FreeBSD hacker 101
Hi, Are there any docments or pointers to get me started hacking around my 6.3asap? Building toochains, submitting patches etc or i just follow most of the conventions in the Linux kernel development community? regards, william ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
bbs.chinaunix.net freebsdchina.org 2008-01-24 _ Best Regard Timo msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: https://stand.eicp.net 发件人： william wong 发送时间： 2008-01-24 15:32:18 收件人： freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org 抄送： 主题： FreeBSD hacker 101 Hi, Are there any docments or pointers to get me started hacking around my 6.3asap? Building toochains, submitting patches etc or i just follow most of the conventions in the Linux kernel development community? regards, william ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 william wong wrote: > Hi, > > Are there any docments or pointers to get me started hacking around my > 6.3asap? Building toochains, submitting patches etc or i just > follow most > of the conventions in the Linux kernel development community? I think it's nothing "that" different. A typical way is that you find something you are not happy with, i.e. what you think FreeBSD is lacking of, do some proof of concept work, discuss it in the mailing list, refine your work, submit patch, become a committer :-) The only "difference" as far as I can tell is that FreeBSD tends to have stricter code style guidelines (the only exceptions are what we call "vendor code" which is maintained outside, this includes toolchains, device drivers that is supported by vendors, in order to make future upgrades easier). However, unlike some other bad code style guidelines, FreeBSD's coding style is very well documented (as in style(9)), and following the guideline will make your code easier to read (e.g. think about how to find the implementation with grep(1)? Yes, grep ^function.). We eager to see contributions from all aspects, but if you have no idea for your own, or is looking for something to give a shot, you can check out our projects idea page at http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/ . Small contributions, like making more documentation about various sysctl's, etc. are more suitable for those who just started to learn about the code and can not invest a lot of whole bunch of time on FreeBSD (yet), are welcomed as well. Another good start is to query our PR database ( http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi ) and see if there is something you have interest, but there is no fix, or there is a fix but stayed for a long time and push them. Cheers, - -- Xin LI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHmEebi+vbBBjt66ARArlQAJ4xMkuM6ZflCM25wcq7Q+efxedpAACdH4w6 jwc1NRdGUp/vrGf8mMpWTiM= =Z6lW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
"william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Are there any docments or pointers to get me started hacking around my > 6.3 asap? Building toochains, submitting patches etc or i just > follow most of the conventions in the Linux kernel development > community? The toolchain is already in place, no need to build anything. You'll find our make is different from GNU make. It may take a while to get used to it, but when you do, you'll find it much more powerful. The official channel for patch submissions is send-pr(1), but due to manpower issues, PRs often get lost in the noise. Posting the patch to the appropriate mailing list may be more effective. Speaking of patches, you should seriously consider upgrading to RELENG_7, as 6.3 is quite possibly the very last RELENG_6 release, and patches against 6.3 won't raise much interest from developers. You'll find information on how to upgrade in the handbook. The biggest difference you will notice from Linux is that pretty much everything, including major kernel subsystems, is documented in man pages. If you find something (a library function or system call or kernel module) that doesn't have a man page, try to track down the author and prod them - or bitch on freebsd-doc until someone writes a man page - or write it yourself if you feel up to learning groff (which isn't for the faint of heart, but you get used to it after a while) DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
Thanks for enlightening me on different aspects. Actually I found there are many exciting network stack projects/overhaul happening in FreeBSD 8. I just want to gear up myself and see what I can do. I have got 6.3 installed and tweaking some of the kernel modification and compilation process so that i can get myself acquainted to the software development process. It seems that Juniper favors the even number FreeBSD's. So get to know about FB8 could be ahead of them :) william 2008/1/24, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > "william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Are there any docments or pointers to get me started hacking around my > > 6.3 asap? Building toochains, submitting patches etc or i just > > follow most of the conventions in the Linux kernel development > > community? > > The toolchain is already in place, no need to build anything. > > You'll find our make is different from GNU make. It may take a while to > get used to it, but when you do, you'll find it much more powerful. > > The official channel for patch submissions is send-pr(1), but due to > manpower issues, PRs often get lost in the noise. Posting the patch to > the appropriate mailing list may be more effective. > > Speaking of patches, you should seriously consider upgrading to > RELENG_7, as 6.3 is quite possibly the very last RELENG_6 release, and > patches against 6.3 won't raise much interest from developers. You'll > find information on how to upgrade in the handbook. > > The biggest difference you will notice from Linux is that pretty much > everything, including major kernel subsystems, is documented in man > pages. If you find something (a library function or system call or > kernel module) that doesn't have a man page, try to track down the > author and prod them - or bitch on freebsd-doc until someone writes a > man page - or write it yourself if you feel up to learning groff (which > isn't for the faint of heart, but you get used to it after a while) > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
