Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

FreeBSD 9.0 Released 418

An anonymous reader writes "FreeBSD 9.0 has been released. A few highlights include: A new installer, bsdinstall(8) has been added and is the installer used by the ISO images provided as part of this release, The Fast Filesystem now supports softupdates journaling, and Kernel support for Capsicum Capability Mode, an experimental set of features for sandboxing support."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD 9.0 Released

Comments Filter:
  • Memory Requirements (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AmberBlackCat ( 829689 ) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @06:40PM (#38679102)
    Last week, I downloaded Fedora Core 16 and found that, for the first time, I was not able to update Linux on my Inspiron 8200. Because it has 512 megs of RAM and that install required more. Not sure why an installer requires 768 megabytes. So anyway, maybe that's a sign I should look at BSD.
  • by halfaperson ( 1885704 ) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @06:46PM (#38679148) Homepage
    Oh, you mean sell hardware and support to companies that wants to use Linux on their hardware? But I was just told that's companies didn't want that due to the GPL?
  • by MrHanky ( 141717 ) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @07:11PM (#38679354) Homepage Journal

    How would the BSD license have saved LG and others for signing patent licenses with Microsoft? Let me rephrase that: The BSD license would not have helped LG at all.

    Also, why the fuck should FOSS users care about what Apple does for their own closed-source OS? Before you say Darwin, consider the fact that not a single soul uses Darwin as his main OS. Why? Because it's shit.

  • Re:woohoo (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Brian Feldman ( 350 ) <(gro.DSBeerF) (ta) (neerg)> on Thursday January 12, 2012 @07:44PM (#38679720)

    You had problems developing BSD kernel code and not Linux? That's amazing. What kind of driver or system call did you work on? I've never heard of anyone saying the Linux kernel APIs are more coherent. Ever.

  • ZFS v28 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Maglos ( 667167 ) <cb AT webcb DOT ca> on Thursday January 12, 2012 @07:48PM (#38679752) Homepage
    ZFS v28 not a highlight? I just finished testing a 5tb Freebsd 9.0rc2 Supermicro server. ZFS v28 adds de-duplication and a removes rather nasty failure when an intent log device is removed. It also had built in support for the LSI HBA controller card I used, which made installation much easier. We'll save at least %40 with compression and de-dup but it does half write speeds with our xeon 5600(200MB/s down to 80MB/s) .
  • by preaction ( 1526109 ) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @08:13PM (#38680028)

    FreeBSD (and NetBSD and OpenBSD) have been around roughly as long as Linux has, since the early 1990s. How do you explain the fact that *BSD is a niche OS most users have never heard of, while usage of Linux skyrocketed and it became something that most Joe Sixpacks have at least heard of if not something they actually use as a Windows alternative?

    BSD had patent/copyright concerns from System V that were not fully addressed at the time Linux rose to prominence. This is why you hear "This is the year of the Linux desktop" instead of "This is the year of the BSD desktop". This is basic *nix history here, folks.

    It would appear that the GPL is superior in terms of attracting developers and establishing a userbase on standard PC hardware in a Windows-dominated world.

    Correlation is not causation.

  • by causality ( 777677 ) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @08:27PM (#38680214)

    I don't know who that is, but I'm happy to have such an impact on you. A Slashdot employee recently told me that my comments generate more moderations than any he's ever seen. If my opinions cause that much discussion, than I'm doing more than the usual "me too" posters, and I'll take nothing but terrible karma if it means my posts are making people think and react. And with the downmods I receive, I often do have terrible karma, and that's fine with me (said Slashdot employee also said he didn't consider me a troll). I'm a subscriber and see articles about half an hour before you do, and I will keep contributing regardless.

    Eh, understand that I have no dog in this fight. It doesn't really matter to me if you're an honest user or a shill. Anything you say about anything important to me will still be subject to all the usual tests of truth so I don't share this concern about your personal disposition or how you personally get your paycheck ...

    What follows is my personal opinion and I have no special insider information. Having said that, I wanted to emphasize that a Slashdot employee has quite a different perspective here. You know what generates page views? Controversy. If you did want to troll, you probably have their blessing as long as people respond to it and it generates lots of discussion.

    There's an emotional attachment to Android around here

    Man, there's an emotional attachment to just about everything that has no inherent relationship to any emotion. This isn't marriage or psychology we're discussing here. It's part of this general trend of emotional childishness that's been developing over the last couple of decades or so. The idea that you can have a personal opinion without feeling threatened by someone who does not subscribe to it is tragically becoming an endangered species. During the mid 1990s Bill Hicks said the USA, collectively, was at around an 8th-grade emotional level. I wonder if he was being generous. It's a real tragedy our society as a whole does not value character the same way we value cleverness and usefulness

    It's not just Slashdot, by any means. Idiots get in fistfights over fucking football teams. There are people who will call you a racist (which like all accusations requires hard evidence) merely for disagreeing about a matter of policy with Obama instead of, you know, explaining why they support that policy. If a consenting developer wants to give free code to a consenting user, some will call that Communist (nevermind that real Communists use force...).

