FreeBSD 9.0 Released

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."

Comments

Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[bonch]

As noted in the release notes, FreeBSD 9.0 includes Clang/LLVM, the goal is to be rid of all GPL dependencies by version 10.0. At the 2011 LLVM Developers' meeting, Brooks Davis covered the effort in bringing in LLVM for 9.0 and the work remaining for 10.0 to replace GCC. The move was originally intended for 9.0, but there wasn't enough time to get it all done, particularly due to the thousands of pieces of software in the ports tree that still require work. GPLv3 is cited as the catalyst for all this, for preventing cooperation between free and proprietary software sectors.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[halfaperson]

Yeah, that's why large IT companies like IBM, Intel and even Microsoft are contributing to the BSD:s and not to Linux. Oh, wait..

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[iggymanz]

just a case of "different", not wrong. GPL can't be used in some cases where BSD licensed code can, for example one can distribute modified BSD code without providing the source code as long as its done the way the BSD copyright mandates.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[halfaperson]

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?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Qzukk]

People with entitlement complexes and inability to understand simple instructions get surprised when someone gets angry after they take code that says "You can use this as long as you make the result GPL" and use it without making the result GPL.

They could have written their own or taken someone else's code with a more permissive license like BSD, but suggesting this causes them to react like the guy who defends his use of TPB for his movie watching by declaring he has some sort of right to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, without having to pay for it.

You want it, you follow the rules to get it buddy. If you don't like the rules, nobody's forcing you to get it.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MrHanky]

SharkLaser is Microsoft shill. The GPL is against Microsoft's interests. bonch is an Apple shill.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

How is it a troll to point out that the GPL has caused a lot of problems that would be obviated by using BSD-licensed code (as one example, just look at the deal LG signed with Microsoft for "linux protection").

The GPL is an evolutionary dead end. It's one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time - what could go wrong?" Now we know a few things that DID go wrong. There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MrHanky]

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:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

For one, it would have saved on the file system patents - zfs (as just one example) is not covered by microsoft patents. Now, if you can show a single patent that Microsoft is exerting against LG, Samsung, etc., that they could also stick it to BSD, you're welcome to try.

You won't be able to, because they all signed NDAs as part of the deal, but we know that the file system is one area - memory is another, and BSD doesn't use the same algorithms.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Eivind Eklund]

What's wrong with GPL?

It annoys the minority of businesses who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers and don't want to give anything back.

You misspelled "everything" as "anything".

If they want to give 90% back - which is common behavior for proprietary derivatives of BSD licensed codebases - they can't. They have to give back 100%, or stay out.

I mean hey, launching a commercial product with most of the work already done for you, for free, is a nice racket if you can get it. But if the developers intend to allow this, they wouldn't use GPL, they would use a BSD-type license. For reasonable people, this is not a problem. Reasonable people think either "hey, this code is available for free and we have no problem complying with the license, so we can enjoy all the effort that has already been done for us and build on that", or they think "the terms of that license aren't compatible with our business model, or we're afraid of how a court may interpret them, so we can't use that code, oh well, this has not harmed us in any way so we really have no complaint".

If you can't see how the GPL dominating a market can do harm to groups of people that can't use the GPLed version but needs customisations - then you've not thought hard enough about the problem. Think about monopolies and "embrace, extend, extinguish", just performed with software given away gratis with restrictions.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[causality]

The GPL is an evolutionary dead end. It's one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time - what could go wrong?" Now we know a few things that DID go wrong. There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.

I have heard this line of reasoning before and there is one thing I think it overlooks. Maybe I'm wrong, so I'll say there is one thing I don't understand about it.

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?

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.

Do you believe that's a coincidence and Linux had other factors in its favor that *BSD does not? I don't think so myself but I'm open to the possibility.

Regarding Apple's choice for OSX, it seems evident they had no intention of contributing back to the community anyway. If Linux were under a BSD license and this caused them to base OSX on Linux, what difference would that make? Should Linux users put a notch on their belt if that happened? It still wouldn't cause one single line of Apple code to be contributed back to the original developers (the most I know of is them sponsoring occasional events). It sounds like an empty feel-good concern to be blunt.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Guy Harris]

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.

Um...millions of OS X and iOS users are using Darwin as their main OS, as it is the foundation for those operating systems.