"william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks for enlightening me on different aspects. Actually I found there are > many exciting network stack projects/overhaul happening in FreeBSD 8. I just > want to gear up myself and see what I can do. I have got 6.3 installed and > tweaking some of the kernel modification and compilation process so that i > can get myself acquainted to the software development process. You should really, really upgrade to 7. Nobody is doing any serious work on 6 (beyond merging bug fixes back from 7); all the exciting work happens in 8, and kernel patches against 8 will very rarely apply cleanly to 6. > It seems that Juniper favors the even number FreeBSD's. Only because 5 was a dog. They probably stuck with 4 for a while, then switched to 6 once they had ascertained that it was significantly more stable than 5. I would be surprised if they skipped 7. > So get to know about FB8 could be ahead of them :) I very much doubt it. Juniper employs several veteran FreeBSD developers (and so does Cisco, for that matter). DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
2008/1/24, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Thanks for enlightening me on different aspects. Actually I found there are > > many exciting network stack projects/overhaul happening in FreeBSD 8. I just > > want to gear up myself and see what I can do. I have got 6.3 installed and > > tweaking some of the kernel modification and compilation process so that i > > can get myself acquainted to the software development process. > > You should really, really upgrade to 7. Nobody is doing any serious > work on 6 (beyond merging bug fixes back from 7); all the exciting work > happens in 8, and kernel patches against 8 will very rarely apply > cleanly to 6. > > > It seems that Juniper favors the even number FreeBSD's. > > Only because 5 was a dog. They probably stuck with 4 for a while, then > switched to 6 once they had ascertained that it was significantly more > stable than 5. I would be surprised if they skipped 7. Please pardon my ignorance of the jargons. Does that mean 5 is not stable or does not perform or what? > > > So get to know about FB8 could be ahead of them :) > > I very much doubt it. Juniper employs several veteran FreeBSD > developers (and so does Cisco, for that matter). In other words both of them really want to push FreeBSD to its fullest and would like to extract most out of it. > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > william ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:11:05PM +0800, william wong wrote: > 2008/1/24, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > "william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Thanks for enlightening me on different aspects. Actually I found there > > > are > > > many exciting network stack projects/overhaul happening in FreeBSD 8. I > > > just > > > want to gear up myself and see what I can do. I have got 6.3 installed and > > > tweaking some of the kernel modification and compilation process so that i > > > can get myself acquainted to the software development process. > > > > You should really, really upgrade to 7. Nobody is doing any serious > > work on 6 (beyond merging bug fixes back from 7); all the exciting work > > happens in 8, and kernel patches against 8 will very rarely apply > > cleanly to 6. > > > > > It seems that Juniper favors the even number FreeBSD's. > > > > Only because 5 was a dog. They probably stuck with 4 for a while, then > > switched to 6 once they had ascertained that it was significantly more > > stable than 5. I would be surprised if they skipped 7. > > Please pardon my ignorance of the jargons. Does that mean 5 is not > stable or does not perform or what? STABLE in this context is a bit of a misnomer. What it's talking about is not stability in the sense of "it doesn't crash as much as current" but stability in the ABI sense. This is often a cause of confusion for people new to FreeBSD. While it is generally true that stable does not crash as much as current, it is not a promise. There have been times when a stable branch would not build or has serious bugs in it. However, it is my experience that these are rare (even in current), and the developers do their best to ensure they don't happen. -- WXS ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
"william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > "william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It seems that Juniper favors the even number FreeBSD's. > > Only because 5 was a dog. They probably stuck with 4 for a while, then > > switched to 6 once they had ascertained that it was significantly more > > stable than 5. I would be surprised if they skipped 7. > Please pardon my ignorance of the jargons. Does that mean 5 is not > stable or does not perform or what? FreeBSD 5 was not a very good series. It was released late and had issues with both stability and performance. FreeBSD 6 corrected the stability issues and some of the worst performance issues. FreeBSD 7 took care of the remaining performance issues; it may not be as fast as 4 was on UP, but it beats Linux on SMP. (there's no point in comparing SMP performance between 4 and 7 since 4 had a single-threaded kernel and practically no userland thread support) DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
