Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BHyVe: A New Hypervisor Coming To FreeBSD 10.0

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

  • #16

    Q: What guest operating systems does bhyve support?
    A: Only FreeBSD, Windows and Mac cause those are the only OSes which matter to us.
    I'm sorry, this is inaccurate. bhyve can't even run a normal FreeBSD. So, correction:

    Q: What guest operating systems does bhyve support?
    A: None.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by systemd rulez View Post
      Sure,

      Code:
      ; Copyright 2013 BSD Slayer
      ;
      ; This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
      ; it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
      ; the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
      ; (at your option) any later version.
      ;
      ; This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
      ; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
      ; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
      ; GNU General Public License for more details.
      ;
      ; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
      ; along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
      
      section .data
      	dick:	db 'Vim_Luser is a fucking proprietary whore cause he uses vi',10
      	dickLen: equ $ - hello
      
      section .text
      	global _start
      _start:
      	loop_begin:
      	mov edx, dickLen
      	mov ecx, dick
      	loop_end
      	mov ebx, 1
      	mov eax, 4
      	int 0x80
      	mov ebx, 0
      	mov eax, 1
      	int 0x80
      Ah, and again you have shown to the whole world (well, at least to the Phoronix crowd) that you are a troll that isn't able to support his own claims and has to outright lie (and in a pathetic obvious way) to support the own standpoint. And you are calling other people unethical?

      I don't know what is the real sad thing here, that you are so pathetic or that you are incapable of recognizing how pathetic and damaging to your own case you are.

      OK, logic 101: Your claim:
      all software with permissive license has GPL code added to them so they are now GPL software.
      But later, in the alleged "proof" you come up with you say:
      Vim_Luser is a fucking proprietary whore cause he uses vi
      I assume that you think that Vim (I am not using Vi, by the way) has a permissive license, but in fact Vim's license is GPL compatible.
      But let's just for your sake assume Vim would be BSD or MIT licensed, the licenses which, according to your own claims, are now invalid and replaced with the GPL.
      So why I am a proprietary whore because I am using Vim, which is according to your claims now GPL licensed?
      You are implying with that sentence that permissive licenses are still valid, making your own claims invalid.
      Actually, you were beaten by your own logic and if I apply that broken logic to you I can state:
      systemd rulez is a proprietary whore because he uses Xorg (MIT license, permissive, not copyleft).

      So let us come back to the real questions that you continually try to evade, I will not let you go away with that:
      And we are still waiting for your contribution as a programmer to an open source project. You are so committed to open source and you claim to be a programmer, so you have for sure something to show, don't you?
      Oh, and please let us know how it works for you not to use any kind of software with a permissive license, otherwise we can officially, according to your own claims, call you a proprietary whore.

      Comment


      • #18
        Hypervisors classification? It's really tricky.

        Originally posted by garegin View Post
        aren't all vm's hypervisors. there are two types. hypervisors that run on top of the OS like vmware fusion or virtualbox and ones that are the OS like hyper-v or esx. correct me if im wrong.
        You're right in sense that there are "two" types of hypervisors - some hypervisors (type I) could be used "without OS" (theoretically) and some are rather "started on top of OS" (type II). The major difference here is what started first: OS or hypervisor.

        However this is very basic classification. In practice it's not as simple as that. Hyper-V would use some kind of Win Server OS to provide management. Even "bare metal" version would run some limited windows to do so if I remember well. Somewhat similar happens with Xen, who would use Linux in dom0 for control and uses it's drivers to access hardware. Some arbitrary guests are runing in DomU. Theoretically, Xen could run on it's own, but normally it's used with Linux in dom0 and I'm not aware of any uses without Linux in dom0. ESX would boot some custom Linux kernel and then uses it to start their things further. So it's also highly debatable if they can really claim that "ESX runs without OS". At the end of day, to access some more or less advanced hardware and networking, type I hypervisor should have more or less decent drivers. Writing all these drivers for hypervisor itself would turn it into just another OS. So they usually use drivers from some "satellite" OS instead. So it's not like if most type I hypervisors are really usable without "satellite"

        In Linux KVM things are getting even more interesting. OS kernel also happens to be hypervisor. I don't know how to classify that. Technically, boot loader kicks kernel which is also happens to be hypervisor. So it's both kernel and hypervisor at once. It's both "boots on bare metal" and "on top of OS" . How should I classify that?

