Talk:DragonFly BSD/Archive 1

Journalling
Maybe it would be nice to add a bit about the journalling that Matt is implementing at the moment. He's already explained a lot about how he's planning to do it. --Emiel Kollof

Feb 21
I request the changes of Feb 21 to be reverted. Whoever made it can contact me offline for further discussion, but as a DragonFly programmer I consider it very insulting. But exactly because I am personally involved, I don't want to do it myself. --Joerg Sonnenberger


 * I concur with Joerg. --Devon H. O'Dell


 * As do I. --Sascha Wildner


 * Agreed; those edits were definitely not NPOV- they should be reverted, and that address watched. -- Maru Dubshinki

CARP coming soon
An initial patch for adding OpenBSD's CARP support to DragonFly has been recently submitted. Still not in the main code, but it seems it will be done soon after finishing IPv6 support and a bit of more work.

CARP is in the main tree (1.11) already.

SYSLINK
Mentioning SYSLINK on the article would be very interesting, as this is one of the future most important technologies for the clustering goals.

LOCK
One of you BSD guys should write a new page about the history of the Big Giant [kernel] Lock. 129.105.140.128 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

FIXME!
The section "Future Directions" needs a fair amount of attention. For example active work on implementing the ability to support userspace filesystems is now underway as part of Matt's work on his new clustering filesystem (slated for inclusion in version 2.0 this coming winter). Work is also underway to port DragonFly to the AMD64 platform, but it is not known if this will be done in time for 2.0.

The journaling work I believe is essentially done, and if this is the case, mention of it should probably be removed from this section. Work on making the kernel MP safe is ongoing, but at the moment slow. It would be nice to get something in this section detailing the current state of SMP support as well as what needs to be done before DragonFly has any hope of competing with other systems in this area.

Also despite writing a quick blurb on the 1.10 release, I've not mentioned much of what is new and distinctive about it; for example nothing about SYSREF or the SYSLINK protocols was mentioned. It would be appreciated if someone more familiar with those topics could fix up the 1.10 release section.

Thank you for any attention you can provide :)

24.226.127.231 10:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Updates
Although the page contained alot of useful information, some of the sections, particularly "Future directions" was getting to be pretty out of date. Much of the last day has been spent fixing this up, and reorginizing things.

The "Releases" section now has short descriptions of the first two DragonFly releases, now containing information that was previously in "Additional features," and "Future directions." "Additional features" is now a part of "Scalability improvements" as the information remaining there best fits under that section.

The "Future directions" section has been broken up into a number of subsections to make it more readable, and has been updated to reflect progress that has been made by the project over the past year.

The journaling work is now mentioned, as well as some basic things that somehow got missed in earlier updates.

24.226.125.40 14:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

About Citrus
Citrus is now mentioned because of adding it and mentioned as added in 1.4 release, but I think someone must give a lot more importance about Citrus in the article, because it is really very interesting for DragonFly BSD.

&mdash;Timofonic 18:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Logo
When I found this page late last year, it was nearly a direct copy of the DragonFly BSD home page, and was not very informative. Over the last few months David Gerard and I have made some nice progress replacing the original content with more useful, accurate information, describing the project, it's accomplishments and it's goals in a fair and neutral manner, as well as presenting the material so that it is fairly easy to read. It's turning out to be a fun first project for me.

I would very much like to add the project's logo to the right of the Table of contents. I am waiting to hear back from the site's maintainer about this, as I am not sure if the logo is free to use. ----MJA 20:27, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I suspect it'd be covered by Fair use. Most pages on corporations feature their logos, for example. It's a judgement call --David Gerard 17:03, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/kernel/2005-04/msg00214.html


 * The logo is an original work by Joe Angerson, and the site maintainer (Justin C. Sherrill) thinks that Joe did the work expressly for the DragonFly BSD Project, and said that he thinks it's OK to use. It probably should be considered copyrighted by Joe Angerson or by Matt Dillon, but using it in this location shouldn't be an issue. ----MJA


 * Joe himself said his logo is bsdl, so there is no problem anymore.

Reverts
There is no evidence that the changes brought into FreeBSD5, which Dillion disagreed with, can be charecterized as problems, while he may see those changes as cumbersome, someone else may disagree, saying that they didn't cause these problems. Since their nature is debatable, it should be noted that the problems were suspected, not proven fact. As for the slab allocator, it was adopted nearly 2 years ago, the comment is outdated, not needed, and pointless. It seems to be implying some advantage over FreeBSD5, from an outdated statement. The change of "improvements" and "features" to changes was sought to make it more POV neutral. Just small things.


