stopped to be relevant years ago and it's true it's holding back many free software projects. Btw. how such people can be taken seriously:

                                http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=36941

                                Guys ... guys ... seriously. Stuff like this happening over in the penguin petting zoo can only help us all out. After all, if any of you have been as busy as I've been lately cleaning up the penguin cages with the likes of python33, udev, systemd and a raft of other penguinisms, the more they're encouraged to stay clear of BSD's, the better off we ALL are!
                                I tried hard, but I failed to figure out how staying in stone age can help them out?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X