That depends on what he meant by "[use] Darwin as his main OS". If he meant "use raw Darwin, as built from the source at opensource.apple.com", rather than "use an OS whose core is Darwin", I suspect he's right - you could try building Darwin from source, and get the drivers you need for your hardware, and, if you want a GUI, get X11 running on the bare hardware etc., but that would, I think, be a lot of work.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MrHanky]

Use the ZFS file system on SD-cards for compatibility with Windows? Great idea. Except, of course, Windows can't read ZFS, and neither can any other popular desktop OS. So basically, you suggest using an SD-card file system that's totally unsuitable for SD-cards and compatible only with FreeBSD and Solaris, to save a couple of dollars per phone on patent licensing.

You must be some kind of idiot genius.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[causality]

If they want to give 90% back - which is common behavior for proprietary derivatives of BSD licensed codebases - they can't. They have to give back 100%, or stay out.

And if that's not to their liking, the only thing they miss out on is the gratis skilled labor of strangers. They are still free to write their own code under any license they want. I just don't see the problem, unless of course there is a sense of entitlement to something no one actually owes them. That's the only explanation for why anyone would experience any distress over this.

If you can't see how the GPL dominating a market can do harm to groups of people that can't use the GPLed version but needs customisations - then you've not thought hard enough about the problem. Think about monopolies and "embrace, extend, extinguish", just performed with software given away gratis with restrictions.

How does GPL "dominate" a market? By that I mean: what's stopping these hypothetical groups from hiring their own programmers to write their own software that is licensed any way they like? A patent could definitely do that, but the GNU Public License is not a patent. If I am a developer who uses the GPL, how am I "doing harm" to you by not giving you my work for free? Again, only a false belief that you are entitled to my labor would make you feel "harmed" in any way.

What non-patented feature can you name for me in a GPL'ed project that an independent commercial project could not also implement? They would have to write their own code, sure, but if you really believe that constitutes "embrace, extend, extinguish" then you don't really understand what that term means. "Embrace, extend, extinguish" is not possible without closed source and/or patents.

That's too bad (for them only) some people feel offended that they can't just copy-and-paste someone else's code into their project, but nothing is stopping them from using their own original code to match every feature found in any non-patented GPL'ed project.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually.

It annoys and horrifies the thousands of developers that develop for platforms where the GPL is incompatible with libraries they must use or is not allowed by the platform rights holder.

There are many projects that used to be GPL/LGPL that are heavily used in the game developer community that are now BSD/MIT/zlib licensed, and they see even more contributions than they did before because more developers are able to use them for projects. (See Ogre3D, SDL for just of many two well-known examples.)

The GPL may be an appropriate license for some developer communities, but in others, it actually *reduces* the number of contributions and users of a project.

Like most things, one size does not fit all.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[preaction]

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.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Lawrence_Bird]

The primary basis of Free/Net/Open BSD existed long before Linux. Not a diss on Linux, just saying. Ref: here

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

Apple hired several of the FreeBSD devs, and lots of the code was, and continues to be, given back to the FreeBSD project. Also, in case you haven't noticed it, that Apple-sponsored code includes the rewrite to WebKit that all you Chrome users like so much. You might want to check out the other stuff here and here. Also, if you use CUPS to print anything, thank Apple - they bought the source code from the original developer. Use zeroconf for networking? Thank Apple for their open standard (as opposed to Microsoft's closed one, which wasn't adopted by the IETF).

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

Why would android devices need file system compatibility with non-android devices? If you want to transfer data, you don't open up the device and remove the memory chip - you do it over wifi or whatever networking floats your boat. Next you'll be demanding that we keep fat12 compatibility for transferring data using floppies.

This is the 21st century. Please get with the program.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[causality]

There are reasons not to use GPL not having to do with modifying code, but simply running the code. E.g. GPL'd libraries.

Libraries are generally licensed under the LGPL. The LGPL is specifically designed to avoid the imaginary problems you bring up. From that link (emphasis mine):

The LGPL places copyleft restrictions on the program governed under it but does not apply these restrictions to other software that merely link with the program.

