Originally posted by uid313
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
BUS1: A New Linux Kernel IPC Bus Being Made By Systemd Developers
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by TheBlackCat; 10 December 2015, 07:10 AM.
- Likes 1
-
Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
e.) nope, BSD internal are not compatible with linux at all, all pure BSD software require a linux layer to compile and in many case an ABI breaks and this is done by linux developers(mostly) not BSD ones, even cases like OpenSSH(originally for OpenBSD) require checks for other BSDs and even FreeBSD has to make their own openssh implementation like linux did
1.) ZFS require an extensive translation layer to work on linux (SPL)
3.) bhyve don't compile or run on linux but can run a linux Guest as any other Hypervisor, otherwise is market dead
4.) cloudabi is focused on cloud hence linux support is a must but ok i give you this one
5.) stated and relaunch can't even find them on Arch/gentoo repos, so I'm not sure here
3) bhyve was ported to OS X and CoreOS (a linux distro), so is portable and not market dead.
5) they are very recent projects, but by the github description both are made for linux too.
I really didn't understand what you have talked about OpenSSH...OpenSSH as a project provides a portable version, that's cool.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dharc View Post
1) yes, but ZFS cannot run fully in Linux until now compared against FreeBSD and OS X, both are not the original operating system with ZFS, ZFS was ported to them.
3) bhyve was ported to OS X and CoreOS (a linux distro), so is portable and not market dead.
5) they are very recent projects, but by the github description both are made for linux too.
I really didn't understand what you have talked about OpenSSH...OpenSSH as a project provides a portable version, that's cool.
my point here is, nobody on any side of the Unix like OSes give a shit about other and they don't share code even among the same BSD communities(no netBSD developer is going to waste time making sure it runs on FreeBSD, the FreeBSD guy have to pick the code and fix it if they want it but he won't waste a millisecond checking if it work on DragonFly or Linux, etc. for example), this notion that all true Unixes are stable and ABI solid and linux is the bad guy only developing for itself is a myth.
Also is not true all Unixes respect Posix and SysV either, Solaris kernel in the good SUN days was as different from BSD like Linux was, Every BSD spinoff out there support different hardware in different levels and in several cases drivers are not easy to port, Every BSD spinoff support a different set of features and "Posixness" and every BSD spinoff claim to be the true Unix BSD and develop only for their view of the true UNIX and in some cases hate other BSD spinoff because they aren't Unix enough like them.
Don't confuse external Projects that take the time to make sure their code work in all platforms(like libevent or X11 for example) with cooperation between developers because there is none 99% of the time and don't confuse that certain developer from BSD or Linux helps an external project because is 100% likely he is only there to make sure his OS works first and foremost not the others OS
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by gens View Post
you haven't read the "about Linux" ?All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
your point was BSD guys port thing to linux and i was pointing almost neither of your examples were true in that sense, everything is portable as far as C/C++ goes, so again linux developers ported ZFS to linux, Core OS run ON top of x/bhyve(btw Mac is BSD + Mach so is easy to port between each other) but bhyve cannot run on top of a linux kernel like Xen or KVM so this is moot
my point here is, nobody on any side of the Unix like OSes give a shit about other and they don't share code even among the same BSD communities(no netBSD developer is going to waste time making sure it runs on FreeBSD, the FreeBSD guy have to pick the code and fix it if they want it but he won't waste a millisecond checking if it work on DragonFly or Linux, etc. for example), this notion that all true Unixes are stable and ABI solid and linux is the bad guy only developing for itself is a myth.
they are not fully POSIX and SUS compliant, but they are enough for each OS share codes easily.
Comment
-
Originally posted by unixfan2001 View PostAnd there we go again with the lies, misinformation and general FUD!
1. systemd is probably the most UNIXy concoction since forever. The fact that some people are too thick to understand this (while simultaneously screaming "UNIX!!" from the top of their lungs) doesn't change that one bit.
2. The reason TIPC isn't the established kernel IPC standard is mainly efficiency and a lack of progression towards modern desktop infrastructure (nor was it ever even created for that purpose).
For one thing, KDBUS can pass references of data between processes rather than copying the data wholesome. TIPC can't do that. The sending process can also copy data directly into the receiver's process queue, as part of a user space only, single-copy operation. Neither of those things is being offered by the current TIPC codebase.
nslay
Did you hear all that on slashdot?
Nothing of what you're saying is remotely true. In fact, in can be easily disproved by the dozens of software packages regularly ported from GNU/Linux to other OS'. While it's true that there are some differences in the way GNU/Linux works to, say, the way a BSD works, most of those differences are the very same kind you'll find when comparing AIX to Solaris or DragonFlyBSD to FreeBSD. UNIX isn't exactly a tight standard anymore.
"the most UNIXy" ... and it fails at one of the core mantra.
Do One Thing and Do It Well
Comment
-
Originally posted by Naib View Post
"the most UNIXy" ... and it fails at one of the core mantra.
Do One Thing and Do It Well
Comment
Comment