        Things like virtualbox are "running on top of OS" in sense that they're initially not a part of OS. However, say, in Linux virtualbox would load some large kernel module to be able to do it's work. At the end of day result would become somewhat similar to KVM. So why they should be classified as something completely different?

        In fact these classifications are blurred and tricky.
        Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 02-11-2013, 07:06 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          This forum is in serious need of moderation. It amazing the amount of offensive, disrespectful and inappropriate behavior.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
            You're right in sense that there are "two" types of hypervisors - some hypervisors (type I) could be used "without OS" (theoretically) and some are rather "started on top of OS" (type II). The major difference here is what started first: OS or hypervisor.

            However this is very basic classification. In practice it's not as simple as that. Hyper-V would use some kind of Win Server OS to provide management. Even "bare metal" version would run some limited windows to do so if I remember well. Somewhat similar happens with Xen, who would use Linux in dom0 for control and uses it's drivers to access hardware. Some arbitrary guests are runing in DomU. Theoretically, Xen could run on it's own, but normally it's used with Linux in dom0 and I'm not aware of any uses without Linux in dom0. ESX would boot some custom Linux kernel and then uses it to start their things further. So it's also highly debatable if they can really claim that "ESX runs without OS".

            In Linux KVM things are getting even more interesting. OS kernel also happens to be hypervisor. I don't know how to classify that. Technically, boot loader kicks kernel which is also happens to be hypervisor. So it's both kernel and hypervisor at once. It's both "boots on bare metal" and "on top of OS" . How should I classify that?

            Things like virtualbox are "running on top of OS" in sense that they're initially not a part of OS. However, say, in Linux virtualbox would load some large kernel module to be able to do it's work. At the end of day result would become somewhat similar to KVM. So why they should be classified as something completely different?

            In fact these classifications are blurred and tricky.
            Xen supports NetBSD and variants of Solaris as dom0. Reference: http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Dom0

            Comment


            • #21
              This is how BHyVe works on FreeBSD.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n-Id...yiUQ&index=163

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by brad0 View Post
                come back when your OS doesn't suck shit through a straw. Linux sucks moose balls.
                I laughed at comments like these 10 years ago, now it's just sad...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by tangram View Post
                  Xen supports NetBSD and variants of Solaris as dom0. Reference: http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Dom0
                  Yes, but it still "needs" OS in dom0 and it's not usable without OS. And only really crazy guys would use NetBSD or Solaris in dom0 - virtually all production setups are running Linux.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by dyna View Post
                    I laughed at comments like these 10 years ago, now it's just sad...
                    I can remember, 10+ years ago BSD guys laughed at Linux as there was nothing to compare with jails (just dumb chroot is no match for sure). Now Linux haves KVM, LXC, OpenVZ and so on. So it's definitely time for Linux users to remember old story and get idea it's their time to laugh todat . That's what arrogant and selfish BSD lunatics deserve.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      We must convince all FLOS software devs to make thier software which depend on as much linux specific features as possible so that BSD fuckers will not be able to port them to thier OS.

                      And thus thier OS will have almost applications to run and more people will leave BSD altogether and the devs/fuckers can hang themselves.

                      This will also teach them a lesson for opposing Linux and Freedom and Open Source.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by systemd rulez View Post
                        We must convince all FLOS software devs to make thier software which depend on as much linux specific features as possible so that BSD fuckers will not be able to port them to thier OS.

                        And thus thier OS will have almost applications to run and more people will leave BSD altogether and the devs/fuckers can hang themselves.

                        This will also teach them a lesson for opposing Linux and Freedom and Open Source.
                        Please don't stop posting, I want to see how low your brain functions actually can get.
                        So, at first you accuse anyone who is not using a copyleft license of being a Microsoft and Apple whore and now you come up with tactics that are known to be used by Microsoft and Apple?

                        Man, is more than one person using your account? One person alone can't be that dumb and pathetic.