If you're going to be childish and call me names like "moron" and "zealot", you should least demonstrate a basic familiarity with the facts. If you feel a need to deal with things that way, it is a sure sign you are reacting emotionally and not proactively evaluating anything reasonably. Against anyone who remains reasonable, you are going to make yourself look foolish. Just for your future reference.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[icebraining]

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:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[icebraining]

So what do e.g. Oracle, SAP and Google if not proprietary software? Cheese?

Of course they use Linux, because they're not ignorant and know they can run proprietary software on it without having to touch their licenses. The GPL only affects derivative works, which userland applications running on the Linux kernel aren't considered to be.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[saleenS281]

Easy. When Linux first took off BSD was in the middle of a lawsuit with AT&T. By the time it was all settled, Linux had already gained significant momentum. It definitely wasn't licensing or features that caused it to take off.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[treewojima]

Um...millions of OS X and iOS users are using Darwin as their main OS, as it is the foundation for those operating systems.

Foundation != the OS itself. Yes, OS X is built around a Darwin core, but it adds so much extra and *COMPLETELY NON-UNIXY* functionality on top of that, that it is, for the average user, a different operating system for all intensive porpoises. Same way that Android is based around Linux, yet most Android phone users never even see a hint of Linux in their day-to-day use of their phone. I doubt they'd even know what Linux was. Just like your standard Apple fan wouldn't know what Darwin was or why it was relevant.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[hhw]

If they want to give 90% back - which is common behavior for proprietary derivatives of BSD licensed codebases - they can't. They have to give back 100%, or stay out.

And if that's not to their liking, the only thing they miss out on is the gratis skilled labor of strangers. They are still free to write their own code under any license they want. I just don't see the problem, unless of course there is a sense of entitlement to something no one actually owes them. That's the only explanation for why anyone would experience any distress over this.

Or maybe, because the rest of us lose out on the 90% they would have given back?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[causality]

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.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Fri13]

Nope... The operating system in OS X is XNU. Darwin is just XNU + compilation settings and tools. XNU is Server-Client architecture operating system, instead Monolithic like Linux is.

Any system program, library, application program etc, does not work without operating system. Not even your development programs, text editors or others work without operating system.

You can download XNU operating system from Apple Open Source site. You can study code and even FSF has accepted Apple license what is used as Free Software license (still incompatible with GPL). From here http://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1699.24.8/ you can download whole source code for XNU operating system. You get Mach microkernel, I/O Kit, FreeBSD parts of network protocols, filesystems and so on. The microkernel in XNU operating system is 3.0 by version.

Android is just one distribution for Linux operating system. But unlike XNU, Linux is monolithic operating system. And Open Handset Alliance (what develops Android) is currently bringing Linux back to mainline. The Linux what is used in Android has been hosted as well on Linux GIT but it has just been own branch, now it is going to be joined back.

One reason why Android has been so successful, is that people don't know that they are using Linux operating system. Same thing is with Ubuntu, where people has false believes that they use "Ubuntu operating system" while they really use Linux Operating System and distribution called "Ubuntu". If they would know the truth, they would cry and have sleepiness nights wondering what they are going to do because "Linux" is so 'difficult to use'.

It is just sad that most people are victims of marketing propaganda and they don't have a clue what technology is being used and how it works.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

Um. If the original TCP/IP stack was GPLed (rather than a reference implementation being available under a BSD license), TCP/IP would not have taken off and we would not have the internet we have today. BECAUSE people could take the BSD tcp/ip stack and port it quite simply to their OS, it became a standard.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

I just don't see the problem, unless of course there is a sense of entitlement to something no one actually owes them

Here's one: the GPL is hostile to the development/promotion of standards. If the original reference TCP/IP stack was GPLed, you wouldn't be posting here via TCP/IP.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[jimi1x]

Now, I've yet to see aviation and medical mission-critical software run on Linux.

I think you may want to revisit your statement. I used to work in a hospital. We had medical equipment that ran embedded Linux. I currently work for a bank. We have ATMs that run embedded Linux. Our CCTV system runs embeded Linux in the cameras. Did you know that a lot of banking mainframes run on Linux? I'd argue completely against your statement that no mission critical software runs on Linux.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[icebraining]

Sure, except the Linux stack and the Microsoft stack probably wouldn't have been compatible, meaning fragmented networks.

Why? There were multiple compatible stacks already before MS implemented theirs from BSD.

