Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 07:02:37 -0400 From: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> To: malaizhichun@tom.com Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture Message-ID: <CAGBxaXmvde89R%2BREcup9PEV6SAzQAitwHn9og92uz51GYpu%2B%2BQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3f1496d1f598c84b3871b630f161256e152aca75.camel@tom.com> References: <3f1496d1f598c84b3871b630f161256e152aca75.camel@tom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Before getting into detail in the inline comments it is important to note there is small but very important philosophical difference in the design of FreeBSD and Linux. FreeBSD follows the core concept of the Hippocratic Oath: "Do no harm" (aka "if it is not broken don't fix it!") and Linsucks follows the completely idiotic Facebook mantra of: "Iterate fast and break things" (aka Only an idiot would use it in a life critical application.) Note I use FreeBSD in a "soft" life critical application... i.e. the application will not directly kill anyone if it fails, but a failure could lead to critical life saving information not being passed in a timely manner since the data being processed, in real-time, is from medical equipment. In short both as a personal preference and for reasons listed about I would rather use Windows then use Linsucks if FreeBSD was not available in roughly its current form. On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 3:16 AM kindu smith <malaizhichun@tom.com> wrote: > Hello, I am a user who likes UNIX-like systems. I have some experience > using GNU / Linux and some experience using freebsd. I like the > architecture of UNIX-like systems, but I am not proficient, so I just > want to mention some improvements. The idea of freebsd experience, > what is unscientific, welcome to advise. > What ever "improvements" are made to FreeBSD must IMO follow the do no harm thinking. Recently there has been a rash of linisms in the ports collection that completely violate the if it is not broken don't fix it aspect. > First of all, freebsd's architecture is very good, no need to invent > the wheel, but freebsd's installation interface and startup interface > are too old. It is time to make some changes. I think the freebsd with > microkernel will be more stable. The / boot / kernel directory is very > suitable for writing a small kernel, such as named core, and then > design some modules around and package it in this directory. Then, > under / boot, create some new directories such as EFI, API, ABI, model, > etc. to do EFI boot and application program interface, and user space > modules. I think this will be a perfect design. As for the design > pattern of the microkernel, you can refer to haiku (a clone of beos). > In addition, you need to redesign the installation interface and a > complete desktop environment, because this is very important for > novices. I don't think Gnome / kde / xfce or the like is used anymore. > It is designed for Linux, and the systemd it uses is not supported by > Freebsd. > I am writing this response in Firefox on XFCE on a FreeBSD 12.1 machine. So it is provably wrong that no one uses those desktops any more! If anything the GUI team needs to stop chasing after linsucks in every last possible way. I have experienced 5 waves of if is not broken don't fix issues in the last year and all 5 can be traced to the GUI team deciding to fix something that is not broken for no other reason (in their words) "to be more like how linux does it". The current one I am dealing with nothing that depends on QT will compile (including KDE) and the logging from cmake is to opaque to identify what the issue is. > The GPL agreement does not affect the use of freebsd code. Only > in this way can freebsd and linux form a differentiated competition, > can freebsd survive the huge wave of linux. > *NOT* according to GNU who says that all code linked against GPL (even if only calling it very indirectly) most be free beer (not just intellectual freedom). The BSD license allows small indedpend developers, like me, to actually make a living from selling our even when "linked" (as defined by GNU) against a BSD licensed product. A larger example is do you really think Apple (iOS and MacOS are based on BSD) in it's right mind would *EVER* sink billions (by now) into the R&D of something they where forced to give free to anyone who asked for it! (If you do think they should be forced to then you would likely be happier in N. Korea since it is the one remaining communist country). The BSD license is the perfect balance between intellectual freedom and the freedom to not starve unless you are subsidized by a large organization. -- Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGBxaXmvde89R%2BREcup9PEV6SAzQAitwHn9og92uz51GYpu%2B%2BQ>