Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

FreeBSD 9.3 Released 77

First time accepted submitter k4w0ru writes "The FreeBSD Release Engineering Team is pleased to announce the availability of FreeBSD 9.3-RELEASE. This is the fourth release of the stable/9 branch, which improves on the stability of FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE and introduces some new features. Some of the highlights: ZFS bookmarks, OpenSSL 0.9.8za, OpenSSH 6.6p1, SNI, BIND 9.9.5. For a complete list of new features and known problems, please see the online release notes and errata list.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD 9.3 Released

Comments Filter:
  • Will it run well on an ARM based TV Stick / BOX ?

    • There is a FreeBSD/arm project []. Whether it will work on your particular hardware — and recognize all of the peripherals you care for, that's another topic...

      It is a "Tier 2" — so there are no official builds for it, for example.

      It is a "Tier 1" for NetBSD [], so you may have better luck there. They even distinguish between "ARM evaluation boards" (evbarm []) and "StrongARM based Windows CE PDA machines" (hpcarm []). I'm sure, OpenBSD is similar in this regard, but I'm tired of copy-pasting links...

      • It does seem odd to have non-PC ports, since FreeBSD basically began life as a 386BSD fork. NetBSD and OpenBSD are for more CPU agnostic over their history.

    • by Desler ( 1608317 )

      ARM is a Tier 2 architecture for FreeBSD so I wouldn't get my hopes up too far, but you might get lucky. []

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It runs well on Atom. I'm running mini-dlna, samba, apache, dns for about 8W. SSD for OS, 2.5" HD for data.

      FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE-p3 #0: Tue May 7 09:11:52 EDT 2013
      root@merlin.local:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MERLIN amd64
      CPU: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N2800 @ 1.86GHz (1866.77-MHz K8-class CPU)
      Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x30661 Family = 6 Model = 36 Stepping = 1
      AMD Features=0x20100800

  • upgrade of stable (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @07:56PM (#47471513)

    9.2 EOL has been moved to the end of the year allowing a longer migration period for those still running the stable 9 branch.
    I'm running 10 with zfs-on-boot in production. working excellently .. as expected ..thanks BSD.
    For the usual knockers, give it go ! - though i do admit that non-tier-1 such as ARM, could pose challenging.
    like all choices, fit for purpose.

  • I know that BSD lives somewhere in the guts of my Mac OS and I used it many years ago only to stop because of a single incompatibility (but a critical one).

    So I am honestly asking, what is BSD good for. I presently use CentOS and I am perfectly happy with it but for some reason BSD has a magical "hard core" allure. So what I should ask is: what excuse do I need to use it?
    • by Voyager529 ( 1363959 ) <voyager529 AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @11:56PM (#47472495)

      So I am honestly asking, what is BSD good for. I presently use CentOS and I am perfectly happy with it but for some reason BSD has a magical "hard core" allure. So what I should ask is: what excuse do I need to use it?

      Three reasons I personally can think of. First, NetBSD specifically is a fork intended to run on basically anything with a microprocessor. CentOS will run on x86 hardware, and in the form of Pidora and similar, runs on ARM. Try it on an Itanium or SPARC or PowerPC Mac, and things get a smidge more interesting.

      Second, ZFS. Now cue those who believe that file system nirvana is found in btrfs or ReiserFS or HFS+, but I'm a huge fan of ZFS as a file system. If you're like me, you'll be using BSD in the form of one of its descendants, like FreeNAS or NAS4Free, where ZFS makes lots of other things much easier.

      Finally, the license. I'm neither a programmer nor a recompiler so my use of BSD licensed software is essentially identical to my use of GPL software ('free as in beer', with the occasional bug report). For purists and programmers, there is a difference in what is and isn't allowed under the respective licenses.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        commercially, the bsd style licensing favors it's usage in nested or black box items. i think my apple airport extreme is netbsd inside. the gpl makes people share. sometimes that detrimental to your business model.

        The openbsd packet filter PF, now also default in freebsd is good value. adding to popularity of monowall and pfsense.
        bsd's make great infrastructure servers. and generally have low resource overheads. even includes a linux compat layer so you have run linux apps.
        firewalls, routers, time, dns, ma

      • by satuon ( 1822492 )

        Second, ZFS

        From what I've read about ZFS, it sounds like it comes from science fiction. Built-in snapshots and copy-on-write, are you kidding me? Too bad there's nothing comparable in Linux. Well, there is btrfs, but it is not stable last I heard. Why can't they just port ZFS to Linux?

        • by ratsg ( 544275 )

          Maybe I am just missing your /humor tag, but I thought the ZFS on linux thing had been taken care of years ago.