I don't see why exactly would MS or Linux develop a stack which wouldn't be compatible with the networks that already existed and were standards in many places. It's not like the Internet appeared after Windows 95.

And we in fact have plenty of protocols which have different but compatible implementations. Why would TCP/IP be any different?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[icebraining]

TCP/IP was already a standard in many places before MS got around to implement their stack, and it had different but compatible implementations from the start (according to documents, Stanford, University College of London and BBN all had their own).

It seems to me TCP/IP was a standard because DARPA pushed for it, not because of BSD.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[evilviper]

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.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[evilviper]

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?

Most experts explain it as being because of the AT&T vs BSD lawsuit. Until that was decided, FreeBSD was in murky waters few were willing to go along with. And it happened at exactly the wrong time, when i386 systems were growing in popularity, and people wanted some Unix-like OS to run on it, and really wanted it for free.

Network effects kicked-in at that point. Linux got more developers because it was getting more press (and a lone student writing an OS is a better story than Berkley's largess), and it got more press because it was getting more developers, and it got more press because it got more press.

And the definitive counter-point to GPL supporters, is network services... Anyone can name a million and one network services that became defacto standards. BIND *is* DNS. Sendmail *is* SMTP. The BSD TCP/IP stack *is* the internet protocol, and it's bugs and limitations have become the standard.

The most recent example is OpenSSH. It wasn't FreSSH that gained 98% market share in a few years... Nope. And until OpenSSH, crypto was massively overdue, yet none of the alternatives caught-on... Licensing had a hell of a lot to do with that... always does.

NFS was in the same boat... Sun released NFS with an open license (not GPL'd), and it became the standard. NFSv3 was massively crufty and overdue for replacement, yet the dozens of GPL'd network file systems with modern features ever caught on... NFSv4 finally came out, with the main implementation under a free license, that finally made progress.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Guy Harris]

It's not about the license itself, but the underlying code. BSD == A T & T == lots of patents.

[Citation needed]. The AT&T lawsuit was about copyrights, not patents; see the settlement of the lawsuite. The only patent I know of is the set-UID patent, which AT&T donated to the public.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Guy Harris]

For one, it would have saved on the file system patents - zfs (as just one example) is not covered by microsoft patents.

Neither are extN (or,, for that matter, UFS). VFAT*, however, is, regardless of whether it's implemented by BSD code or Linux code or..... I'm not sure whether "FAT classic"; if not, and if the SD cards just use Boring Old FAT Classic (8.3 names and all), you might be able to avoid those patents.

You won't be able to, because they all signed NDAs as part of the deal, but we know that the file system is one area - memory is another,

"Memory" in what sense? Are you asserting that there are some memory management algorithms that Microsoft have patented, and that Linux is violating those patents but...

and BSD doesn't use the same algorithms.

...BSD isn't? If so, well, [citation needed].

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

OK, name a protocol that has started out GPL, and become used anywhere outside of Linux?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

The interesting part is that even if BSD *were* in violation of the same patents, it's immune due to the passage of time and Microsofts' failure to assert a claim.

So, you could have the exact same code in both BSD and Linux from 10 years ago. Microsoft has been b*****ing about it for more than a decade, but only wrt Linux. So, they can "tax" Linux users (like they're doing with Android), but they can't "tax" BSD users, with the exact same code and the exact same patents in play.

It's not even a question of BSD license or GPL - just which one Microsoft publicly targeted because they saw it as a threat to their business.

So, switching to BSD would give shelter from the "Linux Tax" on devices, but Google is certainly in no hurry to do so, because Microsoft isn't asking them for $$$. Google's real stake is in advertising - that the device manufacturers have to pay Microsoft isn't their problem.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[FooBarWidget]

I believe his point was that BSD'ed code promotes standards by allowing anybody to easily incorporate the code. Suppose that the original TCP/IP stack was GPL'ed. Others could still have written their own TCP/IP stack, but would they have bothered to do that or would they just have invented their own proprietary standards instead of bothering with TCP/IP at all? BSD'ing the code makes TCP/IP the path of least resistance.

I don't necessarily agree with this point of view but I can see the reasoning.

