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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Open Source Cloud Operating Systems Software Windows BSD Linux

FreeBSD 11.1 Released (freebsd.org) 219

Posted by BeauHD from the new-and-improved dept.
Billly Gates writes: Linux is not the only free open-source operating system. FreeBSD, which is based off of the historical BSD Unix in which TCP/IP was developed on from the University of California at Berkeley, has been updated. It does not include systemd nor PulseAudio and is popular in many web server installations and networking devices. FreeBSD 11.1 is out with improvements in UEFI and Amazon cloud support in addition to updated userland programs. EFI improvements including a new utility efivar(8) to manage UEFI variables, EFI boot from TFTP or NFS, as well as Microsoft Hyper-V UEFI and Secure Boot for generation 2 virtual machines for both Windows Server and Windows 10 Professional hosts. FreeBSD 11.1 also has extended support Amazon Cloud features. A new networking stack for Amazon has been added with the ena(4) driver, which adds support for Amazon EC2 platform. This also adds support for using Amazon EC2 NFS shares and support for the Amazon Elastic Filesystem for NFS. For application updates, FreeBSD 11.1 Clang, LLVM, LLD, LLDB, and libc++ to version 4.0.0. ZFS has been updated too with a new zfsbootcfg with minor performance improvements. Downloads are here which include Sparc, PowerPC, and even custom SD card images for Raspberry Pi, Beagle-bone and other devices.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD 11.1 Released More

FreeBSD 11.1 Released

Comments Filter:

  • W00t (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Thursday July 27, 2017 @05:45PM (#54895205) Homepage Journal

    frosty psit du 2 lennart-free startup!

  • This description is informative (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tyler Whitlock ( 4168739 ) on Thursday July 27, 2017 @05:53PM (#54895265)
    "Linux is not the only free open-source operating system." LOL, yes we know. If anyone here knows about Linux, they SHOULD already know about Unix. FreeBSD came out in 1993 and was essentially a fork from 386BSD, another Unix OS. Linux was a kernel built to replicate Unix in 1991, but Unix has been around since the 60's in one form or another.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      LOL, yes we know. [...] FreeBSD came out in 1993 and was essentially a fork from 386BSD, another Unix OS. Linux was a kernel built to replicate Unix in 1991, but Unix has been around since the 60's in one form or another.

      Do I need to point out the irony of first complaining that the story mentions commonly known background information, and then writing a more detailed version of the same information?

      • You could, but my entire point was to illustrate that Linux spawned as a replica of Unix, which most people know. I was emphasizing the history to bring about the point that the description of FreeBSD was entirely uninformative to the general populous of ./ users. Why mention that Linux was not the only free open-sourced OS, when its history pertains to another free open-sourced OS.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      ""Linux is not the only free open-source operating system." LOL, yes we know. If anyone here knows about Linux, they SHOULD already know about Unix. FreeBSD came out in 1993 and was essentially a fork from 386BSD, another Unix OS. Linux was a kernel built to replicate Unix in 1991, but Unix has been around since the 60's in one form or another."

      LOL, yes we know. If anyone here knows about Unix they SHOULD already know about the various Unix variants. Initially intended for use inside the Bell System, AT

    • I'm more concerned with them laboriously pointing out the support for Amazon EC2 NFS shares (wtf is that? an EC2 instance with NFS exports? Why wouldn't that be supported for as long as EC2 has existed?) and support for Amazon Elastic File System... which is just hosted clustering NFSv4.1.

      Seriously, did this not work before? NFSv4.1 has been out for like 6 years now. I know FreeBSD moves slow, but is it really _that_ slow?

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • LOL, I suppose you're right. That's really ironic.... You just made my day. If I had mod points right now, and it didn't require me deleting my posts, I'd +1 funny your comment.

    • "Linux is not the only free open-source operating system." LOL, yes we know. If anyone here knows about Linux, they SHOULD already know about Unix. FreeBSD came out in 1993 and was essentially a fork from 386BSD, another Unix OS. Linux was a kernel built to replicate Unix in 1991, but Unix has been around since the 60's in one form or another.

      At version 11, ain't it a given that anybody interested in this story already knows what FreeBSD is? The last few sentences in the summary are informative, as to what changed from 10 to 11, but the first few seemed to assume that we are idiots.

      Another point - since TrueOS - former PC-BSD - is now a rolling update, can the summary include whatever has changed in TrueOS? Like PlayOnBSD, which enabled one to run Steam games under WINE?

  • FreeBSD isn't really dead (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It just smells that way.