william wong skrev: Thanks for enlightening me on different aspects. Actually I found there are many exciting network stack projects/overhaul happening in FreeBSD 8. Take a look at http://wiki.freebsd.org/Networking if working on the networking code in FreeBSD interests you. -- Joel ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
I thought freeBSD 7 was still current "bleeding edge?" On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: "william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Thanks for enlightening me on different aspects. Actually I found there are many exciting network stack projects/overhaul happening in FreeBSD 8. I just want to gear up myself and see what I can do. I have got 6.3 installed and tweaking some of the kernel modification and compilation process so that i can get myself acquainted to the software development process. You should really, really upgrade to 7. Nobody is doing any serious work on 6 (beyond merging bug fixes back from 7); all the exciting work happens in 8, and kernel patches against 8 will very rarely apply cleanly to 6. It seems that Juniper favors the even number FreeBSD's. Only because 5 was a dog. They probably stuck with 4 for a while, then switched to 6 once they had ascertained that it was significantly more stable than 5. I would be surprised if they skipped 7. So get to know about FB8 could be ahead of them :) I very much doubt it. Juniper employs several veteran FreeBSD developers (and so does Cisco, for that matter). DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" *--* Kayven Riese, BSCS, MS (Physiology and Biophysics) (415) 902 5513 cellular http://kayve.net Webmaster http://ChessYoga.org *--*___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
Aren't the ports collection something that makes freeBSD stand out very differently than linux? also, no rpm, and the pkg_add utility. updating operating system with cvsup? buildworld? all these things are different starkly, or are they not? On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Xin LI wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 william wong wrote: Hi, Are there any docments or pointers to get me started hacking around my 6.3asap? Building toochains, submitting patches etc or i just follow most of the conventions in the Linux kernel development community? I think it's nothing "that" different. A typical way is that you find something you are not happy with, i.e. what you think FreeBSD is lacking of, do some proof of concept work, discuss it in the mailing list, refine your work, submit patch, become a committer :-) The only "difference" as far as I can tell is that FreeBSD tends to have stricter code style guidelines (the only exceptions are what we call "vendor code" which is maintained outside, this includes toolchains, device drivers that is supported by vendors, in order to make future upgrades easier). However, unlike some other bad code style guidelines, FreeBSD's coding style is very well documented (as in style(9)), and following the guideline will make your code easier to read (e.g. think about how to find the implementation with grep(1)? Yes, grep ^function.). We eager to see contributions from all aspects, but if you have no idea for your own, or is looking for something to give a shot, you can check out our projects idea page at http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/ . Small contributions, like making more documentation about various sysctl's, etc. are more suitable for those who just started to learn about the code and can not invest a lot of whole bunch of time on FreeBSD (yet), are welcomed as well. Another good start is to query our PR database ( http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi ) and see if there is something you have interest, but there is no fix, or there is a fix but stayed for a long time and push them. Cheers, - -- Xin LI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHmEebi+vbBBjt66ARArlQAJ4xMkuM6ZflCM25wcq7Q+efxedpAACdH4w6 jwc1NRdGUp/vrGf8mMpWTiM= =Z6lW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" *--* Kayven Riese, BSCS, MS (Physiology and Biophysics) (415) 902 5513 cellular http://kayve.net Webmaster http://ChessYoga.org *--* ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
On Jan 24, 2008, at 3:28 PM, KAYVEN RIESE wrote: I thought freeBSD 7 was still current "bleeding edge?" Soon it will be the 'most current STABLE' branch; 8-CURRENT is absolute bleeding edge. -Garrett PS Please bottom post :). ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:25:16 -0800 (PST) KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aren't the ports collection something that makes freeBSD stand out > very differently than linux? also, no rpm, and the pkg_add utility. > updating operating system with cvsup? buildworld? all these things > are different starkly, or are they not? GNU/Linux isn't tied to rpm's; there are other packaging systems in use by different distros, including at least one that is based on the BSD ports system. But you've touched on one crucial difference: A GNU/Linux distribution is lots of software from various authors that the creators of the distro have put together to make a system (to be fair, the creators of the distro may have contributed software as well, like rpm). So everything is in the package system, and the line between "critical system software" and "add on packages" is blurred, Meaning it's not clear what you can update independently without breaking the OS (well, not to me, anyway). A BSD distribution is a complete operating system in and of itself - the base system. It *includes* a package system for dealing with "add on packages." You can update the add on software independently without breaking the base system. You are expected to update the base system as a whole, and doing otherwise is unsupported. I'm not sure how relevant this is to what the OP was asking