Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
5522 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
Home
Features
News
Forums
Classifieds
Links
Downloads
Extras
OS4 Zone
IRC Network
AmigaWorld Radio
Newsfeed
Top Members
Amiga Dealers
Information
About Us
FAQs
Advertise
Polls
Terms of Service
Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

(Uses JAVA Applet and Port 1024)
Visit the Chatroom Website

Who's Online
 60 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 Birbo

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 Birbo:  1 min ago
 WolfpackN64:  29 mins ago
 eggman:  35 mins ago
 kyle:  43 mins ago
 IRTheBorg:  55 mins ago
 zzd10h:  1 hr 18 mins ago
 Mr-Z:  2 hrs 5 mins ago
 Morphix:  2 hrs 25 mins ago
 kolla:  3 hrs 15 mins ago
 Barret:  3 hrs 20 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga General Chat
      /  DragonFly BSD
Register To Post

Goto page ( 1 | 2 Next Page )
PosterThread
ne_one 
DragonFly BSD
Posted on 21-Dec-2016 5:53:05
#1 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 13-Jun-2005
Posts: 638
From: Unknown

Recently there has been a fair bit of discussion about various Un*x derivatives and how they intersect with potential next generation Amiga platforms.

But, despite the pedigree and involvement of noted Amiga developer Matt Dillon, Dragonfly BSD is rarely mentioned.

It's pretty obvious where much of the underlying design philosophy for Dragonfly BSD comes from - much of it driven by simplicity, efficiency and performance. Sound familiar?

Does anyone have any experience with the OS, either as an end user or contributor?

https://www.dragonflybsd.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonFly_BSD

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ferrels 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 21-Dec-2016 6:12:14
#2 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 20-Oct-2005
Posts: 579
From: Arizona

@ne_one

I've used it but it isn't even remotely Amiga-like. It's just another very poorly supported BSD distro. What I mean by poorly supported is that driver support is almost non-existent as far as GPU hardware goes and very weak in other areas. I could barely get it running. The only connection it has to Amigas is that Matt once owned and programmed Amigas....that's about it. They're so dissimilar that the words Amiga and DragonFly BSD shouldn't be used in the same sentence together.

Last edited by ferrels on 21-Dec-2016 at 07:51 AM.
Last edited by ferrels on 21-Dec-2016 at 07:48 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Beans 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 21-Dec-2016 10:18:28
#3 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 26-Aug-2016
Posts: 251
From: Bear Delaware USA

@ferrels

Its a neat project, but its got almost nothing in common with Amiga.
The ideas implemented to aid in running threaded code are interesting, but I'm not sure I need to get into another obscure OS with a limited user base.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
elwood 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 21-Dec-2016 11:51:52
#4 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 17-Sep-2003
Posts: 3361
From: Lyon, France

@ne_one

Tried once on VirtualBOX. I gave up very fast. There's no graphic interface and couldn't find enough information to install Xwindow (bad documentation?)
The filesystem seems nice.

_________________
Philippe 'Elwood' Ferrucci
Sam460 1.10 Ghz
AmigaOS 4 betatester
Amiga Translator Organisation

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 21-Dec-2016 13:55:20
#5 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 587
From: Trondheim, Norway

@ne_one

Quote:

It's pretty obvious where much of the underlying design philosophy for Dragonfly BSD comes from - much of it driven by simplicity, efficiency and performance. Sound familiar?


Yes, sounds like it has its design mostly from FreeBSD :p

I have an Intel NUC running DFBSD.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
bison 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 21-Dec-2016 15:11:09
#6 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 18-Dec-2007
Posts: 821
From: N-Space

@ne_one

I use it, but not as my main system.

The Amiga influence is in the kernel where you can't see it. The user-facing bits -- the shell and file system layout -- are very much like Unix. Its strong suit, compared to other BSDs, is its excellent support for Intel GPUs. It is almost current with Linux, supporting Haswell, Broadwell, and even Skylake to some extent. It is smaller and lighter than Linux, and would make an excellent base for a next generation Amiga, since it is very capable and actively maintained.

What the project could really benefit from is an up-to-date live ISO image.

The best place to follow Dragonfly news is https://www.dragonflydigest.com

Last edited by bison on 21-Dec-2016 at 03:12 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Beans 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 21-Dec-2016 17:43:26
#7 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 26-Aug-2016
Posts: 251
From: Bear Delaware USA

@bison

Quote:
The Amiga influence is in the kernel where you can't see it.


