Features in FreeBSD 12

By 10.x clustering tools will be coming into their own as part of base, and an ad hoc filesystem aggregator will cause numerous headaches for first time installers since they'll only want to allocate 512M for /var and that'll cause the aggregation database to barf and the whole system to grind to a halt.

In 2013 Oracle will cease developing zfs and 11.x will include the replacement for it: ufs3, but without all the crazy memory hogging. The second generation geom-based file system aggregator will be angry and have to be subdued with broom handles. This will lead to a festering resentment and all the aggregators will band together and take over Yahoo!, but of course nobody will care, cos it's Yahoo!

By 12.x, in late 2016 or so, the replacement for sysinstall will be in beta testing.
 
fronclynne said:
By 10.x clustering tools will be coming into their own as part of base, and an ad hoc filesystem aggregator will cause numerous headaches for first time installers since they'll only want to allocate 512M for /var and that'll cause the aggregation database to barf and the whole system to grind to a halt.

In 2013 Oracle will cease developing zfs and 11.x will include the replacement for it: ufs3, but without all the crazy memory hogging. The second generation geom-based file system aggregator will be angry and have to be subdued with broom handles. This will lead to a festering resentment and all the aggregators will band together and take over Yahoo!, but of course nobody will care, cos it's Yahoo!

By 12.x, in late 2016 or so, the replacement for sysinstall will be in beta testing.
Click to expand...

lol this made my day.:e
 
Not trying to steal the thread, but if somebody was to write a new, graphical installer, could he use something other than xorg, let's say sdl+directfb? Coming from a licence-wise perspective...
 
Zare said:
Not trying to steal the thread, but if somebody was to write a new, graphical installer, could he use something other than xorg, let's say sdl+directfb? Coming from a licence-wise perspective...
Click to expand...

What's wrong with MIT license?
 
What's wrong with MIT license?
Click to expand...

Nothing, but SDL/directfb aren't MIT licensed, they're LGPL.
I was asking that because it seems an overkill to use the whole X11 machinery to execute a simple installation program that needs exactly 3% of X11's features.

Doesn't directfb only work in FreeBSD on top of Xorg? Or has that changed recently?
Click to expand...

There have been reports of using directfb with FreeBSD's framebuffer.
However, the port version is two major revisions behind and the latest won't compile.
Probably beacuse configuration script isn't recognizing our native pthreads support.
 
All I know (Ohne etwas, aber, blah blah blah) is that it better effing support rs232, whatever the effing installer effing is. X11? Meh.
 
Instead of installing X.Org by the module, we'll have to install each individual file.

This will be made more manageable by the addition of the x11/xorggoodbyecruelmakeworld meta-port and will be updated sporadically due to port maintainers killing themselves after each major version revision.
 
Zare said:
Not trying to steal the thread, but if somebody was to write a new, graphical installer, could he use something other than xorg, let's say sdl+directfb? Coming from a licence-wise perspective...
Click to expand...

There are 5 or 6 different installers out there that are GUI, touchy feely, happy, etc.

sysinstall just needs to go and a simple non-bitrotted installer needs to be put in its place.
 
FreeBSD 12 will be outlawed as it allows users enter commands that perform real actions (including by a keyboard), worse still it allows owners to install and uninstall items and absolute worst of all change their user preferences

- that is as opposed to the prevailing version of Microsoft windows where the keyboard and mouse are no longer supported and "where do you want to go today" with "today we are taking you to" or in other words only content sanctioned and sanitised by MS will appear on the users display (notwitstanding BDODs). Any attempt to view content via google will result in lifetime license violation. Microsoft will take the US senate to court for being monopolistic and anti-competitive and win, similar action in Europe will fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top