FreeBSD 10.1 Released 123
An anonymous reader writes Version 10.1 of the venerable FreeBSD operating system has been released. The new version of FreeBSD offers support for booting from UEFI, automated generation of OpenSSH keys, ZFS performance improvements, updated (and more secure) versions of OpenSSH and OpenSSL and hypervisor enhancements. FreeBSD 10.1 is an extended support release and will be supported through until January 1, 2017.
Adds reader aojensen: As this is the second release of the stable/10 branch, it focuses on improving the stability and security of the 10.0-RELEASE, but also introduces a set of new features including: vt(4) a new console driver, support for FreeBSD/i386 guests on the bhyve hypervisor, support for SMP on armv6 kernels, UEFI boot support for amd64 architectures, support for the UDP-Lite protocol (RFC 3828) support on both IPv4 and IPv6, and much more. For a complete list of changes and new features, the release notes are also available.
When will FreeBSystemD be released? (Score:3, Funny)
That's nice, but when will FreeBSystemD be released?
Re: When will FreeBSystemD be released? (Score:1)
Why not port the windows registry into the kernel instead? Heck why not rewrite the whole OS in ruby????
Re: (Score:2)
Torvalds has said he might rewrite the kernel in VB one day. With .NET going open source (one bit at the time) this might not be too far away.
I Switched To FreeBSD (Score:5, Informative)
I switched from Linux to FreeBSD a while ago. FreeBSD is so simple and clean, there's not all this extra bling running that I had with Linux. They have a good handbook right on their website that tells you how to do all the basics of system updating and installing things like browsers, email, video players and things. And as I use it I get the feeling that these guys are going to be around for a very long time, like I never have to worry anymore about whether my old Linux distro will just vanish with the few devs they had in comparison ending up leaving me stuck. FreeBSD is pretty huge it seems. They even have a nonprofit foundation that kicks in like a million bucks or so every year and as I read their page their projects show good results from it. Can't believe it took me so long to try FreeBSD. I'm sold and I'm never going back. Here is their foundation if you want to check them out too...
http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/
Re: (Score:2)
I think FreeBSD is great for a desktop BSD, but for servers the simplicity of OpenBSD is even better
Re: (Score:1)
OpenBSD has a lot of nice features, but sadly it has very poor SMP performance. A lot of cool technology originates from that project, but if your want an application or kernel feature to scale past a single core in the BSD world you'll be looking at FreeBSD. Just goggle a few articles on OpenBSD and SMP and you'll find plenty of evidence to support this. For example, here is some info related to using OpenBSD as a firewall with an SMP enabled kernel ... http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/perf.html. It's one of
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't notice any issues with OpenBSD smp for things like web serving, and with rthreads becoming the default libpthread lightweight threads have good performance
Re: (Score:1)
PC-BSD is pretty nice for a desktop OS. Unlike FreeBSD it's immediately ready for an end-user with a well thought-out environment.
One analogy might be PC-BSD is to FreeBSD what Linux Mint KDE is to Slackware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
compile KDE from ports (make config galore) or use the precompiled but
broken version (old Xorg) on the media.
Re: (Score:2)
[root@loki ~]# pkg search kde
kde-4.14.2
[root@loki ~]# pkg search xorg
xorg-server-1.12.4_9,1
Funny, they're binary packages, don't have to compile them, and it doesn't look broken to me. If it isn't xorg-server 1.16, SO WHAT?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OpenBSD is good for a firewall with specific hardware that performs well on OpenBSD.
Outside of that FreeBSD is far more likely to be what you want to use. OpenBSD is kind of like Oracle DB. It can serve its niche REALLY well, but using it feels like you're stuck in the 70s with some of the archaic crap it does. Due to its security related background, they don't do anything they don't have to. Which is fine, and the only way to go when security is your main concern.
Or you can run FreeBSD, which isn't cut
Re: (Score:2)
Performance wise, FreeBSD still maintains the fastest network stack on the planet
Proof to that?
Re:I Switched To FreeBSD (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
FreeBSD outperforms Linux only in certain scenarios. In most common cases you would hardly find any difference. Otherwise.
It is not the problem that Linux network stack sucks. The problem is that linux-netdev [marc.info] people believe that Linux network stack is already perfect.
