Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 9.2, FreeBSD 10.0 Alpha 4 Released
An anonymous reader writes "The FreeBSD Release Engineering Team has announced the release of FreeBSD 9.2. FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE has ZFS TRIM SSD support, ZFS LZ4 compression support, DTrace hooks and VirtIO drivers as part of the default kernel configuration, unmapped I/O support, and numerous other minor features. FreeBSD also announced FreeBSD 10.0 Alpha 4 on the same day, which is the next major feature release of the open-source BSD operating system."
I already updated to 9.2 and recompiled all the jails.
heh, well the userland part of FreeBSD has more desktop installs than Linux distros. and likely most slashdotters have devices in their home and workplace running either Free, Net or Open BSD and not even know it.
I run a FreeBSD server and still have an old OpenBSD soekris router in service, but I would not have said that there are more FreeBSD userland installs than Linux. What are you considering FreeBSD userland--OSX?
there are noteworthy features in this particular case. BSD being more stable and mature generally have something cool to show for new point releases. Linux kernel point releases, on the other hand.... every random brain fart by Linus gets an article
They're not posting meaningless, scale-less graphs showing sub-percent increases in compile times of various linux kernels... they're actually providing value for once. Phoronix is the OSNews of the new millenium.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Slashdot is about as relevant as multics
Most smartphones are Android, which is Linux.
Most cable modems, DSL modems, and home wireless routers run Linux.
What ever you are using is your problem.
Nothing has changed that I can see.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Shaddup. Your embarrassing the rest of us linux users. Time to grow up sonny.
The interesting thing I noticed in the release notes was that the Firewire driver was pulled from the 9.2 GENERIC kernel. Meanwhile, Thunderbolt isn't expected until 10.x.
I think the days of Firewire are nearly over.
He/she may or may not be referring to the slashdot beta page (which I for one don't like).
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
Found this tidbit here: when developing OS X v10.3, the "BSD layer was synchronized with FreeBSD 5".
Will new FreeBSD features eventually show up in Darwin/OS X, or have the two projects been sufficiently forked to prevent that from happening?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I have OSX installed, and use the terminal wall the time. They're the same thing!
Thanks. The less noobs like yourself that use it, the less of a target the OS will be. I've been happily running internet facing stuff on FreeBSD since 2001, and it's been a pleasant change from the chaos that is Linux development and distribution upgrade.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Yeah sorry if it isn't marketing or patent news on smartphones or tablets then it just doesn't appeal to slashdot's current audience. If you cant have a flame war about how Samsung copied Apple and how Microsoft is evil and controlling (oh but also obsolete) then it isn't news.
The less noobs like yourself that use it, the less of a target the OS will be. .
Hmmm, that sounds the the Bill Gates theory of OS vulnerability. Popular OSs get broken into not because they are vulnerable but just because they are popular.
I would have thought someone using FreeBSD would have a more enlightened understanding of security,
and what makes one OS a target and another a brick wall.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
And a lot more with the coming PS4, which has moved to BSD derivative IIRC.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
heh, well the userland part of FreeBSD has more desktop installs than Linux distros.
Or, at least, part of the userland part of FreeBSD, combined with part of the userland part of NetBSD, combined with a bunch of vendor-written code, has more desktop installs that Linux distros (most of those "installs" being what was shipped with the machine; BTW, the auto-correct feature of the latest non-beta version of that vendor's OS tries to convert "distros" into "distress").
http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html#BSD
I guess they are busy.
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not relying entirely on security via obscurity. But if the OS is not the most common mainstream noob-used OS, then it is going to see less effort put towards hacking it. All my shit is still firewalled and doesn't even listen to any remote admin port via the internet.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
If one has never used BSD, is it easy to learn coming from a Windows background?
Anyone who runs a serious server runs FreeBSD.
What would you suggest? Windows? Linux? LOL.
Did you come here by a mobile device? On my Android tablet's Firefox the slashdot.org looked really bad and was quite unusable. But if you go to bottom of page, there is about 0,1nm sized link to the original (=="classic") version. After clicking that the site becomes usable again.
