FreeBSD 9.2, FreeBSD 10.0 Alpha 4 Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FreeBSD 9.2, FreeBSD 10.0 Alpha 4 Released

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday October 1, 2013 @01:45PM from the onward-and-upward dept.

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."

133 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

OP is slow as fuck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 13:52 · Score: 0

I already updated to 9.2 and recompiled all the jails.
1. Re:OP is slow as fuck by icebike · 2013-10-01 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Which is slow, 9.2 or 10a1?
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
2. Re:OP is slow as fuck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 19:35 · Score: 0
  
  10-ALPHA4 is just a snapshot of the development tree. It's slow because all debugging features are turned on in there.
  just disable them and 10-CURRENT speed will be comparable to previous releases.
3. Re:OP is slow as fuck by icebike · 2013-10-01 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well that's what I thought, but he said he installed 9.2, and was complain it was slow.
  I didn't find 9.2 to be slow at all.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
4. Re:OP is slow as fuck by marcovje · 2013-10-01 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  I think he meant to say the news post (on slashdot) was slow in the coming, since he already installed/updated etc.
again??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 13:54 · Score: -1

Didn't they just have a story recently?
1. Re:again??? by kthreadd · 2013-10-01 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  I guess they are busy.
2. Re:again??? by unixisc · 2013-10-02 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  That one was about FBSD10a. This one is about FBSD9.2 AND 10a4
it's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 13:59 · Score: -1, Troll

Why do they keep beating a dead horse? Jeez, you'd think they'd find something better to do. FreeBSD is about a relevant as Gopher.
1. Re:it's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 14:14 · Score: -1
  
  No, Gopher is more relevant than BSD. BSD is about as relevant as buggy whips.
2. Re:it's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot is about as relevant as multics
3. Re:it's dead, Jim by smash · 2013-10-01 16:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:it's dead, Jim by icebike · 2013-10-01 18:12 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:it's dead, Jim by smash · 2013-10-01 19:33 · Score: 2
  
  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.
6. Re:it's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 20:03 · Score: 0
  
  If one has never used BSD, is it easy to learn coming from a Windows background?
7. Re:it's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 20:42 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone who runs a serious server runs FreeBSD.
  
  What would you suggest? Windows? Linux? LOL.
8. Re:it's dead, Jim by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-01 21:42 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Debian called - it wants to know why you have only been running the same install since 2001.
  Honestly, I thought FreeBSD was okay in the late '90s, but it's managed by a bunch of puffed-up egotists and nepotists who seem to deliberately refuse to document - or do anything else which would increase the pool of systems developers.
  At least de Raadt, for all his unsupportable fuckwittery, has a goal beyond himself. And NetBSD, in it's time... well, "of course it runs" it. But FreeBSD, like Yahoo, is just inertia.
9. Re:it's dead, Jim by wagnerrp · 2013-10-01 22:57 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  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.
10. Re:it's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  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.
11. Re:it's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 23:26 · Score: 0
  
  > 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!
12. Re:it's dead, Jim by epine · 2013-10-02 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  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.
13. Re:it's dead, Jim by cod3r_ · 2013-10-02 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  i use BSD.. the Mac version. It's super sweet.
14. Re:it's dead, Jim by smash · 2013-10-02 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  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.
15. Re:it's dead, Jim by smash · 2013-10-02 02:44 · Score: 2
  
  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.
16. Re:it's dead, Jim by siDDis · 2013-10-02 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  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.
17. Re:it's dead, Jim by wagnerrp · 2013-10-02 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  ... 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.
18. Re:it's dead, Jim by BitZtream · 2013-10-02 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  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
19. Re:it's dead, Jim by wagnerrp · 2013-10-02 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  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.
20. Re:it's dead, Jim by fisted · 2013-10-02 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  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!
21. Re:it's dead, Jim by cod3r_ · 2013-10-02 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  it's not freebsd.. it's darwin.. it's better than freebsd.. Freebsd is for newbs.
22. Re:it's dead, Jim by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-10-02 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
23. Re:it's dead, Jim by fisted · 2013-10-02 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  try harder
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
24. Re:it's dead, Jim by Guy+Harris · 2013-10-02 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
25. Re:it's dead, Jim by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-02 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  And yet it moves.
26. Re:it's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-03 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  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.
27. Re:it's dead, Jim by Shirley+Marquez · 2013-10-03 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  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.
28. Re: it's dead, Jim by smash · 2013-10-03 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  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.
FUCK THIS BRING BACK WIDE SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 14:10 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Dice is really trying to kill Slashdot with this skinny shit, what is this a fucking blogspot blog or some shit? Fuck this.
1. Re:FUCK THIS BRING BACK WIDE SLASHDOT! by icebike · 2013-10-01 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  What ever you are using is your problem.
  Nothing has changed that I can see.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
2. Re:FUCK THIS BRING BACK WIDE SLASHDOT! by keith_nt4 · 2013-10-01 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  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
3. Re:FUCK THIS BRING BACK WIDE SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 20:49 · Score: 0
  
