3 ms·
This project has intrigued me for a long time. I seriously believe it could eventually become the premiere BSD-flavor OS. Although given all the low-level cha
by datashovel 12y ago
This project has intrigued me for a long time. I seriously believe it could eventually become the premiere BSD-flavor OS. Although given all the low-level changes they've made it may not be easy to "label" it BSD in the future.
- estrabd 12y agoFreeBSD itself has diverged significantly from its own 4.x release, which is where DFBSD forked. I would still call DragonFlyBSD a "BSD" now and in the future since it still leverages a lot of work from FreeBSD (and other BSDs) to this day. It would be stupid to not continue to leverage the upstream work.
- datashovel 12y agoAgreed. I think it's a fantastic ecosystem, and they should all continue to feed off one another. A great example was discussed in the interview. The decision to integrate FreeBSD ports will almost certainly make it easier for folks who are considering adopting / experimenting with it. (not a recent decision, but an important one)
- duaneb 12y agoI would say the primary identifier of BSD systems are their interface with the kernel, the userland, and the license. DragonflyBSD is a true BSD to the kernel; the implementation details may differ, but you can compile most freebsd code for dragonfly with no changes and have it run perfectly (or as well as dragonfly can swing it).
- datashovel 12y agoNot disagreeing, but I found the following quote from the site interesting and helpful to understand where they're coming from: http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/howtos/howtonewkerneldeveloper/ http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/howtos/howtonewkerneldevelo... "While DragonFly was forked off FreeBSD and has generally quite a few similarities to other *BSD, you definitely cannot rely on understanding FreeBSD to understand what's going on here."