Dennis Ritchie

[ShanghaiBill]

The FreeBSD Project dedicates the FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE to the memory of Dennis M. Ritchie, one of the founding fathers of the UNIX operating system. It is on the foundation laid by the work of visionaries like Dennis that software like the FreeBSD operating system came to be. The fact that his work of so many years ago continues to influence new design decisions to this very day speaks for the brilliant engineer that he was.

May he rest in peace.

Re:Dennis Ritchie

[muon-catalyzed]

more importantly, the creator of C language

Memory Requirements

[AmberBlackCat]

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.

Re:Memory Requirements

[halfaperson]

Maybe it's a sign that you should consider a new computer?

Re:Memory Requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. FreeBSD is not actually getting that much more bloated. (None of the BSD's are really I suppose). 486 with 24MB ram

Re:Memory Requirements

[nzac]

How about another linux distro arch, debian and openSUSE still run on 512 or less.

Re:Memory Requirements

[sidthegeek]

It is a way to update older computers. You just aren't supposed to use the more mainstream distros to do that. Try Xubuntu or Lubuntu for a more preconfigured experience, or try a Gentoo or Arch for a barebones-at-first super-customizable experience.

Re:Memory Requirements

[norpy]

Deduplication is a misunderstood feature in ZFS v21+; some users see it as a silver bullet for increasing capacity by reducing redundancies in data. Here are the author's (gcooper's) observations:

        There are some resources that suggest that one needs 2GB per TB of storage with deduplication [i] (in fact this is a misinterpretation of the text). In practice with FreeBSD, based on empirical testing and additional reading, it's closer to 5GB per TB.
        Using deduplication is slower than not running it.
        Deduplication [on 8.x/9.x at least] lies via stat(2) / statvfs(2); it reports the theoretical used space -- not the actual used space -- which can confuse scripts that look at df output, etc (TODO: find PR that mentions this).

It is only deduplication that needs that much memory. ZFS requires 512mb of kernel memory minimum, so it will run (not necessarily blazingly fast) on afairly humble system.

I have my fileserver running on 2gb ram and an Atom with 5 1tb disks in raidZ and never have any issues.

Re:Memory Requirements

[smash]

Thats not really bloat, It uses ram/cpu for checksums/de-dup/compression and cache. Its by design. If you don't require/want those features, dont enable them/live wth slower i/o or run ufs.

Re:Memory Requirements

[smash]

Just go into bsd with an open mind and give it some time. it isn't linux and isnt designed to work like linux.

Re:Memory Requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

2GB RAM per TB HDD is only if you're running dedupe. I'm running 10TB with 4GB ram w/o dedup, but with compression on. No issues...fast and reliable.

EC2 AMIs available

[cperciva]

FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE machine images for Amazon EC2 are available for m1.large and larger instance types: http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-on-ec2/

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1

[Narishma]

Does Gnome 3 even work on BSD? Doesn't it depend on some kind of Linux-only functionality or library? Or am I thinking of some other project?

Re:woohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

I used NetBSD and/or FreeBSD between 1995 and 2005 and Linux between 1996 and today. By around 2000 Linux was far from a basement project of amateur code, being built primarily by full time developers. The stability of the more mature distributions (go Debian!) matched or exceeded the BSDs, the latter fast losing any remaining technical advantages.

As to "no comments or documentation", you've just revealed that you haven't tried writing in kernel space for either. Linux has been superbly documented for those who, say, wish to write a device driver, while last I gave up on the BSDs it was still a matter of "copy existing code". This works excellently as long as you've decided to throw all engineering principles out of the window and don't understand the difference between stable interface and implementation dependence. Like I said, the BSDs have remained deliberately cliquish, like some stupid nerdish club: to contribute effectively you have to catch the eye of and be guided by existing team members, who will fill in the details for you.

Whenever Stallman irritates me, I remind myself of what freedom's really about: the particular license wording is only an implementation detail, and what is really required in principle is people who are prepared to be open and to share. The BSDs simply don't have this.

Re:woohoo

[Brian Feldman]

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.

FreeBSD & ZFS

[ThorGod]

What? A new FreeBSD release and no body talks about the ZFS features in the release? I don't memorize version numbers, but I know the ZFS system has updated significantly between 8.2 and 9.0. Deduplication is in there, now, for instance.

Granted, the new installer is one of the bigger changes. sysinstall...I'm happy to see you go!

