Find all posts by Corona Hi, Functionally-speaking, you're absolutely correct of course - you couldn't with a straight face call an iPad a UNIX workstation. Has it ever been wildly popular? It's been influential but that's not the same thing. Much of that influence is from the BSD license. You can take anything you want, if you attribute or, apparently, even when you don't.
Bits and pieces of it have ended up in everything. I suspect it will remain what it's always been: A "reference implementation" for a standard system and kernel which you can build your own products out of. Join Date: Sep There is nothing "dead" about BSD. BSD variants in general are derived sometimes indirectly from 4. BSD provides many advanced features, including the following: Preemptive multitasking with dynamic priority adjustment. Smooth and fair sharing of the computer between applications and users is ensured, even under the heaviest of loads.
Multiuser access. Many people can use an OS X system simultaneously for a variety of things. This means, for example, that system peripherals such as printers and disk drives are properly shared between all users on the system or the network and that individual resource limits can be placed on users or groups of users, protecting critical system resources from overuse.
OS X can interoperate easily with other systems as well as act as an enterprise server, providing vital functions such as NFS remote file access and email services, or Internet services such as HTTP, FTP, routing, and firewall security services.
Memory protection. Applications cannot interfere with each other. One application crashing does not affect others in any way. Virtual memory and dynamic memory allocation. Applications with large appetites for memory are satisfied while still maintaining interactive response to users. With the virtual memory system in OS X, each application has access to its own 4 GB memory address space; this should satisfy even the most memory-hungry applications.
Support for kernel threads based on Mach threads. User-level threading packages are implemented on top of kernel threads. Each kernel thread is an independently scheduled entity. When a thread from a user process blocks in a system call, other threads from the same process can continue to execute on that or other processors.
By default, a process in the conventional sense has one thread, the main thread. SMP support. Support is included for computers with multiple CPUs.
Source code. Developers gain the greatest degree of control over the BSD programming environment because source is included. Find all posts by Neo. Red Hat. The paragraph estimating the number of BSD users for example is very clearly absurd. The fact that many of the claims are easy to rebut increases the likelihood someone will respond. Incorrect claims. For example, the Netcraft survey actually shows that a large portion of the highest uptime machines on the Internet are running BSD.
It portrays opinions as facts. The tone is authoritative , which further encourages people to reply to correct the "mistakes". The fact that it is clearly absurd makes it even funnier when people reply :o BSD is dying has spawned a number of children. There also seems to be some kind of BSD is dying song. FreeBSD responded to the 30 kernel bugs in about a week and fixed a few in their source code repository. However, the software project released only a handful of advisories, and "the status of the rest is unknown at the moment," according to van Sprundel.
The lack of developers hurts FreeBSD's security, not only in their ability to respond to bug reports, but also to implement new, industry-standard security features, Argyroudis suggests.
He also questions whether FreeBSD's network stack is still a killer feature. I would definitely be skeptical about that. Maste disagrees. It remains unclear, however, how badly these reported vulnerabilities affect Apple laptops. The Darwin kernel has diverged sharply from the FreeBSD of 15 years ago, and OS X has received a great deal more scrutiny from security researchers over the years.
I have no idea how much of it applies to them. There's probably a couple of bugs that apply there. Apple did not respond to our request for comment, and Maste declined to speculate, pointing out that only Apple would know the answer to that question.
Popularity affects security, it turns out. More eyeballs on code means shorter bug lifetimes, and more developers means new security features reach users faster. The BSDs have lost the battle for mindshare to Linux, and that may well bode ill for the future sustainability of the BSDs as viable, secure operating systems. Measuring the popularity of the BSDs is difficult, however, Maste argues. Argyroudis remains pessimistic about the future of the BSDs.
0コメント