| |||||||||||||
Crowding out OpenBSDCrowding out OpenBSDPosted Nov 14, 2012 1:54 UTC (Wed) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641)In reply to: Crowding out OpenBSD by dlang Parent article: Crowding out OpenBSD
The creator of systemd specifically made the choice created an architecture leveraging the best parts of the Linux kernel. So the way the program works, depends on the Linux kernel.
It means that systemd should be a fairly small program when compared if it needed the right abstractions and the architecture would probably have been different too.
Wayland is probably the same, I'm sure the code base is very small in comparison to X. For example keyboard handling is mostly handled by the kernel I believe.
I was already wondering how long the Debian project could keep the kFreeBSD port alive. For now in Debian they will probably let the user choose to use systemd or some other init. Maybe systemd will eventually the default with the Linux kernel.
kFreeBSD had ZFS and PF, what other user visible ? Will btrfs fix the biggest feature ?
It used to be true that academia developed new TCP/IP extension on the FreeBSD kernel first, this isn't true anymore. This is now Linux too.
(Log in to post comments)
Crowding out OpenBSD Posted Nov 14, 2012 4:23 UTC (Wed) by abartlet (✭ supporter ✭, #3928) [Link]
It reminds me very much of OpenSSH, for which we are very much thankful to the OpenBSD project. It too has a focus on just the bare essentials required to run on one OS - OpenBSD in this case - and a 'portable edition' patch for other platforms.
In my own work keeping Samba portable, we have like most large projects, a portability API (libreplace), mostly trying to emulate the C APIs of other OS versions onto Linux APIs where possible. The Kerberos implementation that we work closely with for the AD DC also has libroken, another portability API, and we link against libbsd for strlcpy etc.
I've done a reasonable amount of work in this area recently, and it is certain the portability doesn't come for free. Indeed, we have two major build systems because (in part) we don't want to drop systems that don't have python!
that smell Posted Nov 14, 2012 5:17 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] strlcpy? Please tell me you don't actually use that.
that smell Posted Nov 14, 2012 11:15 UTC (Wed) by abartlet (✭ supporter ✭, #3928) [Link]
We do use strlcpy. We moved from safe_strcpy() and the custom wrappers fstrcpy() and pstrcpy() (for fstrings of 256 and pstrings of 1024 bytes) to at least something others have seen before. Natrually, a function called safe_ wasn't really safe (just safe against memory overwrite), but the name made us feel better about it despite having the same issues as strlcpy().
As code is rewritten, most strings are dynamically allocated talloc buffers, but stragglers remain.
Crowding out OpenBSD Posted Nov 14, 2012 9:43 UTC (Wed) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link]
> two major build systems because (in part) we don't want to drop systems that don't have python!
Huh, there are systems powerful enough to build Samba that don't run Python?
Crowding out OpenBSD Posted Nov 14, 2012 13:22 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Yes, old big-iron batshit-crazy OSes in locked rooms without Internet access. Apparantly, Volker Lendecke has to provide support for these kinds of customers.
Crowding out OpenBSD Posted Nov 15, 2012 2:53 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] The creator of systemd specifically made the choice created an architecture leveraging the best parts of the Linux kernel.cgroups? Best parts? Only from the perspective that it provides a feature that you can't get any other way. Not from the perspective that it's a crawling horror, nor, indeed that it's considered any good by any of the kernel developers. :)
Crowding out OpenBSD Posted Nov 16, 2012 21:34 UTC (Fri) by Tet (subscriber, #5433) [Link] Not from the perspective that it's a crawling horror, nor, indeed that it's considered any good by any of the kernel developers. :)I've heard that claim many times. But I'm too far removed from what's going on in kernel space these days. So if they're as bad as people are claiming, what alternatives does the kernel provide that give the same functionality as cgroups?
Crowding out OpenBSD Posted Nov 18, 2012 15:39 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
None. That's why they get used, even if they *are* a crawling horror internally.
|
|||||||||||||