Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 111

Thread: Arch BSD: Arch Linux Atop The FreeBSD Kernel

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobu View Post
    In the case of systemd, it's (from what I've read) coded very specifically for the Linux kernel. You could probably fork and re-work it for a different kernel, but I doubt it'd be an easy task. However, I'm sure someone who's inteligent enough could look at the code, read the goals of systemd, see what it's doing, and make something similar for a BSD OS/kernel.
    BSDs wont allow it, they are under the religion that systemd is shit cause it was designed by linux.

    The only road for BSD is to die

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BSD SUCKS DICKS View Post
    Of course it is for you, cause if you admit that linux compatibility layer desn't work (which is true), you be committing thought crime against BSD and your gods M$ and Apple.
    just stating experience from real world use

    Of course to BSD whores, any software that cannot run on BSD is shit, homo bullshit etc.... and somehow Linux's fault even though the program maybe windows only.

    programs that concentrate on running one OS are of higher quality then those that try to run on multiple OS cause more time is gone into bug fixing, they are also are smaller cause they dont need to have code for other irrelevant OS. They are also less broken cause porting screws up code.
    if it was coded to standards (POSIX?), it would be nearly effortless to port most programs to other operating systems that also comply to those standards. isnt that the point of standards? and i am specifically talking about linux stuff here. windows is not unix-like, so of course porting isnt easy.

    since linux is a free and open-source and the best, it should be the target for writing applications. Not Windowz, not OSX and especially not BSDildos.
    most of these "linux" programs run well on similar systems (like BSD).


    Linux is not UNIX. so go fuck urself right now.
    linux is unix-like. And i won't go fuck myself. unlike you, I have a girlfriend for that

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    252

    Default anti-BSD is back...

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    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



    I tried hard, but I failed to figure out how staying in stone age can help them out?
    Damn... do I have to read your f*cking trolling again? You didn't have to come back, you know; I'm pretty sure nobody missed you.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,458

    Default

    UNIX should have been open source from the start. That way, we wouldn't have BSD and Linux, we'd just have different variants of UNIX. Linux would be called "Linus unix".

  5. #85

    Default

    That is a port. It isn't a part of FreeBSD.


    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    http://static.usenix.org/event/bsdco...tml/node5.html



    This legacy OS was also using M:N threading implementation just to switch to 1:1 like Linux does.
    If I recall, Solaris pioneered the concept of threading before it became available in Linux. Linux's first attempt at threads was fairly cumbersome and it did not receive a threading implementation competitive with Solaris until Linux 2.6. If you want to compare copycats to the original, you should compare Linux to Solaris.

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    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.
    The current speed differences are insignificant in the grander scheme of things. First, even if the binaries were twice as fast, the difference is insignificant if your workload doesn't bottleneck on it. Second, LLVM/Clang has a cleanly implemented architecture in which it is easier to implement optimization passes and do tuning. The value of that cannot be stated enough. There are plenty of ways to leverage that to obtain performance benefits, but quite honestly, no one cares how much faster programs can run if their running time was not noticeable in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Hammer was developed for years for DragonflyBSD especially and it's far more mature than zfs on freebsd.
    Can you quantify that by saying something other than "it must be more mature because I use it"?

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    If you have no clue, just shut up.
    Would you care to follow your own advice?

    http://www.trollaxor.com/2012/05/mis...dragonfly.html

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    It's way better and modern.
    Anyone could probably convince you that their OS is "way better and modern" by providing you with some hand picked benchmarks. That does not make it true.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    UNIX should have been open source from the start. That way, we wouldn't have BSD and Linux, we'd just have different variants of UNIX. Linux would be called "Linus unix".

    Actually there was, (sort-of-getting-there), it was called "OpenSolaris", that is, until Oracle stepped in, and "Closed" ALL the doors. !

    What we really need now is: "OpenHardware" -did you hear that Nvidia, ... ???!!!

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    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



    I tried hard, but I failed to figure out how staying in stone age can help them out?
    I'm sorry, but U didn't figure anything out, in as much as Lennart actually created systemd, -'cause Redfart didn't, he/they just "stole" -err I mean "ported" it from (Open)Solaris,...
    That's right kimosobie, Solaris already had created/wrote it from way back when, and, it was caled : "SMF"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service...ement_Facility

    Everyone else seems to have figured that out? It can't be that hard, stealing from a dead man, but then giving yourself ALL the acolades? -hahaha.
    So, next time, do the freekin' research first before opening up the Linux cheese-hole,...
    Last edited by scjet; 01-26-2013 at 06:20 PM.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scjet View Post
    Actually there was, (sort-of-getting-there), it was called "OpenSolaris", that is, until Oracle stepped in, and "Closed" ALL the doors. !

    What we really need now is: "OpenHardware" -did you hear that Nvidia, ... ???!!!
    No I mean the original UNIX. Like if it had been GPL-licensed from the start (and if GPL had been invented back then).

    Also, open hardware is already a Thing, and it's going to be an even bigger Thing in the coming years. Just wait when the first crowdfunded open-source ARMv8 SoC:s are produced, we're going to have fun with them. This I predict by looking into my crystal balls.

  9. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scjet View Post
    I'm sorry, but U didn't figure anything out, as much as Lennart actually created systemd, -'cause Redfart didn't, he/they just "stole" -err I mean "ported" it from (Open)Solaris,...
    That's right kimosobie, Solaris already had that from way back when, and, it was caled : "SMF"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service...ement_Facility

    Everyone else seems to have figured that out?
    So, next time, do the freekin' research first before opening up the Linux cheese-hole,...
    systemd is not a port of SMF. However, the ideas in both are fairly similar in their goals. Lennart Pottering would have had trouble convincing people at RedHat to adopt systemd had they already ported SMF.

  10. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    No I mean the original UNIX. Like if it had been GPL-licensed from the start (and if GPL had been invented back then).

    Also, open hardware is already a Thing, and it's going to be an even bigger Thing in the coming years. Just wait when the first crowdfunded open-source ARMv8 SoC:s are produced, we're going to have fun with them. This I predict by looking into my crystal balls.
    Solaris is based on the original UNIX.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •