Jordan Hubbard - FreeBSD: The Next 10 Years

link , slides 32 and 33: "etc/rc.d is quite sophisticated for what it does, but the paint on /etc/rc is obvious" "Too many things need to know explicitly about dependencies" "Even the Linux die-hards have essentially grasped the necessity of systemd" Talk is by Jordan Hubbard, FreeBSD co-founder ( link ) Discussion at link , video at ▶ this video (49 minutes)

> Instead, you're ignoring all of the flaws I listed in favor of a red herring dismissal by focusing on my criticism of your question. Not everything revolves around your feelings. I'm not ignoring the issue you have pointed out, rather It would be nice to hear about nosh. There's significantly more information about launchd than nosh, for example launchd has two videos, explaining the reasoning and methodology for bringing in launchd and the other apple libraries. FreeBSD next 10 years: ▶ this video NextBSD intro: link A quick search on google and their are no videos about nosh. The nosh website doesn't contain much information about the design of nosh. Looking around the source of nosh the various html files look promising and i'm going through those. Unfortunately my c++ skills are inadequate to judge the code quality of nosh effectively. Which on a side note I think will hurt nosh chances of being adopted, because the open source os world seems biased to using C. I't just harder to find stuff out about nosh and you seemed knowledgeable on the subject, hence the original question. So is there any good documentation on nosh besides the source it's self?

It is perplexing that someone who you deem to be "historically and technically illiterate" and who you accuse of not "actually reading Haiku's scheme" actually has been reading the Haiku commit logs and can point to this : link "* This will be heavily inspired by Apple's launchd, as well as systemd -- for now it really doesn't do a whole lot, though." Note the "as well as" here. link "* This follows systemd design; since those jobs are fixed, it doesn't matter where you maintain them." And as far as FreeBSD is concerned : ▶ this video (At 27:23) I'm not sure who appears to be more historically and technically-challenged here. In the scope of Linux it is appropriate to call systemd revolutionary. Criticizing the choice of this term only shows how you are reduced to nitpicking word choices. Just like you are reduced to making assumptions about my historical and technical literacy. The part where you feel the need to show that you know some things like some teacher's pet is entertaining too. We'll let others judge whether the linked article is a based on an argument to moderation or not. Which it most definitely is. Just because you say it isn't doesn't make it so. I am enjoying making a fool out of you.

> compensates for a mish-mash of inefficient and insecure technology on the backend side of things. . . no matter how optimized and clean the back end is (relative to OS X) I'm not sure that's really an accurate characterization of OSX. In terms of security, I don't see where there have been any great number of exploits attacking the kernel (XNU) or userland (mostly FreeBSD) layers. Recent high-profile vulnerabilities like heartbleed were hardly OSX specific. I'm also not sure that those layers can really be called inefficient relative to Linux. Mach was a great deal more modular in terms of separation of concerns as compared to Linux (good for cleanliness/security, but never had great performance). However, with their XNU kernel, they seem to have made some of the same tradeoffs as Linux with respect to pure microkernel separation of concerns. OSX has also done, in my opinion, a good job of rethinking parts of the traditional Unix infrastructure that needed rethinking. Check out JKH's talk about FreeBSD and potential future directions, and see how much that is informed by his experience leading the Unix technologies group at Apple (for the record, JKH was also one of the cofounders of FreeBSD, so he's not exactly a slouch): ▶ this video I'd say the biggest reasons OSX never took off as a server OS are 1) licensing 2) coupling to Apple hardware 3) most of Apple's value-add is for desktops, laptops, and smaller portables--in other words, not compellingly better than other free nixe