FreeBSD Picks Up Support For ZFS ZCP: Carry Out Admin Tasks Via Lua Scripts

[timofonic]

Most of the people would go by the assumptions: ncurses (or worse:text) installer, no effort at eyecandy - must be more primitive and drop the idea of tryin' right there.

I am getting more and more interested in DragonFlyBSD myself. It has OpenBSD's pf (FreeBSD's pf is pretty much dead-end in regards of OpenBSD pf's upstream, though it surpasses Linux's iptables), HAMMER 2 is arriving, Linux ABI in regards of video drivers is at Linux kernel 4.6, hybrid kernel, transparent disk encryption (incl ability to handle LUKS and TrueCrypt (100% compatible)), context-sensitive symlinks, fully SMP-aware disk subsystem, swapcache (smt like BCache on Linux) new network stack etc.. ton of stuff waiting to be discovered.

Downsides: spotty documentation, smaller amount of devs and users - software (ports) are more often buggy than on FreeBSD.

I believe it's going not gain much interest until the graphics drivers get always on sync with Linux ones. I think all BSDs should make a joint effort to share the code of drivers and distribute the development load as much as possible.

Ports being often more buggy is a showstopper by many people too. Do they do some kind of CI and other ways to catch them?

[aht0]

I think all BSDs should make a joint effort to share the code of drivers and distribute the development load as much as possible.

You'd have to ask from devs.

[timofonic]

You'd have to ask from devs.

Are you kidding? I tried it many times ago and when I was reporting bugs, they said me I was trolling. My English was even worse than now, maybe that confused them. I got tired of the BSD world much time ago, all that and their lack of an up-to-date GCC and stubborn at LLVM provides me zero motivation to do that.

I'm not going to give so much details, but: If you think X distro community sucks, look at certain BSDM ones.

[timofonic]

You'd have to ask from devs.

Are you kidding? I tried it too many times ago and when I reported bugs, they said to me I was trolling them. My English was even worse than now, maybe that confused them. I got tired of the BSD world many time ago, all that and their lack of an up-to-date GCC and stubborn at LLVM provides me zero motivation to do that.

I'm not going to give so much details, but: If you think X distro community sucks, look at certain BSDM ones.

[aht0]

Are you kidding? I tried it too many times ago and when I reported bugs, they said to me I was trolling them. My English was even worse than now, maybe that confused them. I got tired of the BSD world many time ago, all that and their lack of an up-to-date GCC and stubborn at LLVM provides me zero motivation to do that.

I'm not going to give so much details, but: If you think X distro community sucks, look at certain BSDM ones.

FYI DragonFly and Net are both using fairly up to date GCC

And I could draw parallels right there. Free/OpenBSD are stubborn about BSD license and principally not taking GPL soft into "core"-OS because it's "viral" nature. Linux folks are even more stubborn about non-GPL licenses. Kettle is pretty much arguing with a pot there. To each his own I guess.

Hmm, what's wrong with LLVM? It looks like shaping up steadily and nicely.

I've reported bugs (mainly for TrueOS) and have never had an issue of being told "you are trolling us..". Yeah, I've had answers like "please report it to FreeBSD upstream" or "FreeBSD port maintainer" but only for the reason of dev's trying to avoid creating a additional "gaps" between PC-BSD/TrueOS and "vanilla" FreeBSD respective code bases.

[timofonic]

FYI DragonFly and Net are both using fairly up to date GCC

And I could draw parallels right there. Free/OpenBSD are stubborn about BSD license and principally not taking GPL soft into "core"-OS because it's "viral" nature. Linux folks are even more stubborn about non-GPL licenses. Kettle is pretty much arguing with a pot there. To each his own I guess.

I don't see how Linux folks are so stubborn about non-GPL licenses as core projects like Xorg aren't GPL at all, for example. But I would like to know some examples about your reasoning.

Hmm, what's wrong with LLVM? It looks like shaping up steadily and nicely.

Aside from lacking the platform support of GCC and unable to catch up in terms of optimization for CPUs, nothing wrong. It seems far more flexible for other use cases like GPU drivers, that's nice and hope others compete in that front too. It good to have more diversity, that's OK.

I distrust everything companies like Apple and others are involved, because they are parasites and do very shadowy things:

-macOS Xcode linker is proprietary, among many other stuff.

- I don't trust CUPS being owned by Apple too, because they kept many things for themselves in their proprietary internal fork for their devices: Despite it's GPL licensed, the project required a CLA to give all copyright to the parent company in orer to accept the code in their repo and I consider CLAs to be very toxic too. Then Apple bought that company and they indeed have their own proprietary fork with many additions unavailable in the GPL one. And forget about open government and a FOSS community behind it, it's more of a monastery than a cathedral.

I've reported bugs (mainly for TrueOS) and have never had an issue of being told "you are trolling us..". Yeah, I've had answers like "please report it to FreeBSD upstream" or "FreeBSD port maintainer" but only for the reason of dev's trying to avoid creating a additional "gaps" between PC-BSD/TrueOS and "vanilla" FreeBSD respective code bases.