The hybrid kernel is a interesting concept, but the compromise is probably a necessity for BSD compatibility.
Frankly I'd prefer a pure micro kernel OS and we already have one NG OS based on a micro kernel, MorphOS.

BSD is an interesting operating system, real UNIX, not a wanna be like Linux.
But BSD distributions don't garner as much attention or support as Linux and therefore aren't as well developed (unless you count OSX).

So, until any of those alternatives simply work better, I'm going to have to default to the same thing Stephen Ferrell above probably uses, Windows (for real work anyway).

Last edited by Beans on 21-Dec-2016 at 06:28 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
OneTimer1 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 21-Dec-2016 22:56:01
#8 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 3-Aug-2015
Posts: 165
From: Unknown

Quote:

ferrels wrote:

The only connection it has to Amigas is that Matt once owned and programmed Amigas....that's about it.


Thats not all, here are some quotes from Wikipedia:
Quote:

Many concepts planned for DragonFly were inspired by the AmigaOS operating system
...

DragonFly BSD supports Amiga-style resident applications feature: it takes a snapshot of a large, dynamically linked program's virtual memory space after loading, allowing future instances of the program to start much more quickly than it otherwise would have. This replaces the prelinking capability that was being worked on earlier in the project's history, as the resident support is much more efficient. Large programs like those found in KDE Software Compilation with many shared libraries will benefit the most from this support.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonFly_BSD

And someone else mentioned it, BSDs ars real UNIXes they where directly forked from early UNIX before OSes like Linux existed. BSDs always had freer OS licences and they had Amiga support before Linux had it.

Unfortunately BSDs ran into some licence problems 30 years ago, giving Linux the chance to grow from a rather obscure project into the leading OpenSource Unix like OS.

Today Linux has a much better driver support than BSDs but I never understood why Amigans preferred 68k Linux over 68k NetBSD.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 22-Dec-2016 0:31:07
#9 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 587
From: Trondheim, Norway

As someone who have used both NetBSD and Linux on Amiga since NetBSD 1.0 back in 1994, and Linux/m68k even a little before that - yeah, the rumour that BSDs were first on Amiga is .... not really true, the Linux/m68k guys had something working just as early, to argue about who were first of them is not really meaningful... anyways, I have always preferred Linux over NetBSD on Amiga for several reasons:

* better framebuffer support on Linux, multiple consoles (alt-F1, alt-F2 etc)
* much more "forward thinking", whereas BSDs tend to be stuck in the past
* much more flexible and versatile, with many libcs to chose from, busybox etc.
* harware support - NetBSD has its share of hardware supported that Linux does not support, but in general the hardware support on Linux/m68k has been more "relevant".
* less archaic build systems, for both kernel, "base" and userland
* portability - a lot of software projects is written on Linux, and are easyier to build and run on Linux

For what it is worth, I have colleagues who are/have been deeply involved in the NetBSD project, and we do have these friendly "wars" over lunch every now and then :)

Last edited by kolla on 22-Dec-2016 at 12:32 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Beans 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 22-Dec-2016 1:34:21
#10 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 26-Aug-2016
Posts: 251
From: Bear Delaware USA

@kolla

Linux has always been a poor choice for 68k family cpus.
As someone who worked with process control OS' with the 68K when Linux was in its infancy, I can assure you there were and are better alternatives.
Linux based OS' are bloated, messy, monolithic kernel based knock offs of UNIX.
To this day, operating systems based on real UNIX derivatives like OSX and Solaris are far more appealing to me.

Yes, current open BSD operating systems are behind the curve in development when compared to Linux, but the majority of the real flaws in BSD are present in Linux based OS' as well.

What we need, is a truly creative approach that eschews all this dated legacy crap and takes a fresh approach.

Last edited by Beans on 22-Dec-2016 at 03:32 AM.
Last edited by Beans on 22-Dec-2016 at 03:31 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 22-Dec-2016 9:51:19
#11 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 587
From: Trondheim, Norway

@Beans

OK then, let's do this... lol :p

* Linux is a fine choice for m68k, supporting the whole processor range and more devices than any other operating system kernel, and m68k is actively supported and maintained.

* With exception of NetBSD, m68k is not supported in any of the BSDs.

* Linux is as bloated as you make it. Thanks to all the embedded use of Linux and choices for libc and userland, there is no problem scaling down. uCLinux has become industry standard for 68k and ColdFire based microcontrollers.