about, though. > On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Xin LI wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > william wong wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Are there any docments or pointers to get me started hacking around my > >> 6.3asap? Building toochains, submitting patches etc or i just > >> follow most > >> of the conventions in the Linux kernel development community? > > > > I think it's nothing "that" different. A typical way is that you find > > something you are not happy with, i.e. what you think FreeBSD is lacking > > of, do some proof of concept work, discuss it in the mailing list, > > refine your work, submit patch, become a committer :-) > > > > The only "difference" as far as I can tell is that FreeBSD tends to have > > stricter code style guidelines (the only exceptions are what we call > > "vendor code" which is maintained outside, this includes toolchains, > > device drivers that is supported by vendors, in order to make future > > upgrades easier). However, unlike some other bad code style guidelines, > > FreeBSD's coding style is very well documented (as in style(9)), and > > following the guideline will make your code easier to read (e.g. think > > about how to find the implementation with grep(1)? Yes, grep ^function.). > > > > We eager to see contributions from all aspects, but if you have no idea > > for your own, or is looking for something to give a shot, you can check > > out our projects idea page at http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/ . > > > > Small contributions, like making more documentation about various > > sysctl's, etc. are more suitable for those who just started to learn > > about the code and can not invest a lot of whole bunch of time on > > FreeBSD (yet), are welcomed as well. > > > > Another good start is to query our PR database ( > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi ) and see if there is > > something you have interest, but there is no fix, or there is a fix but > > stayed for a long time and push them. > > > > Cheers, > > - -- > > Xin LI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.delphij.net/ > > FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) > > > > iD8DBQFHmEebi+vbBBjt66ARArlQAJ4xMkuM6ZflCM25wcq7Q+efxedpAACdH4w6 > > jwc1NRdGUp/vrGf8mMpWTiM= > > =Z6lW > > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > ___ > > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > *--* >Kayven Riese, BSCS, MS (Physiology and Biophysics) >(415) 902 5513 cellular >http://kayve.net >Webmaster http://ChessYoga.org > *--* > ___ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
That brings me to another ponder: why juniper and cisco are using FreeBSD and not Linux even Linux performs better in an UP environment? 2008/1/25, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > "william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > It seems that Juniper favors the even number FreeBSD's. > > > Only because 5 was a dog. They probably stuck with 4 for a while, then > > > switched to 6 once they had ascertained that it was significantly more > > > stable than 5. I would be surprised if they skipped 7. > > Please pardon my ignorance of the jargons. Does that mean 5 is not > > stable or does not perform or what? > > FreeBSD 5 was not a very good series. It was released late and had > issues with both stability and performance. FreeBSD 6 corrected the > stability issues and some of the worst performance issues. FreeBSD 7 > took care of the remaining performance issues; it may not be as fast as > 4 was on UP, but it beats Linux on SMP. > > (there's no point in comparing SMP performance between 4 and 7 since 4 > had a single-threaded kernel and practically no userland thread support) > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
On Jan 24, 2008, at 22:58 , william wong wrote: That brings me to another ponder: why juniper and cisco are using FreeBSD and not Linux even Linux performs better in an UP environment? 2008/1/25, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: "william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: It seems that Juniper favors the even number FreeBSD's. Only because 5 was a dog. They probably stuck with 4 for a while, then switched to 6 once they had ascertained that it was significantly more stable than 5. I would be surprised if they skipped 7. Please pardon my ignorance of the jargons. Does that mean 5 is not stable or does not perform or what? FreeBSD 5 was not a very good series. It was released late and had issues with both stability and performance. FreeBSD 6 corrected the stability issues and some of the worst performance issues. FreeBSD 7 took care of the remaining performance issues; it may not be as fast as 4 was on UP, but it beats Linux on SMP. (there's no point in comparing SMP performance between 4 and 7 since 4 had a single-threaded kernel and practically no userland thread support) DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please do not top post. The reason Juniper and Cisco are probably using FreeBSD is because of the license that FreeBSD is under (BSD-License) versus the Linux kernels GPL. Bert JW Regeer
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I thought freeBSD 7 was still current "bleeding edge?" No, that's FreeBSD 8. FreeBSD 7.0 is very close to release now, and you can already run 7-STABLE if you want to. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
