Search Result

[wikinevick]

FreeBSD has had it for over a decade now!

[wikinevick]

And such arses own Redhat....

[wikinevick]

Could as well warn the user to avoid using the file system at all....

[wikinevick]

They don't *need* Linux. It's ubiquitous and free (as in beer) so they use it, but FreeBSD runs fine on it's own in major cloud platforms. About git that...

[wikinevick]

What used to be "Machines with lots of memory" is actually > 4G RAM, which is not much nowadays. I use it with 6G on an old machine with...

[wikinevick]

No need to ask about the status when there is no one working on changing it. It will remain CDDL for ever AFAICT....

[wikinevick]

Thry could serve as a base to port the code to other BSDs though. That said, there is an independent implementation for NetBSD that was being considered...

[wikinevick]

Bah .. if they want to be compatible with Microsoft they should be using the clang-cl.

[wikinevick]

FWIW, I cannot disclose whom but an implementation of RCU for FreeBSD was available. It was just never open sourced due to patent concerns....

[wikinevick]

I will agree with the first part of the claim. Linux has many more developers and SMP has always been ahead. However, FreeBSD has the benefit of remiplementation:...

[wikinevick]

"most in any sense is exactly what lawyers don't want. There is uncertainty of how far RCU can be implemented and IBM's lawyers are not going to...

[wikinevick]

"most" is not suficient for any lawyer. Luckily for the BSDs, epoch is better and RCU was not the end....

[wikinevick]

A fork under an Apache License would be interesting.

[wikinevick]

Xfree86 was also an important phase which Keith seems happy to ignore.

[wikinevick]

You don't know nothin' John Snow,. Really .. I won't even spend my time explaining.