  • Good LTS policy (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27, 2017 @06:13PM (#54895377)

    From the announcement page linked in the summary,

    "Based on the new FreeBSD support model, the FreeBSD 11 release series will be supported until at least September 30, 2021."

    Very good to see.

    • Not really impressed, Centos 7 was released in July 2014 and doesn't hit EOL until 2024.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rl117 ( 110595 )
        I find the CentOS releases get way too stale. CentOS 6 is really crusty at this point. And even CentOS 7 is getting old now; its GCC is missing C++14 features I need.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Alioth ( 221270 )

          Running old CentOS isn't for people who want the newest features, it's for those who need the stability. If you're a business and have numerous servers running your internal applications, it's expensive to upgrade due to the amount of testing required, the upgrade processes put in place, then finally the upgrade itself. You want to upgrade fairly infrequently if you can - you're not interested in running with the latest features, you're more interested in your business back end systems continuing to run wit

        • *cough EPEL cough*

        • Right, but people who actually want a system to get support for 10 years aren't even going to consider something called C++14 until at least 2024.

          I code on Centos 7 for exactly this reason, and I'm using C99. C11 will be skipped entirely, there are no significant features added.

          I think most people who write their code specifically for *BSD are using ANSI C (C89).

          Even on other platforms, few people want to use compiler features that were only released in the past few years. What you call "stale," many of us

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by rl117 ( 110595 )
            FWIW, FreeBSD 11.1 has a current clang (4.0.0) which supports C++17 and earlier. 11.0 had 3.8.0 supporting C++14 and 10.x had 3.4.x supporting C++11. All of these have been significantly nicer to develop with than CentOS 6 or 7 (even with EPEL).
      • Supported for FreeBSD means still getting the latest releases of third-party software. Supported for CentOS means getting security back-ports of third-party software for a few packages and stale versions for everything else. When FreeBSD 11 goes EOL in 2021, you'll be able to build C++20 programs on it using a compiler and standard library versions that come from the official distribution channel. CentOS 7 can't even compile C++14 programs now without building the standard library and compiler from sourc

        • None of what you said is even true. None of it.

          You add a caveat to try to make it closer to true, but it is still just horse shit, eg, knowing lies. You set up a straw man about compiling GCC from source, but you already implied that you know you can just install it. But you put a No-True-Scotsman onto the GCC package, to try to hide the straw man.

          You seem to be implying that FreeBSD is going to immediately port all their 3rd party software to any new GCC that gets released in the future during the support

          • You seem to be implying that FreeBSD is going to immediately port all their 3rd party software to any new GCC that gets released in the future during the support period, but that is not actually how FreeBSD versions work

            I didn't mention GCC. The default compiler for anything that hasn't actively been marked as requiring GCC is clang. The ports framework has flags to indicate required features of a compiler. If a port is marked as needing C++14, then it will be compiled with either the system compiler (if it supports one), or one from ports if required. The infrastructure for doing this is used automatically by the package-building infrastructure, so a port that needs a newer compiler than the one shipped in the base sy

    • Just wait until September 31 2021 though

  • OK (Score:3)

    by ma1wrbu5tr ( 1066262 ) on Thursday July 27, 2017 @06:30PM (#54895473) Journal
    I'll give it a shot. Haven't been all that impressed with the latest Ubuntu, have forsaken RedHat, and quit Mandrake after they rebranded to Mandriva.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      What advantages does FreeBSD have for desktop use? I've used it on servers for decades but always used Linux for desktop.

    • So let me get this straight ... you were using Ubuntu because that was better than a version of Fedora that predates Mandriva, which hasn't been a thing since they forked to Mageia many years ago? Well if you are comparing today's *BSDs to decades old Linux distributions and Ubuntu ... nope, it is still a step backwards.
    • Have you tried Linux Mint Mate too? You might just be surprised.

  • Yay! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27, 2017 @06:36PM (#54895515)

    So the rumors were false. FreeBSD hasn't been incorporated into systemd yet!

    • Lucky for them, since Pottering hates the BSDs

  • Thinking about it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ichthus ( 72442 ) on Thursday July 27, 2017 @06:44PM (#54895559) Homepage

    I've been thinking about trying FreeBSD (currently run Mint 18.2) How well does it perform on semi-modern hardware? Say, like a notebook with Intel graphics, backlit keyboard, Intel Wifi, Synaptics i2c touchpad, etc? How's battery life? I appreciate that there's more than one non-MS choice, but I'm under the impression that Linux is still the best choice for a notebook. Am I mistaken?