AND. The biggest problem is with the certain Linus Torwalds who insists on perfect design for any net redesign.
That's why we still do not have interrupt polling/interrupt throttling or anything like pf [openbsd.org].
That's why we have the technically
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know you want security and all but that's a lot of installing/updating. Do your computers ever get any actual work done for their clients?
I can't make sense of your question. Note you're replying to a post that read "I weigh my considerations" meaning it's a thought process that does not involve updating servers or systems outside of perhaps a VM for evaluation.
Re: (Score:2)
The pf in FreeBSD is _seriously_ outdated
The pf in FreeBSD is not just a copy of the OpenBSD code that was then forgotten about. It has been worked on since it was imported, for example adding significantly better SMP scaling in the 10.0 release.
Re: (Score:3)
I think FreeBSD is great for a desktop BSD, but for servers the simplicity of OpenBSD is even better
If I were building a uniprocessor machine to do a high-security task, I might well choose OpenBSD. For literally any other purpose, or if I already own the hardware and compatibility might be an issue, I won't even consider it, because literally every time I've tried to run it I've had problems with drivers. My first problem with it was a problem with the eepro100 that caused first lots of dropped packets, then panics. Not really what you want on your firewall.
OpenBSD is a good idea, but they don't care abo
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound like they don't give a shit, and don't care when their software fails on untested hardware. That's a lie.
I think reading the mailing lists pretty much backs it up. I've got a netbook with a super-common NIC which is unsupported, a patch was contributed which consisted of just some values, and they declined the patch on the basis that the values came from linux and that might be a GPL violation, which it explicitly isn't. They just didn't want to absorb the patch for some reason. That's just the failure I encountered the last time I tried to use OpenBSD, but something like that happens every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps, being the developers of a system rather than users, they know better than you? Did you actually post on the ML to find out more,
No, I actually read the mailing list archives to see that the patch had been contributed, they had complained about it, and then it was contributed again. Then there were no responses. If someone posting a working patch has no chance to get a positive response, what chance do I have? The mailing list archives told me it would be a fat fucking waste of time. Someone actually handed them a working patch which broke nothing and they decided it wasn't worth committing. But the patch no longer applies and I don'
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Lets just hope that the FreeBSD devs don't become like some linux devs by shitting all over their users while jerking each other off.
Re:I Switched To FreeBSD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I Switched To FreeBSD (Score:5, Informative)
Many FreeBSD devs run "current" on production servers at their own jobs.
A good example of this is Netflix. Because their infrastructure is designed to support server failures, they're quite happy to deploy random patches against -CURRENT on machines that saturate their network and disk bandwidth pretty much full time and report performance numbers. This has been a really good way of stress testing network and storage stack improvements recently.
Re: (Score:2)
I run PC-BSD, which is pretty much FreeBSD, albeit with a smoother installation and a wide choice of package managers. My only beef - the PC-BSD guys should add the role of writing device drivers for the OS, particularly for items not important to the server, but important for desktops. Centrino, for crying out loud, ain't supported. When you install the OS, it recognizes everything, except the Wi-Fi. While the FreeBSD guys may write drivers for everything else, the PC-BSD guys should take up drivers fo
Re: (Score:1)
He didn't. PC-BSD is just ixsystems employees. They get paid to work on it now.
However, asking to port wayland really means trying to make a replacement for Weston. Wayland has been ported in an experimental repository already but there is no compositor/window manager type thing for it. Some people hoped KDE or Gnome would make a portable one so the need would not be there. However, if they use the code from Weston it's still a non starter for any BSD.
The Wayland developers need to start writing portable
Re: (Score:2)
If a commercial driver exists, then it's supported, since BSDL allows a mixing & matching of liberated & unliberated software. I have no issues running Lumina or LXDE, and I've managed to tame KDE (disabled Nepomunk & Akonadi). Maybe b'cos it's just Intel Graphics? Only GNOME/GTK apps are a problem when run under a different DE. OTOH, none of the PC-BSD updates I've done to date has enabled the OS to recognize the built-in Wi-Fi that comes with the laptop. And it's not a no-name laptop or a
Re: (Score:2)
Or ... I've got an idea. Stick with X11. It works perfectly fine. Let the losers waste their time developing Wayland for some other OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I Switched To FreeBSD (Score:1)
Does OpenBSD have support for the enter key? What the hell happened to paragraphing long bodies of text.