* Compared to so called real UNIX, such as AIX, Solaris, HPUX and yeah, macOS, Linux is not at all bloated. The free BSDs are no worse nor better than Linux in this regard, it is just a matter of what you package into your distro.

* Darwin and Illumos do not exist for m68k, and they for sure have their quirks and flaws... for example, Apple keeps messing up Darwin with brokenness (such https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/10/11/poll-on-mac-10-12-is-broken/), but noone is capable of holding Apple or Oracle up against the wall and OpenGroup lets them pass.

* Main dislike on Linux these days is systemd, funny that you don't mention it.

* The BSDs are moving over to Linux-like approaches, FreeBSD (and TrueOS, GhostBSD etc) are moving to packaging "base" system and kernel as well, TrueOS just moved to OpenRC that Gentoo have been using since its infancy, Linux is getting official ZFS support... the lines between Linux and BSDs are washed away more and more.



Fresh approaches come and go all the time, why not grab a raspberry pi and run Plan9 on it? :)

Last edited by kolla on 22-Dec-2016 at 10:10 AM.
Last edited by kolla on 22-Dec-2016 at 09:53 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Beans 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 22-Dec-2016 11:18:43
#12 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 26-Aug-2016
Posts: 251
From: Bear Delaware USA

@kolla

I've thought about the Pi now that the 3 is out.

And I don't agree with you that Linux isn't bloated.
The kernel itself (which IS Linux) has grown to a rediculous size.
As it always has, software grows to eat up whatever resources are available, and with dirt cheap memory, efficiency has gone out the window.

And yes, BSD has become incresingly Linux like, with some variants able to run Linux binaries.
It was never my intention to favor one over the other, except that I DO really have a problem with Torvalds position on microkernel (primarily because its wrong, they have served us well in UNIX-like process control OS' for about three decades - again, almost predating Linux).

The fresh approach I am thinking about would take size and efficiency into consideration.
One of the things I like about AmigaOS and its variants is their compact sizeI and conservative hardware requirements.

Last edited by Beans on 22-Dec-2016 at 11:21 AM.
Last edited by Beans on 22-Dec-2016 at 11:19 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Rose 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 22-Dec-2016 13:59:55
#13 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 5-Nov-2009
Posts: 516
From: Unknown

@kolla

Quote:
* much more "forward thinking", whereas BSDs tend to be stuck in the past


Take a wild guess why Amigans are so fond of BSD

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 22-Dec-2016 14:19:31
#14 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 8203
From: Greensborough, Australia

@ferrels

Quote:
I've used it but it isn't even remotely Amiga-like.


But then you said:

Quote:
What I mean by poorly supported is that driver support is almost non-existent as far as GPU hardware goes and very weak in other areas. I could barely get it running


That's exactly Amiga-like!

But I get the feeling still that DragonFly has as much as common with the Amiga as some actor who is also a Matt Dillon.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
bison 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 22-Dec-2016 15:04:07
#15 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 18-Dec-2007
Posts: 821
From: N-Space

@kolla

Quote:
Linux is as bloated as you make it.

I did some ad hoc testing on Linux memory use a few days ago by booting from a USB drive, opening a terminal, and running free -m. The results, from low to high:

1. Tiny Core 7.2 FLWM -- 72 MB

2. Raspbian x86 (beta) PIXEL -- 124 MB

3. Linux Mint 17.3 FLWM -- 177 MB

4. Lubuntu 14.04.1 LXDE -- 207 MB

5. Linux Mint 18 Xfce -- 254 MB

6. Linux Mint 18.1 MATE -- 267 MB

7. Linux Mint 18.1 Cinnamon -- 334 MB

8. Linux Mint 18 KDE -- 342 MB

9. Fedora 25 Gnome -- 526 MB


Quote:
Main dislike on Linux these days is systemd, funny that you don't mention it.

Well I'll get my 2 cents in: I don't like it.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
OneTimer1 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 22-Dec-2016 20:57:45
#16 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 3-Aug-2015
Posts: 165
From: Unknown

Quote:

kolla wrote:
As someone who have used both NetBSD and Linux on Amiga since NetBSD 1.0 back in 1994, ...