Good luck with that. I don't see any advantage of using a BSD system At This Moment, it mostly lags behind compared to Linux.

NetBSD has great concepts like integrating Lua in the kernel, but they pathetically haven't done any practical usage of it. I checked about it and asked their community, they aren't aware of anything taking advantage of Lua in their kernel.

Let's see what happens with ZFS ZCP too...

Just a non-important note about TrueOS: Why did they choose that so pedantic name? WTF?!?!?!? Does it mean other opeating systems aren't true? Are they Operating System Supremacists? :P

[aht0]

I don't see how Linux folks are so stubborn about non-GPL licenses as core projects like Xorg aren't GPL at all, for example. But I would like to know some examples about your reasoning.

You haven't probably followed any of the multitude of licensing discussions here. You soon get the idea of ideological witch-hunt.

Aside from lacking the platform support of GCC and unable to catch up in terms of optimization for CPUs, nothing wrong. It seems far more flexible for other use cases like GPU drivers, that's nice and hope others compete in that front too. It good to have more diversity, that's OK.
I distrust everything companies like Apple and others are involved, because they are parasites and do very shadowy things:
-macOS Xcode linker is proprietary, among many other stuff.
- I don't trust CUPS being owned by Apple too, because they kept many things for themselves in their proprietary internal fork for their devices: Despite it's GPL licensed, the project required a CLA to give all copyright to the parent company in orer to accept the code in their repo and I consider CLAs to be very toxic too. Then Apple bought that company and they indeed have their own proprietary fork with many additions unavailable in the GPL one. And forget about open government and a FOSS community behind it, it's more of a monastery than a cathedral.

Catch up? GCC has been around 30 years. LLVM less than half of it. So logically, to catch up eventually, LLVM would have to be developed something like 3 times faster, considering that GCC itself remains also "moving target". Open source and it also does come under copyleft license - can't see single thing wrong with it, making it not worth trusting.

Good luck with that. I don't see any advantage of using a BSD system At This Moment, it mostly lags behind compared to Linux.
NetBSD has great concepts like integrating Lua in the kernel, but they pathetically haven't done any practical usage of it. I checked about it and asked their community, they aren't aware of anything taking advantage of Lua in their kernel.
Let's see what happens with ZFS ZCP too...

Simpler systems where you do not have to rely on GUI's so much. Slower and generally more conservative coding. For me, simplicity, KISS principle paired with conservative approach equals "more secure by default".

Take a analogy of a wall, which get's breached during building multiple times. And builders then haphazardly patch up the wall, later perhaps again patches themselves after new breaches etc.
That's Linux for me. I use it time to time, but I do not really trust it. Especially all the custom PPA's/repositories, which could easily have malware in it (completely ignored attack vector by most, it feels like) and you have no real chance against such malware, unless your gateway also runs IPS/IDS software configured for it. Antiviruses for Linux - few and far between.
You might find this interesting: https://www.linux.com/news/2017/7/li...recent-threats

Just a non-important note about TrueOS: Why did they choose that so pedantic name? WTF?!?!?!? Does it mean other opeating systems aren't true? Are they Operating System Supremacists? :P

IxSystem's PC-BSD's server version carried name of TrueOS. It was separate image you had to download. At one point they decided for "single image for both" and renamed PC-BSD into TrueOS as well. Happened after PC-BSD 10.3
PC-BSD, until it tracked FreeBSD "vanilla" and only patched it/added their own customizations, was rather nice to use. TrueOS for desktop system, not that much. IMHO too buggy because tracking 12-CURRENT now. Feels about same as random Linux distro tracking "unstable". Sooner or later you are definitely going to run into same annoying system-breaking issue.

[TiberiusDuval]

IxSystem's PC-BSD's server version carried name of TrueOS. It was separate image you had to download. At one point they decided for "single image for both" and renamed PC-BSD into TrueOS as well. Happened after PC-BSD 10.3
PC-BSD, until it tracked FreeBSD "vanilla" and only patched it/added their own customizations, was rather nice to use. TrueOS for desktop system, not that much. IMHO too buggy because tracking 12-CURRENT now. Feels about same as random Linux distro tracking "unstable". Sooner or later you are definitely going to run into same annoying system-breaking issue.

I have TrueOS nowadays. In fact you can get it in two ways, unstable and stable. Unstable follows quite directly CURRENT and may have issues from time to time. Stable is updated for OS part biannually, for packages when necessary. That way stable seldom has major issues, and even in such case just use oleder boot environment. Breaking system completely is hard.

[aht0]

I have TrueOS nowadays. In fact you can get it in two ways, unstable and stable. Unstable follows quite directly CURRENT and may have issues from time to time. Stable is updated for OS part biannually, for packages when necessary. That way stable seldom has major issues, and even in such case just use oleder boot environment. Breaking system completely is hard.

Yes I know. In theory nice but in reality even STABLE pans out bit differently. Graphics stack is right now most problematic IMO.