Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 15:34:27 +0200 From: Alexander Yerenkow <yerenkow@gmail.com> To: lev@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD as read-only firmware Message-ID: <CAPJF9wmVPxMDBqyy=Dqdnb%2BZ33f_wLDx9CFbk_oSEx4inboK6A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1167404891.20121103170049@serebryakov.spb.ru> References: <CAPJF9wmO-oO7cy4XUwnTMb5cpD14TaK430rWW2nqodBFWw54DQ@mail.gmail.com> <1167404891.20121103170049@serebryakov.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2012/11/3 Lev Serebryakov <lev@freebsd.org> > Hello, Alexander. > You wrote 3 =CE=CF=D1=C2=D2=D1 2012 =C7., 16:14:21: > > AY> Hello all! > AY> Some time ago I got somewhere idea, that base OS should be RO - > readonly. > AY> And should be updated easily (ACID) and with possibility of fast > rollback. > Why it is better than nanobsd? > Of course, that's all IMHO and fit for my usage: 1) Same FreeBSD, as in laptop/desktop, (e.g. really same - GENERIC kernel is used, without dropping any kerberos or else), and yes, I know that nanobsd can that; 2) .vmdk simply deployed into Esxi/virtualbox (not sure nanobsd can produce that) 3) Transparent /etc/ modifiying VS nanobsd approach (edit, don't forget mount /cfg, copy there;) 4) Only OS, no packages included - e.g. I can upgrade/downgrade packages without touching any byte of OS. Except for symlinks :) nanobsd specified that if you want packages - you need built them in. Of course differences not so big, and I'm not saying that my way is more better. It just raised question deep in me - why OS still aren't modularized, and most of it not in RO (while it should). Something like this > -- > // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org> > > --=20 Regards, Alexander Yerenkow
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPJF9wmVPxMDBqyy=Dqdnb%2BZ33f_wLDx9CFbk_oSEx4inboK6A>