Re: Plans for 1.8+ (2.0?)

[Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd120@xxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     Believe me, I think about this all the time.  I frankly have no idea
>     whether 'DragonFly The OS' itself will survive the test of time,
>     but I guarentee you that everything we develop for 'DragonFly The OS',
>     especially more portable entities such as filesystems and cluster
>     protocols, *WILL*.
>
>     The moment you leave the context of the operating system codebase and
>     enter the context of userspace, you guarentee code survivability.

But isn't there a lot of kernel infrastructure in DragonFly that you
have done, to allow this stuff to run in userspace?  So won't any
other operating system need to have that infrastructure too?  Or will
it be fairly straightforward to, say, run MattFS under FUSE on Linux?

There would certainly be great interest in the Linux world in a robust
filesystem with the features you describe and a BSD licence.  Uptake
of ZFS has been slow because its licence conflicts with the GPL, so it
can't be put in the kernel.  The other filesystems on Linux don't do
anything revolutionary.

I've been running Linux for a while now, since a sane distro
(Debian/Ubuntu) lets me focus on work rather than struggling with
ports/pkgsrc everytime I want to install a package, but I seriously
want to install DragonFly on my next computer some weeks/months from
now... perhaps dual-booting with FreeBSD or NetBSD, so that I can
share my /home partition.

Rahul