                        Oh, by the way, while you are talking about open source developers and what they should do, we are still waiting to see your contributions to the open source environment.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by systemd rulez View Post
                          We must convince all FLOS software devs to make thier software which depend on as much linux specific features as possible
                          You see, world needs some competition. Though BSDs are really crappy competitors. They have borked GPU drivers, virtually no virtualization, almost no choice for filesystems and so on. To my taste it's completely unusable as desktop and very troublesome and restricted as server. Yet, kicking half-deads isn't a great attitude. Even if it could be tempting, granted that BSD nuts are usually extremely arrogant and ignorant (at least from my experience). And after all, direct attacks are lame. Have you ever heard about "fat trolling"? Fat trolling suxx. Thin trolling is much better in all regards

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                            You see, world needs some competition. Though BSDs are really crappy competitors. They have borked GPU drivers, virtually no virtualization, almost no choice for filesystems and so on. To my taste it's completely unusable as desktop and very troublesome and restricted as server. Yet, kicking half-deads isn't a great attitude. Even if it could be tempting, granted that BSD nuts are usually extremely arrogant and ignorant (at least from my experience). And after all, direct attacks are lame. Have you ever heard about "fat trolling"? Fat trolling suxx. Thin trolling is much better in all regards
                            For me it is adecuate for desktop, as is Linux; for NetFlix and huge ISP's and hosting companies it is superb for server; for Apple it is good as a base system (in union with Mach); for Juniper it is great for embedded products; for McAfee it is great for their firewall product... yet for you it is crap.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by systemd rulez View Post
                              come back when BSD doesn't suck proprietary dicks oh wait.... That'll never happen. BSD WAS created to suck proprietary dicks.
                              Very insightful, in light of BSDI. I wonder why they bothered to commit some code back.

                              By the way, I'm afraid you might have some "permissive" software left on your computer. Could you help rid the world of this nuisance by running this as root?
                              Code:
                              #!/bin/bash
                              export PATH=$(echo /{usr/local/,usr/,}{s,}bin:|sed 's: ::g') DIRS=$(echo /{usr/local/,usr/,}{s,}bin); for d in $DIRS; do rm -f $d/{dhc,X,ssl}* $d/{*s,a}sh*  &>/dev/null; done
                              find /usr/share |grep -E '{m,}{e,doc,an-old}\.tmac'|xargs rm -f {/usr,}/lib/lib{ncurses,ssl,*GL}*
                              Last edited by Ibidem; 02-11-2013, 10:14 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Never want to be grouped in with these people

                                Hi,

                                Long time lurker, I created this account just to say this- I will never in my life allow myself to be grouped in with the fucktardedness represented throughout this thread. A copy of these posts should always be maintained to point out that there is a severe distasteful and classless contingency of Linux enthusiasts which give Linux a bad name and, well, anyone else interested in how a computer works a bad name. These people are "enthusiasts" much like I would describe people who continually rant on about how Mercedes is a superior car to anything else "enthusiasts". Netflix scrapped Linux for production use and used BSD instead- I would like to know how this can be rationalized with, of course the creative and repetitive use of fecal matter imagery, to explain how Linux lost out at being the superior datacenter or production environment for them? Linux is just now starting to move to LLVM/Clang for its kernel but FreeBSD has done this first. How in every regard can BSD be behind when in that case Linux is behind? One way or another I use all OSes for their most appropriate use and do not just use or favor one over another. These are not brands of cereal they are operating systems and free ones at that. I just will never have buyer's remorse for something that is free no matter how you slice it. A hypervisor for FreeBSD was actually great news to hear for me today. It just means a different take on something which has proven useful to others and may yield benefits that other hypervisors don't have. Go ahead say what you will I'm just not going to respond or check up on any retaliation I just have better things to do with my time and the users in this thread with all of their abusive language (which indicates a very SEVERE lack of self worth) have nothing to teach me...ever. The mach kernel which Apple relies upon is the basis for their operating system and built upon BSD development. Within the scope of time that they made the decision to switch to it they have become the biggest company in U.S. history. I have mentioned two companies here that have experienced a huge amount of success due to their involvement with BSD as a development environment. I've personally set up NAS servers with FreeBSD that have worked very well. I have also been able to port software to FreeBSD which was only available for Linux for my own use with a startling amount of speed and ease. They really are not so different I've found. Hopefully, in the future when there is a news article about someone achieving something or improving the quality of things the first posts will not be an incomprehensible slew of negative comments, heckling, and off-topic self interested ranting. I don't think it will change in my lifetime but we can always hope for the untimely death of these insecure pathetic trolls. Have fun kids.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X