 * NPOV does not mean "write ambiguously to avoid making a statement someone might disagree with." For example, the changes to scalability are designed to improve scalability; therefore, they are scalability improvements. I don't see how that could possibly be taken as POV. To take another example, adding variant symlinks is obviously a feature, not just a "change". While calling it a "change" is not inaccurate, calling it a feature is both more accurate and in accord with NPOV. Neilc 04:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Alright, I was just wondering, There's a reason I put Please Review in the change summery, I don't want to argue. I'll change those back. I stand by the other edits though.


 * You don't want to argue? Aww, come on! :) Anyway, glad we got this resolved; I'm fine with the slab allocator removal. BTW, a bit of friendly advice: it is considered standard wikipedia practice to "sign your name" at the end of your comments via ~ . Neilc 05:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, on NPOV and usernames. I was considering doing that. But I didn't have an account, now I do! Sepht 07:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Logo, part II
The logo depicted in the article is not the official DragonFly logo. It was created by Devon H. O'Dell because the license status of the official logo was not clear at that time. This issue has now been resolved, see http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/kernel/2005-04/msg00214.html (which also contains a link to the archive with the official logo). This means the official logo could now be uploaded to Wikipedia. --192.131.117.85 13:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SSI
Can someone explain what the purpose of "secure anonymous clustering over the internet" is? What would be the point of that? Why would you want to share system resources with someone you don't know?

This can be useful in certain ways. Imagine something like distributed.net but using this, or generating pkgsrc builds with the shared resources from a percentage of DragonFly users. This could make easier the generation of binary packages and even accelerate the package testing. Apply this to other stuff, like a great project with very large codebase that needs daily builds but not enough resources for generating the binaries, users can collabore. 87.217.10.25 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Date of Latest Release
On the top, this date is apparently January 7, 2006, but later on, it appears to change to January 8, 2006. Which is it? Armedblowfish


 * See the project site, which indicates the former is correct. Mind  matrix  20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Stable and unstable are listed same. Should they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Implements (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

On Portal:Free software, DragonFly is currently the selected article
Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was OpenWrt. Gronky 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, time goes by, and now Iceweasel is the selected article. Gronky 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research
A lor of this article seems to be original research. I'm in no way casting doubt on the truthfullness of this article, but it could use a lot more referencing, and possibly a more encyclopedic tone. Fortunately, there seems to be a large amount of external links, which I haven't researched yet, and could possibly be used to reference a lot of claims in the article. I haven't put up any fact's, or's or other templates in the body of the article, but it seems there is still a lot of work to do. I'll get started soon, but I'm quite low on wikitime at the moment, and would appreciate any help in fixing the issue. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision control system - GIT is being used, not CVS!
The article states that CVS is used for the project's RCS, but DragonFlyBSD now uses Git for it's revision control system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.178.4.128 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Inline citations
I just tagged this article with refimprove. There is a lot of information in the article and only 4 citations, and one of them is a dead link that I just tagged, so I think article tagging is justified. Btornado (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid architecture
The article allegate that DragonFly is Hybrid, while in reality it has a microkernel and servers are located to user space as it is on other server-client architecure operating systems. The marketing "hybrid kernel" is not used in technical terms, only as marketing points and even Microsoft has dropped that off because it just brought lots of problems between marketing people and engineers. The architecture is needed to be changed to Server-Client from false "Hybrid". Golftheman (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a DragonFly user, but I'm a long-time systems programmer, Unix, BSD, and other, old-time Amiga programmer, and reading the description, I think of "hybrid", not "server-client". The use of a microkernel does not make an OS server-client. That Microsoft has dropped the use of the term "hybrid" is not relevant (carefully not really saying what I really think of Microsoft.) htom (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not FreeBSD
Please stop adding. DragonFly BSD is not FreeBSD any more than OpenBSD is NetBSD. DES (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Release history
The release history is becoming too long to occupy adequate space (relative to the other content). May be we could reorganise it into table? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * , though it needs further improvements (careful reading through release notes and highlights from secondary sources), but I'm a bit tired (I was working more then 12 hours on this article) and I want to give everybody a chance to revert this move until it becomes difficult. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Outdated information
Could please someone point out the outdated information in the article and may be put some links here for the info that should be incorporated in the article? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)