Way to segment. On that note, did you know that Linux has a 100% install rate on all laptops currently owned by me? Linux clearly beats FreeBSD in this critical (to me) market.
I'm not relying entirely on security via obscurity. But if the OS is not the most common mainstream noob-used OS, then it is going to see less effort put towards hacking it.
That's called "security via obscurity". Such properties will only protect you against the basic automated scan, but then so will simply using good security practices, and if you're using good security practices, there's no point even mentioning the modicum of protection offered by using an uncommon OS.
Install it on a spare box and dive right in.
Many people are willing to help with questions, despite the general tone of hostility present today.
This is getting slightly off topic, but it is interesting how FreeBSD code finds it's way into so many other systems, but not too surprising when you consider the fairly widespread opinion of it's high code quality and statistically proven fewest bugs per lines. Darwin has already been mentioned and probably has the closest resemblance. You can also include the AT&T UNIX systems and their many derivatives which have all pulled code from the BSDs into their source tree's at various points, important to note that the literal code inheritance for the 386 derived BSDs of today is BSD -> UNIX and not the other way around, I know i make that point a lot :P A partial view of the history can be seen in the diagram at this site: http://www.levenez.com/unix/
If you include not only the systems that maintain a fuller closer resemblance to the original FreeBSD userland then smaller components of FreeBSD are likely to have been included in many systems that we aren't aware of... probably the most unlikely that most people would think of is windows, it's TCP/IP stack is derived from FreeBSD. But the same is probably true for GNU, so it's not really useful to try to compare how widely used they are, it's just good that both of them have liberal enough licensing to be so useful in so many different things.
The PSP (and probably PS3) firmware is also BSD based. At least that is what I remember from the good old DarkAlex custom firmware days...
> t least de Raadt, for all his unsupportable fuckwittery, has a goal beyond himself.
??? de Raadt's unsupportable fuckwittery *is* his goal. Have you looked at the useless and unsupportable debris stapled into the firewalls and slathered onto OpenSSH, while entirely ignoring the default storage of private keys unencrypted? Talk about armor plating the open barn door!
Ah, thanks for that. Without a gratuitous ad distronem attack within the first page of comments, I wouldn't be sure I was reading something about BSD.
As for de Raadt's "unsupportable fuckwittery", the infallably polite are soon back-doored and sent to PRISM. The Philistines didn't send Goliath down to challenge the Israelites in single combat because he was the life of the party. His rawhide posse seems to get a lot done, despite the incessant hail of small stones. If only they'd sent Theo instead. Thirty thousand rueful historical Philistines can't be wrong.
And until they fix the 3ware / AMCC driver kernel panic they introduced in 9.1, I still won't be upgrading. Can't even use the last "STABLE" release because that label was a lie on my hardware.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
i use BSD.. the Mac version. It's super sweet.
It's always the way - I do a new install and they release a brand new version.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I had a look through this timeline tracing from the origin at NeXTSTEP 0.8, and now my brain is slightly melted O_o... but I managed to find all of the inheritance from other systems (excluding integrations between derivatives of itself like Darwin, OS X Server, OS X and iOS etcetera):
So it looks like mostly FreeBSD and a little of the old Mach, I think NetBSD was used as a means for porting between architectures more than a literal inheritance. interesting how the last bit of FreeBSD was way back in 2004 from FreeBSD 5 (The timeline goes all the way up to present with OS X Mavericks). of course there are probably newer bits of FreeBSD used that are only known internally to Apple.
Not having looked this closely at the OS X part of this timeline before i found the transition between OPENSTEP and OS X quite confusing... according to the timeline Rhapsody (what OPENSTEP turned into after Apple started working on it) directly became Mac OS X Server and Darwin, but OS X was not derived from any of them itself and seems to be directly linked to Mach 3.