"william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That brings me to another ponder: why juniper and cisco are using > FreeBSD and not Linux even Linux performs better in an UP environment? Who said Linux performs better in a UP environment? UP performance is close to irrelevant these days anyway; there are still many UP machines (especially in the embedded world), but application code is increasingly dependent on multithreading, and the kind of things you have to do to your kernel to get good multithreading performance are pretty much the same things you have to do to get good SMP performance. In any case, I doubt UP or SMP performance was the biggest factor in the decision. The licensing model, the stability of the code base (between major releases) and possibly the quality of the network stack are likely to have played a larger role. This is all speculation, however; I don't work at Juniper or Cisco. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:58:51PM +0800, william wong wrote: > That brings me to another ponder: why juniper and cisco are using > FreeBSD and not Linux even Linux performs better in an UP environment? Other posters have mentioned that there is a mix of Linux and BSD at Cisco. I don't work there, so I can't comment. However, if you're shipping a product where you don't necessarily wish to publish whatever code enhancements you've created, the BSD license is most likely a better choice. What was discussed at the last BSDCan was the fact that the companies that use BSD-licensed components are evolving towards contributing back improvements that they make to the system that they do not feel are their differentiators, and keeping to themselves the intellectual property that they feel puts them at a competitive advantage in their market. So it comes down to a legal and philosophical difference -- one that has been argued incessantly in the BSD vs. GPL camps. It can quickly become a "religious argument" and one that can only be resolved by "agreeing to disagree" -- if that. mcl ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
On 2008-01-25 13:58, william wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That brings me to another ponder: why juniper and cisco are using > FreeBSD and not Linux even Linux performs better in an UP environment? That's probably something only Juniper and Cisco can answer with a sufficiently high degree of confidence that the answer *does* reflecty reality. I bet you the licensing model plays an important part in the decision though :) ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: GNU/Linux isn't tied to rpm's; Actually, rpm is part of the Linux Standard Base specification, which all major distributions implement. Debian derivatives use dpkg, but still have a full set of rpm tools. Most distributions have higher- level package management tools built on top of either rpm (like yum) or dpkg (like apt), and in most cases the lower-level tools are only used if something goes wrong. i don't recognize that as what i said, but i was trying to make the point that BSD DOESn't use rpm compression, and that was a point i was trying to make in terms of comparison/contrast there are other packaging systems in use by different distros, including at least one that is based on the BSD ports system. s/based on/inspired by/ if you're thinking of Gentoo. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" *--* Kayven Riese, BSCS, MS (Physiology and Biophysics) (415) 902 5513 cellular http://kayve.net Webmaster http://ChessYoga.org *--*___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > GNU/Linux isn't tied to rpm's; Actually, rpm is part of the Linux Standard Base specification, which all major distributions implement. Debian derivatives use dpkg, but still have a full set of rpm tools. Most distributions have higher- level package management tools built on top of either rpm (like yum) or dpkg (like apt), and in most cases the lower-level tools are only used if something goes wrong. > there are other packaging systems in use by different distros, > including at least one that is based on the BSD ports system. s/based on/inspired by/ if you're thinking of Gentoo. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > i don't recognize that as what i said, but i was trying to make the > point that BSD DOESn't use rpm compression, and that was a point i > was trying to make in terms of comparison/contrast I'm not sure what you mean by "rpm compression", since rpm is not a compression algorithm but a set of tools and a file format (based on gzipped cpio archives) used by those tools. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: i don't recognize that as what i said, but i was trying to make the point that BSD DOESn't use rpm compression, and that was a point i was trying to make in terms of comparison/contrast I'm not sure what you mean by "rpm compression", since rpm is not a compression algorithm but a set of tools and a file format (based on gzipped cpio archives) used by those tools. gzip is compression. okay it is an archiver. all i know is that standard old boys unix uses *.tgz which is a mix of compression and archiving with tar. i have only encountered rpm sporatically because i have not done a lot of linux, but i know that when you enounter a package to be installed it seemed to me *.rpm is an alternative to *.tgz DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] *--* Kayven Riese, BSCS, MS (Physiology and Biophysics) (415) 902 5513 cellular http://kayve.net Webmaster http://ChessYoga.org *--*___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:24:36 -0800 (PST) KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > > > KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> i don't recognize that as what i said, but i was trying to make the > >> point that BSD DOESn't use rpm compression, and that was a point i > >> was trying to make in terms of comparison/contrast > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "rpm compression", since rpm is not a > > compression algorithm but a set of tools and a file format (based on > > gzipped cpio archives) used by those tools. > > gzip is compression. okay it is an archiver. Right the first time. gzip has no ability to deal with an archive as anything but a byte stream. > all i know is