    • Re:Thinking about it (Score:5, Informative)

      by i-sob ( 87633 ) on Thursday July 27, 2017 @07:06PM (#54895659)

      I've been thinking about trying FreeBSD (currently run Mint 18.2) How well does it perform on semi-modern hardware? Say, like a notebook with Intel graphics, backlit keyboard, Intel Wifi, Synaptics i2c touchpad, etc? How's battery life? I appreciate that there's more than one non-MS choice, but I'm under the impression that Linux is still the best choice for a notebook. Am I mistaken?

      I had a smoother experience with OpenBSD on my (old-ish) ThinkPad. FreeBSD tends to have newer drivers than OpenBSD. I've seen similar anecdotes that one or the other was much better out of the box on various laptop models.

      Intel graphics was smooth sailing on FreeBSD and OpenBSD. I had to change one setting to get the Intel wireless working in FreeBSD (fine out of box in OpenBSD), and the Synaptics touchpad works under both, but FreeBSD took a kernel extension and playing around with config files to make the touchpad less finicky.

      If you're curious, I suggest a test install of one and then the other on an external hard drive or USB stick to see which best detects your hardware.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Okay, first thing. Linux has gotten a lot simpler through the years. BSD on the other hand has as well just not to the exact same degree. When you get your system up and running you're more than likely going to have to compile a few things and get some config files in place. Additionally, BSD is more aimed at servers. You can still run it on desktop if that's what you wish, but you're going to find more exotic drivers lacking from BSD. If you want to have that BSD feel with Linux kernel, I suggest Sla

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by LesFerg ( 452838 )

        A few of the BSDs have dropped 32 bit support, so that could be a limit if your hardware is old.

        It requires a bit of investigation and reading, just for the differences from Linux with config and management, but if you enjoy that sort if thing it is not too difficult. If you expect GUI setup doing everything from a single click, then its prolly not for you.

        I put FreeBSD on a very old IBM Thinkcentre PC last year, which took a little bit of work getting all the hardware supported, but for me that was all go

      • Re: Thinking about it (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Linux with systemd is far more complex, complicated and fragile than any of the BSDs are.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Get "PC-BSD", which is a respin of FreeBSD aimed at being that "easy drop-on-hardware all-done experience".

        IMO, FreeBSD actually moved away from servers and more towards desktops (by making a number of changes that I think are mistakes), to the point that I'd consider a systemd-free linux first at this point. But then I've been using it since 4.0, and thought the thing has gone pretty much to pot since 8.*, mainly due to idiot developers not understanding the impact of their doings beyond their own desktops

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fisted ( 2295862 )

        Linux has gotten a lot simpler through the years.

        Hahahahahahaha. Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder.

        Honestly, Linux has become a giant clusterfuck over the last years. In comparison, FreeBSD is all about maintaining the POLA [freebsd.org].

      • The main place where BSD has gotten a lot easier has been in software installation - w/ PBIs. In Linux, it's still fragmented - some things are available only in .rpm, and some just in .deb. In PC-BSD/TrueOS, they've gone to .pbi. The only place you can install software from is the AppCafe, which I find really convenient.

        TrueOS could use some improvement in updates: one of my previous updates got stuck, so I haven't bothered upgrading. Result: I can't install new software from AppCafe. Will probabl

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'm running 11.1 on a Lenovo T430. All of the above mentioned devices work (except 'etc'). No need to recompile anything, although it takes a bit of mucking about in various config files to get everything working.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )
      Considering it performs well on very old hardware (eg. 32 bit netbooks with tiny batteries) it's going to be even better on new stuff. Then again, everything performs well on new hardware apart from MS Win10 if you are unlucky enough to hit one of it's teething problems.
    • You're probably better off trying TruOS (once you get past the stupid name). It's a FreeBSD friendly fork, which includes some improvements to the UI for initial setup and also merges a load of stuff that isn't yet in mainline FreeBSD (newer versions of GPU drivers, for example).

      • You too disliked that name? I found it to be a tad hubris - much preferred PC-BSD. If they wanted to rebrand it, they should have picked a more catchy name.

        GP mentioned 'semi-modern' hardware, which was somewhat nebulous. If it means that it's a 32-bit CPU, or has limited memory/storage, TrueOS may not be an option, since it's now 64-bit only

        • You too disliked that name? I found it to be a tad hubris - much preferred PC-BSD.

          TrueOS sounds too much like Tru64 to me, and that's not a particularly positive association. The Oppose Sun Foundation had some good ideas, but a lot of bad ones and Tru64 managed to combine the worst parts of a monolithic kernel and a microkernel (as did NeXTSTEP and early versions of OS X) without getting most of the benefits.

          • Did OS X at some point completely replace XNU i.e. underlying Mach 3.0 kernel w/ FreeBSD? I thought that OS X is Mach kernel + FreeBSD userland. Or is it something else?
            • It's still XNU and it still contains some Mach things, though system calls are just system calls and talk directly to the BSD server without going via Mach ports (which was what really hurt performance on early Mach implementations). They also completely rewrote the VM subsystem around 10.4/5, which improved performance dramatically. FreeBSD's VM is based on the old Mach VM, but has had a lot of refactorings, cleanups, and rewrites of important parts since then, OS X 10.0 was still pretty close to the CMU

    • By semi-modern, if you mean that you're still 32-bit, then stay w/ Linux: FreeBSD and its derivatives had moved to 64-bit only a while ago. You'd have to go w/ a really old version of FreeBSD. If you are still 32-bit, might wanna consider either NetBSD or Minix

      • Completely false.

        You can still upgrade 32-bit installs of FreeBSD to the latest version. And you can do fresh 32-bit installs of the latest FreeBSD version.

        PC-BSD (now known as TruOS) has moved to a 64-bit-only version. But FreeBSD still support 32-bit systems.

  • Good to see it's still around (Score:3)

    by bursch-X ( 458146 ) on Thursday July 27, 2017 @07:00PM (#54895647)
    FreeBSD keeps on dying forever. That is true immortality!

  • Choosing BSD over Linux (Score:3)

    by maestroX ( 1061960 ) on Friday July 28, 2017 @08:43AM (#54897899)
    As a long time user of Linux (used other unices as well, including BSDs), I find myself wondering whether to move over to FreeBSD every announce of a release.
    The only drawback of Linux currently is systemd (Linux distro's with good community support, loads of scripts and tools are readily available for ubuntu/redhat/arch etc.), the drawback of Free/OpenBSD is lack of experience (hardware/performance tuning/etc).
    I'd like to hear pro-con lists of developers (system,web) moving from Linux to FreeBSD.
    Thanks in advance!

    • As a server there is nothing wrong with FreeBSD.

      As a desktop, I dunno.

      FreeBSD does not run as many apps, and especially does not run the most recent versions.

      FreeBSD has no dropbox client. I don't think FreeBSD with work with LibreOffice 5.x - you have to go back to LibreOffice 4.x.

      I am not sure about the future of BSDs. I think the BSDs are dependant on apps that were built for Linux. The BSDs use a Linux compatibility layer. So if Linux apps start requiring systemd (a real possibility IMO) the the situat

  • Lots to love about FreeBSD. Makes a great server.

    But I doubt it has a dropbox client, and I doubt it will work with LibreOffice 5.x.

    • I've no personal experience running LibreOffice on FreeBSD, but there are packages for it. FreeBSD on the desktop was always a bit more painful than I'd prefer, unfortunately. Haven't tried in a few years now, though.

  • Since I see a lot of people contemplating trying FreeBSD, I figured I'd share my experience. My goal is not to dissuade you from using it but to prepare you for some of the challenges you may face.

    Like many people here, I wanted to avoid systemd, so I decided to try PC-BSD when I was setting up a server on a new Intel NUC. While PC-BSD is more oriented for desktops than servers, I wanted to see how the user experience was on the desktop so I went with that. However, getting X Windows to start proved t

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So you wanted a server and ended up fighting X.

      Hm.

      Personally I always set up FreeBSD without any graphics (or ports); simply have the installer give me a booting system with nothing but a command line. Only after I have a tried-and-tested X configuration will I contemplate starting it on boot (so far: never had that set up, ever; I'll just run startx instead, and not log out--though with kernel mode setting and the scons replacement they did done fsck up quite a bit, shipping with broken code that'd lock up

  • Has been my way for almost 10 years now...and since work bought me a MBP a couple years ago, even that almost isn't entirely true* -- FreeBSD everywhere! :)

    * - yes I know Darwin =/= FreeBSD

  • I've used Linux on various incarnations over the years: Debian, Mandrake(Mandriva), Suse/OpenSuse, last is Mint.
    I just used to develops mainly on Java and help various FOSS Projects with translating(from English to Spanish, my native language).
    Ultimately I've teaching myself Android development using Java and would like to learn Kotlin. Having this in mind: Can I switch my development Operative System to this new one FreeBSD?

  • This copy was written for the Slashdot crowd? What's up?

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close