Then the timeline proceeds with Mac OS X as what appears to be where all of the development is taking place (including inheriting from FreeBSD), with Darwin and OS X Server only ever taking from OS X like mirrors. Then suddenly in 2006 this model changes and the OS X 10.5 beta inherits from Darwin 9.0 beta, when OS X 10.5 and Darwin 9 mature the model goes Darwin -> Mac OS X -> Mac OS X Server... Then in 2007 during the OS X 10.7 beta the model changes again when the server branch is eradicated all together and gets integrated into OS X and OS X gets integrated into Darwin so the model goes OS X -> Darwin again but without the server.
This suggests OS X didn't inherit from Rhapsody at all until the period between 2006 and 2007, not sure if this is true or not, but interesting none the less. Also makes you wonder how much of the original OPENSTEP was inherited, perhaps it's more that it was not publicly disclosed how much of the technologies became proprietary Apple technologies at the beginning of OS X rather than a lack of direct inheritance at the beginning.
And yet the main projects languish in relative obscurity because the big boys don't contribute back.
So do i. FreeBSD headless, OS X if i want to actually interact with the thing.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
comprehension fail. i'll take "well secured niche os" over "well secured high value target" any day of the week, thanks.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
For the kernel at least - the devkits may have a full BSD install for debugging and development, but the "userland" of the PS4 probably won't - being it's completely self contained and exists within Sony's APIs.
Other things using a BSD kernel would be the PS3, Vita and PSP. It's easy to tell because a lot of BSD code is still running the regular BSD license (3 clause - GPL incompatible) and not the modified-BSD license (2-clause, GPL compatible).
never heard of 3ware / AMCC and I work in IT....that might be your problem right there. Here's a quarter kid, get y'self a mainstream raid card.
FreeBSD is very well documented (The manual is awesome) and it has a great community. There are a lot of good discussions on the mailing list, and it doesn't require you to be a kernel hacker to participate. I use both Linux and FreeBSD, they both have their strength and weaknesses. I slightly prefer FreeBSD, as I feel its easier to turn it inside out(for hacking).
Btw. Poul-Henning Kamp tweeted this a few days ago.
Between FreeBSD, Varnish and Ngnix, at least 2 out of 3 packets on the net are delivered by #BSD licensed open source software. #EatThatRMS
So I would say, FreeBSD is a lot more interesting today, than 10 years ago.
... and that's the very definition of security through obscurity. If it's well secured, then it's well secured and it doesn't matter what it is. Either way, you're only going to be vulnerable to a targeted attack by someone who actually knows what they're doing. Using a "niche os" only matters against cursory scans trawling the internet for systems with poor passwords or known (and long-since-patched) bugs, and a "well secured niche os" wouldn't worry about such things anyway.
So we have FBSD 8.3 (or is it 8.4?), now 9.2 and soon to come 10.0. So how many parallel tracks will we have?
Ahh, the idiot modded up.
All security on computers is security through obscurity.
Encryption is by definition security through obscurity. As is using hashing and other fingerprinting techniques. The obscure nature of the encryption key or input to the has is exactly what makes it all work.
When you repeat that same retarded phrase like its a bad thing all you're doing showing those of us with an actual clue that you're capable of repeating what you heard someone else stay but you utterly fail to understand what it means and why its said.
Following up to one of your replies below and illustrating your failure to comprehend how silly you sound ...
Give me all your encryption keys ... SSH, SSL, passwords, and personal bank account information, date of birth, address, phone numbers and other obscure private information that actually protects your systems and your life.
Stop repeating shit you utterly fail to understand, it just makes you look stupid.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
FreeBSD has never been the OS of choice to use for your cheap knock off version of the real thing, FreeBSD is made for servers without cheap desktop versions of server hardware, its not Linux.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I would argue that the Windows TCP/IP stack is the bit that processes the packets in the kernel and this was originally licensed from Spider and then rewritten for Windows 3.5 NT and neither was BSD derived. The current Windows networking bits that are BSD derived are userland legacy utilities like ftp, nslookup and telnet and aren't necessary to have a useful TCP/IP stack.
This myth needs to be allowed to rest - BSD has plenty of real wins that are more recent.