  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.
Too many.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 14:13 · Score: -1, Troll

We get way too many of these incremental updates posted as 'news' here now...
It's not news. And it's not stuff that matters.
1. Re:Too many.... by iggymanz · 2013-10-01 14:37 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  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
2. Re:Too many.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  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.
3. Re:Too many.... by MachineShedFred · 2013-10-02 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:Too many.... by iggymanz · 2013-10-02 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  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.
5. Re:Too many.... by BitZtream · 2013-10-02 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  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
6. Re:Too many.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 17:17 · Score: 0
  
  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.
7. Re:Too many.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-04 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  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.
FreeBSD? by Boawk · 2013-10-01 14:14 · Score: -1, Troll

What's that? Some new fangled waana-be OS that's going to topple Linux?
1. Re:FreeBSD? by iggymanz · 2013-10-01 14:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:FreeBSD? by Moridineas · 2013-10-01 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  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?
3. Re:FreeBSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 14:38 · Score: -1
  
  No, I heard it's the next OS for the PS4, which is replacing GCC with clang for the system compiler.
4. Re:FreeBSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 15:11 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Shaddup. Your embarrassing the rest of us linux users. Time to grow up sonny.
5. Re:FreeBSD? by noh8rz10 · 2013-10-01 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  I have OSX installed, and use the terminal wall the time. They're the same thing!
6. Re:FreeBSD? by ducomputergeek · 2013-10-01 18:36 · Score: 1
  
  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.
7. Re:FreeBSD? by Guy+Harris · 2013-10-01 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  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").
8. Re:FreeBSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 22:26 · Score: 0
  
  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.
9. Re:FreeBSD? by aiadot · 2013-10-01 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  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...
10. Re:FreeBSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  And yet the main projects languish in relative obscurity because the big boys don't contribute back.
11. Re:FreeBSD? by tlhIngan · 2013-10-02 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  And a lot more with the coming PS4, which has moved to BSD derivative IIRC.
  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).
12. Re:FreeBSD? by fisted · 2013-10-02 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  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!
13. Re:FreeBSD? by fisted · 2013-10-02 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares about you linux users?
  
  Curiously,
  a {Free,Net}BSD user
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
14. Re:FreeBSD? by noh8rz10 · 2013-10-02 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  ok, so you're saying I'm wrong? OSX does not have a BSD Mach kernel?
15. Re:FreeBSD? by Guy+Harris · 2013-10-02 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  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.
16. Re:FreeBSD? by noh8rz10 · 2013-10-02 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  so your saying I'm write... whose the idiot now?
17. Re:FreeBSD? by Guy+Harris · 2013-10-02 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  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?
18. Re:FreeBSD? by noh8rz10 · 2013-10-02 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  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.
19. Re:FreeBSD? by Guy+Harris · 2013-10-02 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  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.)
20. Re:FreeBSD? by laffer1 · 2013-10-03 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  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
21. Re:FreeBSD? by fisted · 2013-10-03 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  obvious troll is obvious
  <)))><
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
22. Re:FreeBSD? by noh8rz10 · 2013-10-03 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  jerk
23. Re:FreeBSD? by fisted · 2013-10-03 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm impressed you managed to spell it correctly.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
24. Re:FreeBSD? by noh8rz10 · 2013-10-03 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  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.
25. Re:FreeBSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-05 13:49 · Score: 0
  
  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.
Phoronix being strangely useful by Gothmolly · 2013-10-01 14:50 · Score: 0

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.
1. Re:Phoronix being strangely useful by pathological+liar · 2013-10-01 15:25 · Score: 2
  
  They're not providing any value, they're summarizing a release announcement -- and the only things they left out are three bullet points that are just version number bumps for major apps/libraries in base.
but Linux even more so by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 14:55 · Score: 0

Most smartphones are Android, which is Linux.
Most cable modems, DSL modems, and home wireless routers run Linux.
1. Re:but Linux even more so by toejam13 · 2013-10-01 15:14 · Score: 2
  
  I agree with the smartphones. I disagree with cable and DSL modems, many of which use VxWorks or another commercial embedded OS.
2. Re:but Linux even more so by QuietLagoon · 2013-10-01 15:21 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Billions of flies like to eat it, but does that mean that you also want to eat it?
3. Re:but Linux even more so by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-10-01 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  None of which are desktops. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
4. Re:but Linux even more so by smash · 2013-10-01 16:33 · Score: 2
  