that > standard old boys unix uses *.tgz which is a mix of compression > and archiving with tar. i have only encountered rpm sporatically > because i have not done a lot of linux, but i know that when you > enounter a package to be installed it seemed to me *.rpm is an > alternative to *.tgz .tgz (and the later .tbz variant) is the dominant format for platform-independent archives on Unix-like systems, so I'd expect anyone who claims to be competent in that space to be able to deal with them. (FreeBSD's pkg* tools extends it in a backwards-compatible manner by adding "magic" files, but the resulting tarballs work fine on other systems). .rpm is a package format, and comes with a tool set for using it. Most (all?) GNU/Linux systems come with tools for dealing with it, but they all also come with tools for dealing with .tgz. Some GNU/Linux distros use .rpm to distribute their software, but not all do. I don't think any Unix systems have adopted it; most of them have packaging systems that predate .rpm, and they're all different. Different package formats for vendor software isn't a GNU/Linux vs. FreeBSD or Unix thing, it's a fact of line in a multi-platform Unix environment. http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Mike Meyer wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:24:36 -0800 (PST) KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: .rpm is a package format, and comes with a tool set for using it. Most (all?) GNU/Linux systems come with tools for dealing with it, but they all also come with tools for dealing with .tgz. Some GNU/Linux distros use .rpm to distribute their software, but not all do. I don't think any Unix systems have adopted it; most of them have packaging systems that predate .rpm, and they're all different. Different package formats for vendor software isn't a GNU/Linux vs. FreeBSD or Unix thing, it's a fact of line in a multi-platform Unix environment. my reason for bringing the whole thing up was based on the idea that this person might be used to using *.rpm all the time and this would be a difference he would experience moving to freeBSD, if this was the case. if this is not the case for him, as you seem to be implying, then.. well.. still.. he must know to avoid *.rpm distributions in any case unless he installs a *.rpm compatibility tool. is that part of the linux-compat stuff that freeBSD has? http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" *--* Kayven Riese, BSCS, MS (Physiology and Biophysics) (415) 902 5513 cellular http://kayve.net Webmaster http://ChessYoga.org *--*___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:55:53 -0800 (PST) KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Mike Meyer wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:24:36 -0800 (PST) KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > >>> KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > .rpm is a package format, and comes with a tool set for using it. Most > > (all?) GNU/Linux systems come with tools for dealing with it, but they > > all also come with tools for dealing with .tgz. Some GNU/Linux distros > > use .rpm to distribute their software, but not all do. I don't think > > any Unix systems have adopted it; most of them have packaging systems > > that predate .rpm, and they're all different. Different package > > formats for vendor software isn't a GNU/Linux vs. FreeBSD or Unix > > thing, it's a fact of line in a multi-platform Unix environment. > my reason for bringing the whole thing up was based on the idea > that this person might be used to using *.rpm all the time Well, maybe. But consider the context: they're looking at moving from GNU/Linux to FreeBSD, so they're probably familiar with more than one GNU/Linux distro, so there's a good chance they'ev seen more than just rpms for system software distribution. Further, they're looking at working on the FreeBSD code base, so they're a programmer, so there's a good chance they've gone to the source sites for the packages included in those distros, where they almost certainly would have noticed that the binaries for other platforms weren't in rpms. Since they're programmers, they've probably downloaded source distributions, which are almost invariable tarballs of some sort or another. In other words, the chances that they've only seen rpm file distributions would seem to be vanishingly small, so there are things that are far more likely to disrupt them - like the difference in which system calls will work properly between fork() and exec() that Posix() doesn't require to do so - that are still so unlikely to do so to be worth mentioning in this context. If you feel you have to mention it, then you should really talk about the tools, not the formats: GNU/Linux distros tend to use rpm* or apt* tools for installing and managing software packages, whereas FreeBSD uses the pkg* tools. > and this > would be a difference he would experience moving to freeBSD, if > this was the case. if this is not the case for him, as you seem > to be implying, then.. well.. still.. he must know to avoid > *.rpm distributions in any case unless he installs a *.rpm compatibility > tool. is that part of the linux-compat stuff that freeBSD has? Just out of curiosity, where do you expect to find software for FreeBSD in an rpm format? I don't think they exist, so *avoiding* them wont' be a problem. Possibly wasting time looking for them might be, but again, that seems really unlikely given the context, so there are more important things to suggest they not waste time on, like wandering how they upgrade just part of the base system. http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:55:53 -0800 (PST) KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:24:36 -0800 (PST) KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
thing, it's a fact of line in a multi-platform Unix environment.
