Yes, they're similar:So Light Weight Kernel Threads are very similar to Linux kernel threads? I couldn't found any reference.
Virtual kernel feature is similar to User Mode Linux, but it's not performance feature:
http://static.usenix.org/event/bsdco...tml/node5.htmlThere are two major classes of threads for FreeBSD. The first is the default FreeBSD thread package, referred to henceforth as "uthreads" or "user threads". The other is the Linuxthreads port, which is a port of Linux's kernel threads based on the clone() call (or, in FreeBSD's case, the rfork() call).
This legacy OS was also using M:N threading implementation just to switch to 1:1 like Linux does.TWC considered using an alternate thread library to work around these problems. Specifically, the thread library contained in the LinuxThreads port described at [LinuxThreads]. However, there are binary incompatibilities between the structures defined by FreeBSD's thread library and the LinuxThreads' thread library. Thus, any libraries used by a multithreaded application that use threads internally must be linked against the same thread library as the application. As a result, for our applications to use LinuxThreads, all of the libraries they link against that use threads internally would also have to link against LinuxThreads. As a result of those libraries using LinuxThreads, other applications that use those libraries would also have to link against LinuxThreads. This would require TWC to custom compile several packages including XFree86, Mesa, Python, and a CORBA ORB as well as other applications depending on those packages rather than using the pre-built packages from stock FreeBSD releases. Since the workarounds for FreeBSD's thread library were not too egregious, they were chosen as the lesser of two evils.
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.Compilers do not matter very much as far as performance goes. Better aglorithms and code that plays well with cache will always matter more than anything a compiler could do.
Hammer was developed for years for DragonflyBSD especially and it's far more mature than zfs on freebsd.Dtrace and ZFS could be called a "tech preview" in FreeBSD 7.x and FreeBSD 8.0-8.2. It is fairly mature in FreeBSD 8.3 and later. At this point, ZFS and Dtrace are no more of a "tech preview" than DragonflyBSD is.
If you have no clue, just shut up.Lastly, DragonflyBSD has influences from AmigaOS, not Linux.
It's way better and modern.DragonflyBSD has its merits, but it is different, not better.
Then take a look here:Only similarity I see:
"The serializing token code is evolving into something quite similar to the "Read-copy-update" feature now available in Linux. Unlike Linux's current RCU implementation, DragonFly's is being implemented such that only processors competing for the same token are affected rather than all processors in the computer."
but seriously, and especially after Win8, I'm definitely sure an ArchDOS would be infinitely better, (even for a modern Tablet), than any "ArchWindows" -?! - ewww.
IMHO, ArchBSD is all that foronicks would need, 'ya know, like it's BSD, but it feels like Linux. It's the best of both UNIX worlds, and we'd never know the difference.
Last edited by scjet; 01-25-2013 at 10:23 AM.