Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Operating Systems Software Unix Upgrades BSD IT

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD 10.1 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by hawkeey ( 1920310 ) on Friday November 14, 2014 @07:04PM (#48389057)

    That's nice, but when will FreeBSystemD be released?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Why not port the windows registry into the kernel instead? Heck why not rewrite the whole OS in ruby????

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14, 2014 @07:12PM (#48389089)

    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...

    • I think FreeBSD is great for a desktop BSD, but for servers the simplicity of OpenBSD is even better

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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 ... It's one of

        • 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

      • 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.

        • Better analogy is PC-BSD:FreeBSD::Windows7:Windows2008 Server, or PC-BSD:FreeBSD::Fedora:RHEL.
        • Slackware makes an awesome desktop. With FreeBSD you'll have to
          compile KDE from ports (make config galore) or use the precompiled but
          broken version (old Xorg) on the media.
          • by fnj ( 64210 )

            [root@loki ~]# pkg search kde
            [root@loki ~]# pkg search xorg

            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)

        by BitZtream ( 692029 )

        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

        • Performance wise, FreeBSD still maintains the fastest network stack on the planet

          Proof to that?

          • by jones_supa ( 887896 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @11:23AM (#48391639)
            3 months ago there was a Facebook job application [] which sought for people having the skills to improve Linux's network stack to match the performance of FreeBSD's.
            • 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 [] 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 [].

              That's why we have the technically

      • 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:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by Bengie ( 1121981 ) on Friday November 14, 2014 @10:32PM (#48389729)
        FreeBSD devs are almost entirely System Admins or ex-system admins. They eat their own dog-food. Many FreeBSD devs run "current" on production servers at their own jobs. FreeBSD "current" is currently 11.0. The FreeBSD SMP PF changes were running on several production servers as a "beta" for over a year. Each server was a router than handled tens of gigabits per second in a datacenter. These people really eat their own dog food.
        • by floodo1 ( 246910 )
          Have you heard? Those FreeBSD devs sure eat their own dog food!
        • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @12:18PM (#48391927) Journal

          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.

    • 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

    • by x0ra ( 1249540 )
      You must not have recent graphics. Their i915 driver is largely outdated, and the update is laughably a ripoff of Linux' 3.8.
  • 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. FreeNAS here and I'm not moving to 9.3 until at least 3 months after it's settled.

    • by fnj ( 64210 )

      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

  • I go to []
    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

    • by fnj ( 64210 )

      I didn't have any trouble at all downloading the ISO the day BEFORE the release announcement appeared.

    • The PC-BSD DVD, if you get hold of that, has installations for all 3 OSs depending on which one you want - PC-BSD, FreeBSD or TrueOS. The last is PC-BSD with the GUI stripped out, but with all the PC-BSD improvisations that can be used for servers.
  • 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.

    • 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.

    • by rl117 ( 110595 )

      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

  • by ulzeraj ( 1009869 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @09:18AM (#48391099) Homepage

    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)

    by spink008 ( 1692094 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @02:49PM (#48392885)
    Nice to see UDP-lite supported in FreeBSD. I am an author of this protocol (RFC 3828) and we made our initial implementation of UDP-lite in BSD many years ago. I would be interested to hear of any experiences using UDP-lite.

Two wrights don't make a rong, they make an airplane. Or bicycles.