my reason for bringing the whole thing up was based on the idea
that this person might be used to using *.rpm all the time
Well, maybe. But consider the context: they're looking at moving from
GNU/Linux to FreeBSD, so they're probably familiar with more than one
GNU/Linux distro, so there's a good chance they'ev seen more than just
rpms for system software distribution. Further, they're looking at
noticed that the binaries for other platforms weren't in rpms. Since
they're programmers, they've probably downloaded source distributions,
which are almost invariable tarballs of some sort or another.
In other words, the chances that they've only seen rpm file
distributions would seem to be vanishingly small, so there are things
that are far more likely to disrupt them - like the difference in
i feel like i have noticed some sites that only have rpms. this is
more like the type of serious concern that i was concocting in my
own tiny mind. however, if you simply note that its part of the
linux compatibility packages, then my concern is absolutely
unfounded and i will shut up {:}
If you feel you have to mention it, then you should really talk about
the tools, not the formats: GNU/Linux distros tend to use rpm* or apt*
tools for installing and managing software packages, whereas FreeBSD
uses the pkg* tools.
and this
would be a difference he would experience moving to
freeBSD, if
this was the case. if this is not the case for him, as you seem
to be implying, then.. well.. still.. he must know to avoid
*.rpm distributions in any case unless he installs a *.rpm compatibility
tool. is that part of the linux-compat stuff that freeBSD has?
Just out of curiosity, where do you expect to find software for
FreeBSD in an rpm format? I don't think they exist, so *avoiding* them
wont' be a problem. Possibly wasting time looking for them might be,
but again, that seems really unlikely given the context, so there are
more important things to suggest they not waste time on, like
wandering how they upgrade just part of the base system.
http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
*--*
Kayven Riese, BSCS, MS (Physiology and Biophysics)
(415) 902 5513 cellular
http://kayve.net
Webmaster http://ChessYoga.org
*--*___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD hacker 101
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Meyer wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:55:53 -0800 (PST) KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Mike Meyer wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:24:36 -0800 (PST) KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Dag-Erling Sm˙˙rgrav wrote: KAYVEN RIESE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: .rpm is a package format, and comes with a tool set for using it. Most (all?) GNU/Linux systems come with tools for dealing with it, but they all also come with tools for dealing with .tgz. Some GNU/Linux distros use .rpm to distribute their software, but not all do. I don't think any Unix systems have adopted it; most of them have packaging systems that predate .rpm, and they're all different. Different package formats for vendor software isn't a GNU/Linux vs. FreeBSD or Unix thing, it's a fact of line in a multi-platform Unix environment. my reason for bringing the whole thing up was based on the idea that this person might be used to using *.rpm all the time Well, maybe. But consider the context: they're looking at moving from GNU/Linux to FreeBSD, so they're probably familiar with more than one GNU/Linux distro, so there's a good chance they'ev seen more than just rpms for system software distribution. Further, they're looking at working on the FreeBSD code base, so they're a programmer, so there's a good chance they've gone to the source sites for the packages included in those distros, where they almost certainly would have noticed that the binaries for other platforms weren't in rpms. Since they're programmers, they've probably downloaded source distributions, which are almost invariable tarballs of some sort or another. In other words, the chances that they've only seen rpm file distributions would seem to be vanishingly small, so there are things that are far more likely to disrupt them - like the difference in which system calls will work properly between fork() and exec() that Posix() doesn't require to do so - that are still so unlikely to do so to be worth mentioning in this context. If you feel you have to mention it, then you should really talk about the tools, not the formats: GNU/Linux distros tend to use rpm* or apt* tools for installing and managing software packages, whereas FreeBSD uses the pkg* tools. Not necessary to use pkg* tools on FreeBSD. You can use pkgsrc http://www.pkgsrc.org/ or openpkg http://www.openpkg.org/ All above are supported on multi-os environment. Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