    The art of disliking something without demonizing it and turning it into the next avatar of Satan is nearly lost. It's basically one great big schoolyard. I'm wondering if this will eventually "hit bottom" and start improving, or if the next couple of generations will all be a bunch of overgrown two-year-olds.

  • by icebraining ( 1313345 ) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @08:56PM (#38680590) Homepage

    You wouldn't even be on the net today if it weren't for BSDs networking stack, which both linux and microsoft use.

    That's ridiculous. I'm all for acknowledging BSD's contributions, but you can't possibly claim nobody would've implemented a stack if the BSD project hadn't. It's as ridiculous as saying the FreeBSD project wouldn't have existed until today without GCC.

    Of course we would be on the net, someone else would've written a networking stack for Linux and Microsoft would have either written their own or bought one of the companies which sold third party stacks for Windows.

  • Re:FreeBSD & ZFS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Maglos ( 667167 ) <cb AT webcb DOT ca> on Thursday January 12, 2012 @09:35PM (#38680928) Homepage
    I never noticed any of this /w dedup and compress on. it chugged along and responded just fine. Manual "memory tuning" is not required, my 5tb file server w/ 48gb ram has no problem addressing memory whenever it wants /wo any tuning. ZFS is a beast, regardless of os or hardware but that is the point. You don't get bit loss protection, ram caching, compression or de-dup hash tables for free.
  • by Sancho ( 17056 ) * on Thursday January 12, 2012 @10:14PM (#38681334) Homepage

    I love FreeBSD, but there's one aspect that is pretty bloated: ZFS.

    The recommendation is on the order of 2GB RAM for every 1TB of ZFS disk.

  • by causality ( 777677 ) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @10:45PM (#38681604)

    As an example TPB . It is an equalizing factor to the copyright rule that has been extended by stepping on everyone's rights so they will enforce rule number 3.

    A regular individual guy who happens to have some programming talent, and decides to give me the fruits of his skilled labor at no charge, and says I may use it as much as I want and do anything I want with it except for a few reasonable restrictions ... that is a person I respect. He is not asking much. He is in fact giving to me more than he is asking from me. I have no problem respecting his wishes. They are quite reasonable. This person is dealing with me as an equal and doing so with equitable terms.

    The RIAA and the MPAA lost this kind of respectability a long, long time ago if they ever had it to begin with. What they want for themselves is not reasonable. What they already take for themselves is never, ever enough. They have this insatiable need for more and more but are not themselves willing to give more and more. They do not want to deal as equals. They want to dominate. The terms they want are extremely one-sided in their favor only and continue to become worse as time passes.

    Friend, these two are not in the same boat and do not deserve to be treated according to the same standard. A reasonable person could indeed agree that what you wrote in your post can, should, and often does apply to the *AAs of the world. But I just can't justify treating a generous, reasonable programmer the same way. I have no problem honoring that which is honorable, nor would I refuse to respect that which is respectable.

  • by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Friday January 13, 2012 @01:20AM (#38682716) Journal

    The problem is really with GPLv3, which has absolutely onerous restrictions, trying to prevent Tivoization of GPL'd code, or rather remake the world into RMS' dystopian fantasy land. But don't take my word for it... Read Linus' opinion on GPLv3

    In a broader context, most companies hate GPL and other copyleft licenses in general (LGPL is usually minimally okay), because it's like a worm... Someone can bring it in without you knowing about it, and all of a sudden, you're subject to terms which may make you go out of business all-together (if one large piece of software is your main product). No such problem with freer licenses. And interestingly enough, there is much less of a problem with proprietary code.

    You see, with proprietary code, perhaps you already have a license for if. Perhaps you need to re-negotiate the license to include this new usage. Or perhaps it was completely illegal, and now you have to either go to company X with hat in-hand and negotiate a license for your former illegal use, and continued use going forward, or perhaps you'll continue to use it, and hope you don't get caught.

    In any of those (proprietary code) cases, it's just a question of money. Maybe it'll be a lot, maybe it'll be a little, but the company wants your money, and will probably work something out with you, unless you're direct competitors...

    With GPL'd code, this doesn't work. If it's a small, one-man project, you can try negotiating a license, and probably get one. But if that one-man is an RMS-esque extremist, or if it's the work of multiple people, too many to possibly track down... No amount of money is enough to allow you to keep your copyright on your own code, likely with many millions of dollars invested in it...

    THAT is why the GPL scares companies.
    Remember Windows' source code leaking out onto the internet years ago? Open source developers were afraid it was done intentionally, so Microsoft could make the case that other projects stole their publicly available source code, used it without permission, and demand exorbitant, insane license fees. These two situations really are surprisingly similar from a software companies' perspective.

Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this-- no dog exchanges bones with another. -- Adam Smith