I had NetBSD 0.9 on my A1200

Software for NetBSD 68k is binary compatible with Software for the SunOS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunOS) Workstations that where used in AOS development by Commodore. That's why BSD 68k played a major role in development of AOS beyond AOS3.1

Last edited by OneTimer1 on 22-Dec-2016 at 09:37 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Signal 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 23-Dec-2016 14:32:59
#17 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 1-Jun-2013
Posts: 414
From: USA

@Beans

Quote:

Beans wrote:
@kolla

I've thought about the Pi now that the 3 is out.

And I don't agree with you that Linux isn't bloated.
The kernel itself (which IS Linux) has grown to a rediculous size.
As it always has, software grows to eat up whatever resources are available, and with dirt cheap memory, efficiency has gone out the window.


I have a RPi3 and the Linux kernel is ~4MB on disk. Of course once it's booted and the usable system loads up more RAM is consumed.

On the A1X1k if you strip out all the unnecessary stuff the kernel can be around 7MB, and perhaps even smaller. However, there does not seem to be any community support or enthusiasm for doing so. Custom computer, non-custom kernel. Meh!

_________________
We the people....

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 24-Dec-2016 16:58:33
#18 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 587
From: Trondheim, Norway

@OneTimer1

Quote:

Software for NetBSD 68k is binary compatible with Software for the SunOS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunOS) Workstations that where used in AOS development by Commodore. That's why BSD 68k played a major role in development of AOS beyond AOS3.1


Yes, that was one of the strongholds of NetBSD at the time, is it still valid? I never had any 68k SunOS software that I needed to have running :) Are you sure about _beyond_ OS3.1? From what I understand, by the time of OS3, AmigaOS was more or less self hosting, and did not rely on SunOS anymore.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 24-Dec-2016 17:04:13
#19 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 587
From: Trondheim, Norway

@bison

Quote:

1. Tiny Core 7.2 FLWM -- 72 MB
2. Raspbian x86 (beta) PIXEL -- 124 MB
3. Linux Mint 17.3 FLWM -- 177 MB
4. Lubuntu 14.04.1 LXDE -- 207 MB
5. Linux Mint 18 Xfce -- 254 MB
6. Linux Mint 18.1 MATE -- 267 MB
7. Linux Mint 18.1 Cinnamon -- 334 MB
8. Linux Mint 18 KDE -- 342 MB
9. Fedora 25 Gnome -- 526 MB


Where is OpenWRT? Where is OpenEmbedded? All those distros you list are for x86 systems that typically have plenty of RAM, so they do not focus on low memory footprint.

I have Linux systems with only 8, 16 or 32MB of RAM (MIPS, ARM and 68k), and they run just fine, it is a matter of being selective about what you build into the kernel and what libc and userland you build.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: DragonFly BSD
Posted on 24-Dec-2016 17:18:52
#20 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 587
From: Trondheim, Norway

@Signal

Quote:

The kernel itself (which IS Linux) has grown to a rediculous size.


Does it have too many features for you? Does it support too much hardware? Is the networking options too many? Is it simply too advance for you to configure? I use 4.9 kernels on the same systems that I used to run 1.2.118 on way back in the days, and the kernel is about the same size.

Quote:

I have a RPi3 and the Linux kernel is ~4MB on disk. Of course once it's booted and the usable system loads up more RAM is consumed.


By design. And there is nothing wrong about using all RAM available. The concept of "free RAM" is alien in UNIX, RAM is allocated dynamically to hold filesystem cache and whatever else that is usefull.

Quote:

On the A1X1k if you strip out all the unnecessary stuff the kernel can be around 7MB, and perhaps even smaller. However, there does not seem to be any community support or enthusiasm for doing so. Custom computer, non-custom kernel. Meh!


Yes, PowerPC binaries tend to be larger. However, have you ever compared AIX binaries vs. DarwinBSD binaries vs. Linux binaries, all on PowerPC? Have you checked how much RAM AmigaOS4 consumes?

What is it that you consider "unnecessary stuff" in the kernel? Remember, a lot of that stuff is hardware drivers, which vary in size depending on the hardware you have. You don't _have_ to use hardware that requires large drivers.

Between OS4.1, Linux and NetBSD, which do you think is most usable os CSPPC with 128MB RAM?

My m68k kernels are typically around 2-2.5MB, and they have been like that for a very, very long time.

Last edited by kolla on 24-Dec-2016 at 05:21 PM.
Last edited by kolla on 24-Dec-2016 at 05:20 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( 1 | 2 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright 2000 - 2017 Amigaworld.net.

Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle