Quote:
Originally Posted by hanzer
I'm thinking about how some of the DragonFlyBSD capabilities and features might be useful to OpenBSD users, developers and engineers.
|
Which ones? Why? Each would likely require rather invasive porting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanzer
I'm trying to get a probable architectural gist of how different the OpenBSD and DragonFlyBSD kernels are from each other, with an eye on engineering concerns.
|
To use your metaphor, their closest shared relative is 386BSD/4.4BSD Lite-2. Of course, that belies the code sharing between all the projects. But 1994-1995 is the last time these two OSes had shared architectural work, and that came from the Jolitzes and UCB. 20 years later...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanzer
And I wonder if it would make sense, theoretically, if a new generation of OpenBSD had some of (or all) the Dragonfly developer-engineer-operator tools/features and some of (or all) the process-cluster capabilities/possibilities (including HammerFS if it makes sense).
|
Preliminary HAMMER2 work is a GSoC project for OpenBSD this year. Note that the
entire project will only yield preliminary results. Much much more work will need to be done to have the full HAMMER2 file system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanzer
The engineer says, “The glass is twice as big as it needs to be”. |
Not any engineer at RPI if my department has anything to say about it!