Quote:
Originally Posted by J65nko
In their roadmap neither Hammer, nor native BSD binutils are being mentioned. |
It used to be
Just like single system image (SSI) was ultimate objective of DragonFlyBSD and quietly disappeared from radar screens. Rading Matt's (Matt Dillan) answer to the FreeBSD folks question " How hard would be to port HAMMER file system from DragonflyBSD to FreeBSD" I am guessing that Bitrig guys got disillusioned about porting HAMMER to OpenBSD. The way I read Matt's answer porting HAMMER to FreeBSD would require major work on FreeBSD kernel to bring it in line with DragonFlyBSD. Porting HAMMER to OpenBSD would probably require re-engineering entire OpenBSD kernel and making it essentially clone of DragonFly. So at least we know that it is now evil Theo who prevents people from porting HAMMER to OpenBSD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J65nko
They are using the LLVM clang compiler. The compiler toolchain is not in base, but in ports.
|
Are you saying that "Port elftoolchain to Bitrig" is no longer an objective.
If they dropped native binutils that is very disappointing
. That could have been their ultimate claim to fame. I am even more surprised that compiler toolchain is not in the base. What kind OS doesn't include tool chain in the base? How do you recompile OS without compiler? It almost feels like GCC is need to bootstrap LLVM on Bitrig.
I don't see any practical reason for Bitrig fork. OpenBSD got FUSE (sshfs and ntfs-3g) before them. I am sure ARM (both 32 and 64 bit multi user) support on OpenBSD is coming slowly but surely. KVM is wrong thing to do virtualization on OpenBSD. Why didn't they try to create Jail infrastructure for OpenBSD or Bhyvi native hypervisor?
Sorry to say this but Bitrig looks more and more like AerieBSD
