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."
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.
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.
The relevant bits of the FreeBSD userland are periodically (every major release) imported into OS X. The two systems are fairly different, so kernel changes in FreeBSD probably won't show up, but tweaks to command line tools and other stuff probably will.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
The relevant bits of the FreeBSD userland are periodically (every major release) imported into OS X. The two systems are fairly different, so kernel changes in FreeBSD probably won't show up, but tweaks to command line tools and other stuff probably will.
The best way to think about it is that Darwin is "the kinda sorta fifth BSD", separate from {Free,Net,Open,DragonFly}BSD, but willing to pick stuff up from the *BSDs, just as the *BSDs are willing to pick up stuff from other *BSDs to various degrees.
no. they enable use of proprietary blobs, but do not ship with proprietary blobs in the kernel.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
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.