Re:What's that smell? (Score:4, Funny)
That smell comes from that dead penguin over there. It blew its head off after failing to become the desktop OS during the past 20 years. To top it of, more and more server admins have started moving to *BSD.
He just could not take it anymore - SystemDisconnected
Re: (Score:2)
More like Windows Vista -> Windows 8.1. FreeBSD 7.x wasn't that long ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you ever say anything with any truth in it? The 4.x series was the worst in FreeBSD history as they switched on all the horrible SMP bits. No one used 4.x on anything that required stability.
I'm not sure you've used OpenBSD either by the words of your post.
Troll harder, will ya?
Re: (Score:2)
GP is a troll, no doubt, but my recollection was that it was 5.x series with the SMP bits starting to rollout (the start of the removal of GIANT). Am I misremembering?
Re: (Score:2)
The 4 series had legendary stability. The 5 series, not so much. I think by 5.3 it was stable enough for some purposes, and by 5.4 things were cleared headed in the right direction again. (How about you create a keyboard binding to output that phrase "Do you ever say anything with any truth in it?" and use the tim
Re: (Score:2)
... speechless incompetence is right. You're ranting about change that occurred in and cause problems because your customer skipped 3 versions of the OS and 6 years of updates ...
I'd say speechless incompetence would be the guy who didn't do proper testing.
I'd love for you to point out this change you're referring though since this pretty much sounds exactly like the sort of thing FBSD is known for NOT doing.
Re: (Score:2)
... speechless incompetence is right. You're ranting about change that occurred in and cause problems because your customer skipped 3 versions of the OS and 6 years of updates ...
I'd say speechless incompetence would be the guy who didn't do proper testing.
I'd love for you to point out this change you're referring though since this pretty much sounds exactly like the sort of thing FBSD is known for NOT doing.
Are you kidding ? You should grep the tree for __FreeBSD_version to find about the mess they are creating.
Re: (Score:3)
They overlapped 7 development with 8 for 3 years! I'm all for deliberate, incremental changes, but you had 3 whole years to think, "Huh, I wonder if this code will work on 8?" and then fix it. Do you think that the OS should be backward-compatible forever? You can always run 7 in a jail if you are really hard up.
My only exposure is through FreeNAS (Score:2)
However it certainly seems pretty robust to me, quite happy with it. Any ZFS performance improvements are definitely welcome, as long as very very good stability is maintained.
I've finally become someone who is happy to sit behind a few versions and wait. 9.2.1.6 FreeNAS here and I'm not moving to 9.3 until at least 3 months after it's settled.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing wrong with conservative in this context. Also, most people don't understand, but FreeBSD ports/packages are essentially individual rolling releases, and are not tied to the OS version. E.g., the current version of bash for the release 8 branch (yes, it's still supported) is 4.3.30. Release 9 - 4.3.30. Release 10 - 4.3.30. If you upgrade 10.0 to 10.1, the packages remain exactly the same version, and are stored in exactly the same repo directory. If you jump a major version, they actually switch to d
Re: (Score:2)
ZFS and its command utilities are comfy to operate. I think that the only advantage of FreeNAS over FreeBSD is that you don't have to mess with file sharing and other daemons.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds rather circular to me, but I get the idea. FreeNAS is more of a click-and-use solution.
Wheee! (Score:2)
I go to http://www.freebsd.org/release... [freebsd.org]
It says FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE may be downloaded via ftp from the following site:
But that site resets connection immediately
It says However before trying this site, please check your regional mirror(s) first by going to:
Yeah well they don't have a regional mirror for the USA. I mean, that is it. I know because I tried.
So then I tried Canada's regional mirror, because it seemed logical. There is no FreeBSD directory on it. Guess that's not a FreeBSD mirror any more.
So t
Re: (Score:2)
It works, what are you talking about?
The site presumably recovered from slashdotting. And in any case, simply following the instructions if it should fail doesn't work if you're a citizen of the USA, where FreeBSD is probably most common.
It's not like I'm deciding not to try it because it took me multiple steps to download the ISO. I just don't understand why it still takes multiple steps to get my hands on it in 2014.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't have any trouble at all downloading the ISO the day BEFORE the release announcement appeared.