Re:FreeBSD & ZFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Again: before ANYONE considers using dedup or compression on FreeBSD, please see this post of mine the last time this came up (a week ago), as it contains references to and admittance of the problems:

http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2604202&cid=38589558

Additionally, manual "memory tuning" (specifically arc size maximum) on FreeBSD is still required, and it becomes more important to tune some other kernel variables if you run a mixed environment (ZFS + MySQL + shell machine, for example).

The Slashdot community can expect me to appear and comment every single time "ZFS on FreeBSD" is mentioned. Users need to be aware of the shortcomings so they can make an appropriate choices/decisions (staying with UFS, using another OS, etc.).

Re:FreeBSD & ZFS

[Maglos]

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.

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1

[geek]

In the future Gnome3 will require SystemD which is Linux only.

ZFS v28

[Maglos]

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) .

Re:ZFS v28

[bill_mcgonigle]

For many scenarios, ZFS v28 is the minimal 'usable' version number, which has previously limited FreeBSD's ZFS adoption. Now it's a real contender, and I congratulate the team.

Re: deduplication. Be sure you have enough RAM or you're going to be in for a heck of a surprise. 2GB of dedicated RAM per TB of disk usage is recommended as a rule of thumb. I found this out the hard way when it was new.

Re:But, what can I do with it?

[Galactic Dominator]

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x11-wm.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/desktop-browsers.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/virtualization-host.html

Re:Having an impact in the discussion

[causality]

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.

PC-BSD 9

[future assassin]

http://www.pcbsd.org/ will be announced today hopefully. Looking forward to giving it a spin and hopefully might change my mind about Linux Mint and become my main OS. Didn't have hardware luck with it in the early days.

Re:But, what can I do with it?

[MightyYar]

If you just want a desktop, the path of least resistance is the FreeBSD-based PC-BSD.

I don't use it for that... I use it as a server in my basement. It currently has a 4-disk ZFS setup on it. I run a Windows VM on it for serving my iTunes library, Netatalk for acting as a Time Machine destination, CrashPlan for my PC backup and as remote backup for family and friends, SabNZB for usenet, Apache for sharing my photos. I'm planning on sticking miniDLNA on it, but I don't have any DLNA devices yet.

Most of my prior unix experience was Solaris and Linux (not counting Mac), and I have to say that this was easier for me... perhaps because of the similarity with Mac, but I'm not really sure why. I like ports a lot - if you've ever used apt-get it is kind of similar. Stability has been fantastic. I've only had to reboot it once for performance reasons, and that was because I filled up the little RAM disks I made for the log files. After that the system got kind of flaky so I rebooted it.

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1

[Zoxed]

> Does Gnome 3 even work on BSD?

If it did not, then would it be considered a bug or a feature ?!

Re:+5 New stuff

[sgt scrub]

Wow. Good question. Each of the modules has its own readme with info on how to implement it. Obviously, you no longer need to go through the build process if your using FreeBSD 9. I don't know of any new docs or a howto. Sorry. However, the info from each of the readme's on this post help. There should be more up to date readme files with FreeBSD 9 but I haven't checked.

freedom as a spectrum

[epine]

just to avoid using another open source project

The whole point of a licence is to expand the word using to multiple pages of opaque and possibly bothersome legal text. They aren't avoiding the foreign code, just the license that governs it. If the foreign code cared about being used for any possible purpose, it would have a more permissive license in the first place. Glossary of English: permissive => more uses are possible. None of the above changes when prefixed by "just".

if it weren't for

This sentiment is usually continued with "a nail", but I understand you're riffing on a theme here, not making precise claims.

FreeBSD is not trying to kill the GPL ecosystem, which plays an important function in securing broad freedoms. FreeBSD is trying to become a parallel ecosystem which serves different interests and different purposes.

From your side what you have to argue here is that the inherent virtue of the GPL is made possible solely by it being the only game in town, and that anything which treads on GPL exclusiveness is an attack on the GPL itself. I'm personally quite happy to regard freedom as a spectrum rather than an absorbing boundary. What matters to me is the continuity of the gradient, so that things that want to be free can swim happily in that direction.

BTW, is it the lakes or the oceans that Stallman wishes to drain? Obviously you can't have both, one might contaminate the other.