Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: BHyVe: A New Hypervisor Coming To FreeBSD 10.0

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    233

    Default

    And the stupid (lazy) administrator thinks this doesn't require moderation...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    And we are still waiting for your contribution as a programmer to an open source project. You are so committed to open source and you claim to be a programmer, so you have for sure something to show, don't you?
    Sure,

    Code:
    ; Copyright 2013 BSD Slayer
    ;
    ; This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
    ; it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    ; the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
    ; (at your option) any later version.
    ;
    ; This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    ; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    ; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
    ; GNU General Public License for more details.
    ;
    ; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    ; along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
    
    section .data
    	dick:	db 'Vim_Luser is a fucking proprietary whore cause he uses vi',10
    	dickLen: equ $ - hello
    
    section .text
    	global _start
    _start:
    	loop_begin:
    	mov edx, dickLen
    	mov ecx, dick
    	loop_end
    	mov ebx, 1
    	mov eax, 4
    	int 0x80
    	mov ebx, 0
    	mov eax, 1
    	int 0x80
    Last edited by systemd rulez; 02-10-2013 at 07:47 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    And the stupid (lazy) administrator thinks this doesn't require moderation...
    The administrators here respect free speech.

    If you don't like that, fuck off to BSD forums where the admin is Pol Pot reincarnated.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default Oh, so they stopped mumbling that "virtualisation is not needed"?

    Oh, so BSD guys have finally stopped their mumblings that virtualization is "not needed", "useless" and so on? (That's what I've heard from various BSD users I know). And even started development of hypervizor? Amazing! There is only one little problem: competitors were not frozen in criocamera. These days even windows releases with hyper-v hypervisor. Linux could use KVM and Xen. And so on. And bsd guys are starting to develop something. Bah, BSD guys are crazy fast in innovations! They're no longer 10 years late. They're only 8. Impressive achievement, sure.
    Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 02-10-2013 at 09:19 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    Oh, so BSD guys have finally stopped their mumblings that virtualization is "not needed", "useless" and so on? (That's what I've heard from various BSD users I know). And even started development of hypervizor? Amazing! There is only one little problem: competitors were not frozen in criocamera. These days even windows releases with hyper-v hypervisor. Linux could use KVM and Xen. And so on. And bsd guys are starting to develop something. Bah, BSD guys are crazy fast in innovations! They're no longer 10 years late. They're only 8. Impressive achievement, sure.
    aren't all vm's hypervisors. there are two types. hypervisors that run on top of the OS like vmware fusion or virtualbox and ones that are the OS like hyper-v or esx. correct me if im wrong.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    83

    Default


    Q: What guest operating systems does bhyve support?
    A: Only FreeBSD, Windows and Mac cause those are the only OSes which matter to us.
    I'm sorry, this is inaccurate. bhyve can't even run a normal FreeBSD. So, correction:

    Q: What guest operating systems does bhyve support?
    A: None.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by systemd rulez View Post
    Sure,

    Code:
    ; Copyright 2013 BSD Slayer
    ;
    ; This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
    ; it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    ; the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
    ; (at your option) any later version.
    ;
    ; This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    ; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    ; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
    ; GNU General Public License for more details.
    ;
    ; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    ; along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
    
    section .data
    	dick:	db 'Vim_Luser is a fucking proprietary whore cause he uses vi',10
    	dickLen: equ $ - hello
    
    section .text
    	global _start
    _start:
    	loop_begin:
    	mov edx, dickLen
    	mov ecx, dick
    	loop_end
    	mov ebx, 1
    	mov eax, 4
    	int 0x80
    	mov ebx, 0
    	mov eax, 1
    	int 0x80
    Ah, and again you have shown to the whole world (well, at least to the Phoronix crowd) that you are a troll that isn't able to support his own claims and has to outright lie (and in a pathetic obvious way) to support the own standpoint. And you are calling other people unethical?

    I don't know what is the real sad thing here, that you are so pathetic or that you are incapable of recognizing how pathetic and damaging to your own case you are.