Re: (Score:2)
i'd be careful with this one (Score:2)
the entire build for amd64 and x86 has moved to the llvm compiler and clang
this is a gigantic plus in the long run, llvm/clang is a great project, and having such a widely used operating system out in the wild relying on it will only bring good.
changing to an entirely different compiler *could* expose new and interesting problems or bugs that can't be anticipated until the code is run by the masses in all different environments. this could be stuff that's very hard to find during release candidate testing.
Re: (Score:2)
the entire build for amd64 and x86 has moved to the llvm compiler and clang
We flipped the default switch in 10.0, but 9.x shipped with a src.conf option to build with clang instead of gcc. We found quite a few LLVM bugs during this time and didn't flip the switch until we were confident that it would work.
Re: (Score:2)
10.0 used LLVM/clang 3.3 by default. Worked fine for me with the exception of not having support for some C++11 features (e.g. no typeinfo for std::nullptr_t). 10.1 is using LLVM/clang 3.4, which should solve those issues. That said, they would only be noticed if you're specifically using C++11; you'd also need a recent GCC if you stuck with GCC. 3.4 is a good improvement over 3.3.
That's not to say there aren't bugs in various packages which haven't been identified yet, but this is the same toolchain th
Behyve for AMD processors (Score:3)
It says they synced the bhyve code with CURRENT but I didn't found anything mentioning anything about making it available to AMD processors.
UDP-lite (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FreeBSD (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
which itself is descended from Version 7 Unix, although since 4.4BSD-Lite there's no real Unix code any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
which itself is descended from Version 7 Unix, although since 4.4BSD-Lite there's no real Unix code any longer.
Been a while since I used Version 7, but it is what I learned Unix on. The command list was a lot easier to learn then. BSD still feels the same from the command line. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FreeBSD (Score:5, Funny)
The Wayback machine only shows 18 years for whitehouse.gov. What's this horseshit about 1776?
Re:FreeBSD (Score:5, Informative)
... Freebsd.org itself was registered in 1994, and has roots in the original Berkley Software Distribution which is what it started from. BSD started in 1977, which was 37 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
Its pretty difficult to get another large OS with the history that FBSD comes from, even counting Windows.
Ironically, archive.org ... was registered in 1995.
Yes, the FreeBSD domain is older than the site you're trying to use as a reference of saying that its not old.
Re:FreeBSD (Score:5, Informative)
FreeBSD 1.0 was released November 2 1993. The 21st anniversary [freebsd.org] was just a few days ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and before somebody asks, Linux 1.0 [wikipedia.org] was released 14 March 1994.
FreeBSD was there first.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and before somebody asks, Linux 1.0 [wikipedia.org] was released 14 March 1994.
FreeBSD was there first.
True enough, but I was using (IIRC) SVr3 (HP/UX) in '91, SunOS 4.0.x (BSD)in '92 and (Yggdrasil as I recall) Linux v0.91 in '93. You got the order right, but the dates wrong, friend.
As for the quibbling about who killed who [computerhope.com], that link should help.
Re: (Score:2)
Your interesting anecdotes do not in any way contradict the FACTS. I was using SysV in the early 80s. So what.
You might as well point out that BSD's first release was in 1977. Doesn't in any way change the 1.0 dates for FreeBSD and Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Your interesting anecdotes do not in any way contradict the FACTS. I was using SysV in the early 80s. So what.
You might as well point out that BSD's first release was in 1977. Doesn't in any way change the 1.0 dates for FreeBSD and Linux.
And your fetish about 1.0 versions doesn't change the facts either. Those facts being listed in the posted link. Have a lovely day!
Re: (Score:2)
FreeBSD was there first.
Lol, no. You're comparing the version of a kernel (Linux) with a distribution or flavour (FreeBSD). Slackware Linux 1.0 was released July 17th, 1993. Yggdrasil Linux was released in 1992.
Re: (Score:1)
You're trying really hard, but it's not working. Slackware 1.0 boasted Kernel source and image at .99pl11 Alpha [slackware.com]. Yggdrasil had 0.98.1 version of the Linux kernel [wikipedia.org].
1.0 to 1.0 or it's a bullshit comparison.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)