          • by satuon ( 1822492 )

            No humor, I really thought it was not available. Is it stable? Why did the parent list it as a reason then?

            • by Fweeky ( 41046 )

              It's stable enough for general use, but maturity counts for a lot with filesystems, especially when they're as complex as ZFS. It's also a third-party add-on rather than an official part of the OS which does raise some issues.

              Conversely it's practically the default on FreeBSD, and it's been available since 2008.

              • by ratsg ( 544275 )


                I am happy that this 9.x release occurred for the people who need it, but the 10.x version will install, out of the box, with ZFS root straight out of the box.

                Either way, you don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [] to predict that your favorite OS + ZFS is a big step forward.

      • by satuon ( 1822492 )

        One other thing I really like is how they use the Makefiles as a package manager, and how the Makefiles themselves are under version control. It's a really elegant solution, basically they created Debian's apt without coding anything, using only existing tools.

        • by Fweeky ( 41046 )

          Not really - ports doesn't even have a *concept* of upgrading, it's just uninstall/reinstall and hope you can work out how to handle all the dependencies. This is why FreeBSD's got so many tools for managing them - portupgrade, portmanager, portmaster, all with their own little and not so little quirks.

          We do have an apt-alike these days, in the form of pkgng []. pkgsrc also has pkgin [].

      • I don't code and rarely recompile. But I do take an interest in licenses since I find it has an effect in both my user experience and also my interaction with the community. This is what users need to understand.

        I buy older cars rather than BMW because I don't want to have to find an authorised garage and pay the premium to decode the onboard computer for the repairs. Likewise, a difference in license can make a difference. In linux vs BSD there are probably some difference which I tend to summerise in my h

      • by wjcofkc ( 964165 )
        Also the ports tree is a joy to work with. It also offers a much more sane environment for editing and managing configuration files. Not to mention the excellent FreeBSD handbook and well thought out, easily searchable documentation in general.
    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

      So I am honestly asking, what is BSD good for. I presently use CentOS

      The largest difference between the two platforms is the capability of ZFS - rock solid for years on one and sort of coming out of alpha on the other.
      A second reason is you can use really crappy old hardware as a test box for it and it still works - for instance I ran it on a retired file server with IDE drives for a while to learn how to use it and it ran with far more speed than I expected.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 17, 2014 @01:43AM (#47472771)

      If you are happy with CentOS, use it. We are not like Linux people, we are not out to convert you. We are not hoping you see the one, true way. I have never understood the concept where people are happy with a solution or product, and they actively seek out something else.

      For me, I was a Linux user goign back to 1992; I dumped it in favor of FreeBSD in 1999 and never looked back.

      • I understand the concept. By getting other people excited about your favorite OS / band / TV show / game, you increase the likelihood that people will want to bother with continuing to make it.

        There are plenty of projects that exist because they scratch the author's itch, and will continue to be maintained even if their authors were the only person in the world using them. Something as big as a Linux distro, or enormous as an entire OS like one of the BSDs, likely needs a certain user base to make it worthw

    • by WiPEOUT ( 20036 )

      In addition to Voyager529's response above, another major BSD is OpenBSD, which focuses on security.

    • by burni2 ( 1643061 )


      the chance not needing to start up many services to have a modern *Nix*Free*Li*net* OS
      that is running like a quick, responsive machine, three generations older than the one needed for CentOS.

      The "Free" in FreeBSD - is for Freedom: we choose what services our machines run, no fucking installer.

      The "Free" in FreeBSD - is for OptIn not to be Opted in by default.

      And the BSD in FreeBSD - stands for structure, clean, deterministic behaviour, not that clutter a Linux Distribution is built uppon
      (have a look at

    • I suspect the primary use for FreeBSD is a development platform for operating systems such as Darwin and others. An average user is not expected to touch it, even though a device in your pocket or your closet may be running a piece of FreeBSD.

    • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
      There are many cases where the GPL cannot be used, so BSD immediately fits that niche. Many sysadmins like BSDs over Linux distros because the BSD tend to focus more on design than flavor of the month, even CentOS has more breaking changes than many BSDs.

      In general, BSD's tend to exhibit a quality over quantity mentality that attracts a certain group of people.
    • by epine ( 68316 )

      So I am honestly asking, what is BSD good for.

      When exactly did "honestly" become a synonym for living under a rock? This question comes up on almost every thread where FreeBSD is mentioned, though granted this is barely more often than its major releases.

      The first answer in every such thread for years now is always ZFS, but actually this just disguises how many people have been using it for years or decades and just plain like the way FreeBSD does things even if nine out of ten, or ninety nine out of a hun

  • Please try to keep posts on topic.
    Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
    Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
    Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
    Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
    If you are having a problem with accounts

Logic is a pretty flower that smells bad.