    OK, logic 101: Your claim:
    all software with permissive license has GPL code added to them so they are now GPL software.
    But later, in the alleged "proof" you come up with you say:
    Vim_Luser is a fucking proprietary whore cause he uses vi
    I assume that you think that Vim (I am not using Vi, by the way) has a permissive license, but in fact Vim's license is GPL compatible.
    But let's just for your sake assume Vim would be BSD or MIT licensed, the licenses which, according to your own claims, are now invalid and replaced with the GPL.
    So why I am a proprietary whore because I am using Vim, which is according to your claims now GPL licensed?
    You are implying with that sentence that permissive licenses are still valid, making your own claims invalid.
    Actually, you were beaten by your own logic and if I apply that broken logic to you I can state:
    systemd rulez is a proprietary whore because he uses Xorg (MIT license, permissive, not copyleft).

    So let us come back to the real questions that you continually try to evade, I will not let you go away with that:
    And we are still waiting for your contribution as a programmer to an open source project. You are so committed to open source and you claim to be a programmer, so you have for sure something to show, don't you?
    Oh, and please let us know how it works for you not to use any kind of software with a permissive license, otherwise we can officially, according to your own claims, call you a proprietary whore.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default Hypervisors classification? It's really tricky.

    Quote Originally Posted by garegin View Post
    aren't all vm's hypervisors. there are two types. hypervisors that run on top of the OS like vmware fusion or virtualbox and ones that are the OS like hyper-v or esx. correct me if im wrong.
    You're right in sense that there are "two" types of hypervisors - some hypervisors (type I) could be used "without OS" (theoretically) and some are rather "started on top of OS" (type II). The major difference here is what started first: OS or hypervisor.

    However this is very basic classification. In practice it's not as simple as that. Hyper-V would use some kind of Win Server OS to provide management. Even "bare metal" version would run some limited windows to do so if I remember well. Somewhat similar happens with Xen, who would use Linux in dom0 for control and uses it's drivers to access hardware. Some arbitrary guests are runing in DomU. Theoretically, Xen could run on it's own, but normally it's used with Linux in dom0 and I'm not aware of any uses without Linux in dom0. ESX would boot some custom Linux kernel and then uses it to start their things further. So it's also highly debatable if they can really claim that "ESX runs without OS". At the end of day, to access some more or less advanced hardware and networking, type I hypervisor should have more or less decent drivers. Writing all these drivers for hypervisor itself would turn it into just another OS. So they usually use drivers from some "satellite" OS instead. So it's not like if most type I hypervisors are really usable without "satellite"

    In Linux KVM things are getting even more interesting. OS kernel also happens to be hypervisor. I don't know how to classify that. Technically, boot loader kicks kernel which is also happens to be hypervisor. So it's both kernel and hypervisor at once. It's both "boots on bare metal" and "on top of OS" . How should I classify that?

    Things like virtualbox are "running on top of OS" in sense that they're initially not a part of OS. However, say, in Linux virtualbox would load some large kernel module to be able to do it's work. At the end of day result would become somewhat similar to KVM. So why they should be classified as something completely different?

    In fact these classifications are blurred and tricky.
    Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 02-11-2013 at 07:06 AM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    12

    Default

    This forum is in serious need of moderation. It amazing the amount of offensive, disrespectful and inappropriate behavior.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    You're right in sense that there are "two" types of hypervisors - some hypervisors (type I) could be used "without OS" (theoretically) and some are rather "started on top of OS" (type II). The major difference here is what started first: OS or hypervisor.

    However this is very basic classification. In practice it's not as simple as that. Hyper-V would use some kind of Win Server OS to provide management. Even "bare metal" version would run some limited windows to do so if I remember well. Somewhat similar happens with Xen, who would use Linux in dom0 for control and uses it's drivers to access hardware. Some arbitrary guests are runing in DomU. Theoretically, Xen could run on it's own, but normally it's used with Linux in dom0 and I'm not aware of any uses without Linux in dom0. ESX would boot some custom Linux kernel and then uses it to start their things further. So it's also highly debatable if they can really claim that "ESX runs without OS".

    In Linux KVM things are getting even more interesting. OS kernel also happens to be hypervisor. I don't know how to classify that. Technically, boot loader kicks kernel which is also happens to be hypervisor. So it's both kernel and hypervisor at once. It's both "boots on bare metal" and "on top of OS" . How should I classify that?

    Things like virtualbox are "running on top of OS" in sense that they're initially not a part of OS. However, say, in Linux virtualbox would load some large kernel module to be able to do it's work. At the end of day result would become somewhat similar to KVM. So why they should be classified as something completely different?

    In fact these classifications are blurred and tricky.
    Xen supports NetBSD and variants of Solaris as dom0. Reference: http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Dom0

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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