That's not at all what is meant when one refers to obscurity. Security through obscurity is the claim that a black box is inherently more secure than one in which you know the inner workings, or in this case, it's the claim that a black box you've never seen before is inherently more secure than one which you have had time to analyze. All it's going to do is make you a less appetizing target for an attacker looking for anyone to compromise. It makes no difference to your vulnerability when an attacker wants to compromise you specifically.
If one is coming from a Windows background, a good place to start should be PC-BSD. Their installation has been simplified, and it comes OOTB with KDE, which one can make to look like Windows. Only thing I don't know about here - whether things like Network configuration and other configuration can be done from a control panel, or whether one needs to invoke a terminal and start editing /etc/ files.
Speaking of which, if 9.2 is out for FBSD, is that also the case for PC-BSD? Also, does PC-BSD have as many parallel versions, like 8.3, 9.2 and later 10.0?
Sorry to break it to you, but there's a Mach kernel working inside your system, not a FreeBSD kernel as many idiots like to believe. There's a bit of FreeBSD userland around, indeed, but it's nowhere near what Apple allows you to use. You don't use 'BSD, the Mac version', you use an Apple-Windows user interface on top of things you neither know, nor understand.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
I was going to reply "You're an idiot", but then i reconsidered.
Then i saw your sig, and i reconsidered again.
You're an idiot.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Who cares about you linux users?
Curiously,
a {Free,Net}BSD user
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
it's not freebsd.. it's darwin.. it's better than freebsd.. Freebsd is for newbs.
The less noobs like yourself that use it, the less of a target the OS will be. .
Hmmm, that sounds the the Bill Gates theory of OS vulnerability. Popular OSs get broken into not because they are vulnerable but just because they are popular.
I would have thought someone using FreeBSD would have a more enlightened understanding of security,
and what makes one OS a target and another a brick wall.
I believe your thinking of OpenBSD as they are the security obsessed ones. The FreeBSD articles and forums I have read seem to be more "We're not GNU" lately.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
try harder
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
I know it was mentioned in the FreeBSD 10 release, but looks like several other ZFS features for 10 made it into 9.2.
https://wiki.freebsd.org/WhatsNew/FreeBSD10 Can anyone smarter than me make sense of the SNV page to see if it's in 9.2 too?
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=243524
Thank you in advance.
Sorry to break it to you, but there's a Mach kernel working inside your system, not a FreeBSD kernel as many idiots like to believe.
More precisely, there's a kernel composed of Mach-derived code (providing the low-level process and thread management, Mach messaging, VM system, and some low-level platform support), BSD-derived code (providing the high-level process management atop the Mach low-level code, VFS layer and some file systems that plug into it, and networking layer and networking stacks), and Apple-developed code in various places including I/O Kit. The Unix system call interface is provided by the BSD-derived code.
ok, so you're saying I'm wrong? OSX does not have a BSD Mach kernel?
ok, so you're saying I'm wrong? OSX does not have a BSD Mach kernel?
OS X's kernel is a BSD+Mach+various Apple stuff hybrid, many of its loadable kernel modules are BSD-derived, and the Unix part of its userland is a BSD+GNU+various Apple stuff+various other stuff hybrid; that doesn't mean that OS X is the same thing as FreeBSD, even if most of the BSD stuff is FreeBSD-derived.
so your saying I'm write... whose the idiot now?
so your saying I'm write...
I'm saying that you're right when you say "OS X has a BSD+Mach kernel" and you're wrong when you say "They're the same thing!" if by "they" you mean OS X and FreeBSD (i.e., people trying to use OS X as evidence of large market share for FreeBSD are wrong; it's evidence for large market share for BSD UNIX in general, but not any of {Free,Net,Open,DragonFly}BSD in particular).
If you didn't mean OS X and FreeBSD by "they", what did you mean?
to be honest, i never quite understood all that BSD/Mach stuff. what exactly is a kernel vs a linux or operating system? how can something be both bsd and mach, but not unix? all I know is there's a command prompt and it's not dos, so... case in point.
to be honest, i never quite understood all that BSD/Mach stuff. what exactly is a kernel vs a linux or operating system?
