
FreeBSD Status Report, Jul-Sep 2015 - kryptiskt
https://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2015-07-2015-09.html
======
tw04
The focus of the general public remains around Linux, so it's exciting to see
so much progress on the BSD front. No need for a religious war, I'm happy to
see both projects maturing as they are.

------
0xcde4c3db
It was a nice surprise to see that a RISC-V port is in a semi-working state. I
didn't expect anybody to bother with that until next year at the earliest
since the supervisor mode spec is still a draft, but I guess commits are
cheap.

~~~
zxombie
It's being worked on in part to help find issues with the spec.

------
vezzy-fnord
Quite interesting to see JdeBP's nosh integration for FreeBSD notable enough
to be mentioned. Does this signify there is interest for getting it into base?
It would certainly be miles ahead over choosing launchd.

~~~
gonzo
"Core fielded an enquiry about NextBSD and whether this should be the future
direction for the whole FreeBSD project. Core's position is that NextBSD is an
interesting project, and we regard it, like the other BSD projects, as a
potential source of good ideas. However, we currently have no plans to adopt
NextBSD as the official FreeBSD distribution."

I don't see launchd coming to FreeBSD anytime soon.

~~~
A010
It's in the content, FreeBSD is developing nosh[0] for replacing init system.

[0]
[https://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2015-07-2015-09.h...](https://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2015-07-2015-09.html#The-
nosh-Project)

~~~
gonzo
FreeBSD is not developing nosh as a replacement for init.

Someone in the FreeBSD community is developing nosh, and it might, someday, be
a replacement for init. Might.

(I'm responsible for the IPSec bits in that report, and one of my employees
did the Allwinner A10/A20 stuff listed there.)

------
snvzz
I still prefer the Dragonfly fork, with its hybrid kernel architecture.

HAMMER2 is looking good.

~~~
subliminalpanda
Agreed. I would frankly like it to be adopted into OS X as a replacement for
HFS+

------
thinkingkong
Everytime I read about ZFS all I can think about is how awesome and improbable
it would be for Oracle to change the license on both ZFS and Dtrace so it can
just get shipped in mainline linux.

~~~
maheart
Debian[1] and Ubuntu[2] are both working on making ZFS first-class: easily
available and easily manageable.

[1] [http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ZFS-
Debia...](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ZFS-Debian-
Libdvdcss-Packages) [2]
[http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ubuntu-
ZF...](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ubuntu-ZFS-Standard-
Plans)

~~~
thinkingkong
Yes but without a change to the license itll never go into the kernel. While
that might make not change things operationally for some people, not having it
ship with the source means itll always be a second-class citizen.

~~~
kev009
That doesn't matter to anyone other than GPL fans in practical terms if Debian
and Ubuntu do their thing right.

~~~
unixhero
The GPL aside. Being accepted in the kernel would mean the immense rate how
development which happens there.

~~~
kev009
Again, that's from rosy GPL glasses. At worst, ZoL would be forever one or two
kernel releases behind (and is basically reality now), which means very little
to production users running LTS distros.

------
elktea
LUN clustering via CTL and multipath TCP both sound like killer applications
to me.

