OpenBSD 7.6 Released (phoronix.com) 22
Phoronix's Michael Larabel reports: OpenBSD 7.6 is out this evening as another major step forward for this BSD operating system with enhanced hardware support, security improvements, updating various user-space software, and enabling other kernel enhancements. There are a ton of changes to find with the just-released OpenBSD 7.6.
Some of the new OpenBSD 7.6 features include:
- OpenBSD 7.6 provides initial support for Qualcomm Snapdragon X1 Elite (X1E80100) SoCs. The 7.6 release also has initial Samsung Galaxy Book4 Edge boot support in ACPI mode with OpenBSD 7.6.
- ARM64 has additional CPU security mitigations with Spectre-V4 now in place on ARM64 and adding Spectre-BHB for Cortex-A57 cores.
- OpenBSD 7.6 on RISC-V now supports the Milk-V Pioneer board.
- OpenBSD 7.6 on AMD64 has finally implemented support for AVX-512.
- Various SMP kernel improvements. You can view the full list of features and download the OpenBSD 7.6 release via OpenBSD.org.
Some of the new OpenBSD 7.6 features include:
- OpenBSD 7.6 provides initial support for Qualcomm Snapdragon X1 Elite (X1E80100) SoCs. The 7.6 release also has initial Samsung Galaxy Book4 Edge boot support in ACPI mode with OpenBSD 7.6.
- ARM64 has additional CPU security mitigations with Spectre-V4 now in place on ARM64 and adding Spectre-BHB for Cortex-A57 cores.
- OpenBSD 7.6 on RISC-V now supports the Milk-V Pioneer board.
- OpenBSD 7.6 on AMD64 has finally implemented support for AVX-512.
- Various SMP kernel improvements. You can view the full list of features and download the OpenBSD 7.6 release via OpenBSD.org.
How well..... (Score:2)
Does wine run?
Re: (Score:3)
No new song? (Score:4, Informative)
My favourite BSD (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, it's my favourite BSD too, probably even my second favourite OS of all time, but I wouldn't go tell people that it's fast! They still have a lot of work to do trying to unlock everything that blocks for example network parallelism, but they are slowly getting there.
I agree that it's easy to install though. It may look daunting but there's so little to tweak (by design) that you can just default most options.
Good (Score:2)
This is one of the fallback solutions if Linux gets even more corrupted by the influx of Widows "developers".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is one of the fallback solutions if Linux gets even more corrupted by the influx of Widows "developers".
It isn't. They are so far behind in performance they can't even see Linux's tail lights, and what made Linux successful and acceptable to corporations was the GPL, because it meant that their work wasn't getting locked up in some other corporation's cathedral. They aren't going to make public contributions to *BSD that someone else can run away with.
They also have extremely poor driver support compared to Linux, and even though it is well settled that you can copy constants out of Linux drivers without fear
Re: (Score:2)
... and what made Linux successful and acceptable to corporations was the GPL,
Wrong, Linux succeeded despite the GPL, not due to it. People wanted Unix on commodity PC. Whoever got there first was going to win big. That was Linux since FreeBSD got held up in court. Don't confuse FSF self promotion with reality.
because it meant that their work wasn't getting locked up in some other corporation's cathedral ...
Wrong again. BSD is owned by the Regents of the University of California. A public university. One that feels what is taxpayer funded should be available to all taxpayers without strings.
They aren't going to make public contributions to *BSD that someone else can run away with.
Again, the public University says otherwise. And corporations have contributed to BSD.
They also have extremely poor driver support compared to Linux, and even though it is well settled that you can copy constants out of Linux drivers without fear of GPL contamination ...
The
Re: (Score:2)
Linux succeeded despite the GPL, not due to it.
This is ignorant. We know that linux succeeded because of the GPL and not in spite of it because many major contributors have told us so.
BSD is owned by the Regents of the University of California.
Completely irrelevant. You clearly have no idea of the issues involved.
BSD is where the relevant Linux code originated.
Ignorant and wrong again. Far more drivers have gone in the other direction because far more drivers are written for Linux than for *BSD.
You have literally nothing of value to add to this conversation. I bet that won't stop you from talking more ignorant shit though.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux succeeded despite the GPL, not due to it.
This is ignorant. We know that linux succeeded because of the GPL and not in spite of it because many major contributors have told us so.
Not at all. It is merely contrary to FSF self promotion.
People wanted Unix on commodity PC hardware. Period.
This was the holy grail at the time. FreeBSD and Linux were close but then a lawsuit tripped up FreeBSD.
The vast majority of users back then would not have cared who go there first.
And that is true today. Few users give a shit about the religion and politics of the GPL. They just want Unix.
BSD is owned by the Regents of the University of California.
Completely irrelevant. You clearly have no idea of the issues involved.
What a laughable attempt to dodge your erroneous statement: "their work wasn't getting locked up in some
Re: (Score:3)
Please don't fall for FSF misinformation.
While yes, corporations have taken and ran with BSD code, realize that "Free Software" folks have done the same.
In fact, in a very ironic twist, the GPL has locked up tons of BSD code as well. And by locked up, they've slapped the GPL on it, so the original BSD project cannot use the code anymore .Any improvements and patches? Can't be returned upstream because the BSD project
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't fall for FSF misinformation.
You mean like you have presumably fallen for OSI misinformation? That's who's been attacking the GPL the most after SCO.
While yes, corporations have taken and ran with BSD code, realize that "Free Software" folks have done the same.
This is of course false.
And by locked up, they've slapped the GPL on it, so the original BSD project cannot use the code anymore
I see that you imagine that you can change the license of BSD code without permission from the copyright holder. This is, of course, false.
What you CAN do is put BSD code into a closed source product and then never give the code away again, because the license does not require sharing of the code under any circumstances. It requires only that you retain the copyrigh
Re: (Score:1)
Same here, it is were I will flee when Linux ends up being a Windows Clown pwned by Corporations. Linux is pretty close to that now.
Plus, in spite of what others say, performance is fine for me and I expect it is fine for say 95% of people. To me, OpenBSD is a computing device, not a personal entertainment device.
One more thing. If you are a developer, also test on OpenBSD. OpenBSD will find many issues with your program that Linux will happly ignore. I have found many issues with programs I have writ
Re: (Score:2)
I do not know why you were downvoted, what you said sounds resonable, the sets coment is a thing I hear a lot.
FWIW, the OpenBSD developers strongly suggest you install all sets. xenodm does not take up much space, about 300M on my system, so no real reason to skip it. Some developers commented they should remove the option of selecting sets sense things can be tightly integrated. But at this point, it is just people making suggestions with no action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, a more civilized troll from a more civilized time, brings back memories...
ARM64 and RISCV64 support (Score:2)
Yawn (Score:2)
I thought slashdot's tag line was "stuff that matters".
Re: (Score:2)
I thought slashdot's tag line was "stuff that matters".
It matters, our posts are probably traveling through OpenBSD boxes somewhere. Likely firewalls.