In most operating systems, there's a component that runs in a more privileged processor mode; that code is "the kernel" plus, if the kernel supports them, any loadable kernel modules that have been loaded.
"Linux" is sometimes used to refer to the Linux kernel, which is used as the kernel in various "Linux distributions", and it's sometimes used to refer to a distribution as a whole.
An operating system generally includes components other than the kernel; some people consider the kernel (and perhaps the loadable kernel modules) to be the operating system, others don't.
how can something be both bsd and mach, but not unix?
"Unix" is used for a whole bunch of different purposes. Sometimes it refers to the operating systems that AT&T made available in the 1970's, 1980's, and early 1990's, sometimes it refers also to operating systems that were based on AT&T's code (BSD, SunOS/Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, IRIX, etc.) even if the developers replaced a lot of the AT&T code with their own code, and sometimes it refers to those operating systems, regardless of how much AT&T code is in them, that have passed the Single UNIX Specification test suite and thus can have the trademarked name "Unix" associated with them.
OS X is in the second of those two categories (with only a small amount of AT&T code left, just as do the current BSDs) and, as of OS X Leopard, is also in the third of those categories, so it's based on BSD and Mach, and is Unix in one of those senses. Prior to Leopard, it was only "Unix" in the second sense, so somebody could use that to say it wasn't "Unix", even though it was "Unix-like" in the strong sense (see below).
all I know is there's a command prompt and it's not dos, so... case in point.
Lots of OSes have non-DOS-style command prompts, and not all of them are Unix or even "Unix-like", either in the weak sense of "sort of looks like Unix, but is sufficiently different that nobody'd mistake it for Unix" or the stronger sense of "compatible with Unix, even if it's not based on AT&T code and hasn't been tested with the Single UNIX Specification test suite (most if not all Linux distributions are "Unix-like" in that strong sense).
(And not all OSes with a DOS-style command prompt are DOS - OSes in the Windows NT family have a kernel and userland that's not at all DOS-derived, but the cmd.exe application provides a command prompt that's DOS-like.)
I think you might just not know that you know 3ware. They are not LSI, and most of the non-Adaptec RAID controllers in Dell Poweredge servers are made by this company. They're all known as PERC in Dell land.
That one was about FBSD10a. This one is about FBSD9.2 AND 10a4
And yet it moves.
OS X, iOS and Android. Google used some freebsd stuff in their userland too from my understanding. Even though android runs a linux kernel, everything in userland is not GPL.
Then there's the fact that 33% of all internet traffic goes through FreeBSD. (netflix)
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
MacOS is the only operating system that still crashes. It's 2013 and everyone but Apple has figured out how to create a stable OS.
obvious troll is obvious
<)))><
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
jerk
There are plenty of serious servers running Linux. But FreeBSD is also a viable choice. FreeBSD on the desktop is pretty much a non-player except among people who also run FreeBSD servers.
Why does FreeBSD continue to develop two different versions rather than concentrate on making on superior product? They are years behind *nix and a decade behind Microsoft when it comes to drivers, wireless support and printer support. It just defies logic that they spread their all ready meager resources between to products rather than concentrate on making on superior product.
Pigskin-Referee
Linux: Yesterday's technology, tomorrow
You can be secure against every known vulnerability. If someone goes to the trouble to find a zero day and write an exploit for it to compromise the largest number of machines possible, it's better to not be running the most common platform. End of story.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I'm impressed you managed to spell it correctly.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
why so mean? does your life suck that much? you should try to be positive, it will flow ovre in to other parst o your relationships to.
Because clearly if one guy that "works in IT" has never heard of it, it must be absolute shit, right?
Or, they just might have really been on top of their game at the point that the 3Ware 9550 controllers came out, which was several years back. And while it's not the best performing out there, it's perfect for someone to build a NAS for holding home media on the cheap.
Oh, and they were bought by LSI Logic a while back. Ever heard of them? Nitwit.
so your saying I'm write... whose the idiot now?
You could be a very witty person to have written what you just did, but I suspect you really are such an idiot you don't even realize what you wrote.