  And all netapps array, junipers, iphones, ipads, ipods and macs run a variety of FreeBSD components.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
5. Re:but Linux even more so by TheRaven64 · 2013-10-01 22:21 · Score: 2
  
  You might want to scan the Android stack for FreeBSD copyrights sometime. Most of the Android libc is a slimmed-down version of the FreeBSD one, and there are quite a few other bits of FreeBSD code in there too. In terms of lines of code, I think there is about as much FreeBSD code in Android as there is Linux code.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
6. Re:but Linux even more so by serviscope_minor · 2013-10-01 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the Android libc is a slimmed-down version of the FreeBSD
  This is one of the weird and crap things about andriod. They seem to be on a perverse "anti bloat" crusade and focussing that on all the least bloated components of their system: libc, gcc and the kernel. All the while leaving the substantially bloatier main bit of android.
  This is one of the reasons android seems persistently a bit crap really. They remove useful features from the slim underlying system "because of bloat" and pile the crap into the rest of it.
  Eventually the removed features make it back, years late and worse than the original (e.g. bluetooth 4).
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
7. Re:but Linux even more so by TheRaven64 · 2013-10-01 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  I never understood this either. For example, they ripped all of the locale support out of libc to remove bloat. Which then means that everyone who uses the NDK reimplements it in another library, which is not shared...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
8. Re:but Linux even more so by wagnerrp · 2013-10-01 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  So, there is about as much FreeBSD code in Android as there is GNU code? Linux is just a kernel, GNU is the operating system. FreeBSD is both.
9. Re:but Linux even more so by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 04:29 · Score: -1
  
  One big chunk of bloated, slow, buggy code they removed is X11. You're a hardcore X11 fanboy, troll, and asshole. It must really piss you off that Android isn't using your beloved X11.
10. Re:but Linux even more so by TheRaven64 · 2013-10-02 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  No, there is no GNU code in Android. No glibc, no GNU userland utilities. There is some GNU code in the NDK (gcc, binutils), although it's gradually being replaced.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
11. Re:but Linux even more so by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  .... because it's all REALLY about pushing your client code into dalvik so you can't easily port it to another smartphone platform
Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC by toejam13 · 2013-10-01 15:20 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
1. Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC by smash · 2013-10-01 16:34 · Score: 2
  
  *shrug*. I just resurrected an EFI loader SNAFU on my mac mini with a firewire cable. Target disk mode rocks.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
2. Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 23:22 · Score: 0
  
  I think the days of Firewire are nearly over.
  While it had a lot of promise, it ended up being very niche.
  Personally I've always used it to connect external hard drives to my Macs, and I know a lot of people who use it for audio processing. I'll probably have to get a Thunderbolt-to-FW adapter at some point.
3. Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  It has been pulled out of GENERIC kernel configuration, it'll still be built and available as loadable kernel module.
4. Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC by Gothmolly · 2013-10-02 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying Firewire is dead? Does Netcraft confirm it?
  
  --
  I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
5. Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC by LoRdTAW · 2013-10-02 01:20 · Score: 2
  
  Firewire was dead from the beginning. Apple held onto the Firewire trademark and there was a per device charge of twenty five cents (!394 cards, cameras, cable boxes, PC's or motherboards etc.). USB was inferior in many ways but was royalty free, almost as fast and available on every motherboard. After USB 2.0 came out, it was over for 1394.
  I just hope Thunderbolt doesn't make the same mistake as it is a good replacement for 1394 and has plenty of bandwidth, even for video cards.
6. Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC by unixisc · 2013-10-02 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  With the bandwidth that USB has - particularly 'super'-speed USB, why would Firewire or any successor technology be needed? Just use standard, off the shelf technology
7. Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC by fisted · 2013-10-02 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  How does Target Disk Mode even remotely rock? It turns the device into an external HD the (physical) size of the whole device in question.
  
  What a nice piece of Apple-Fanboyism.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD by GPS+Pilot · 2013-10-01 15:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD by smash · 2013-10-01 16:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD by H0p313ss · 2013-10-01 18:41 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Darwin is not a BSD kernel, so the kernel changes will never show up, no probably about it.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
3. Re:Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD by Guy+Harris · 2013-10-01 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Darwin is not a BSD kernel
  Yeah, it's a kernel that's a combination of Mach and BSD.
  
  so the kernel changes will never show up
  Not necessarily.
4. Re:Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD by Guy+Harris · 2013-10-01 18:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
5. Re:Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD by smash · 2013-10-01 19:35 · Score: 2
  
  True, however various bits of the BSD kernel have been ported to it. This is why I said "probably won't show up", because stuff like the firewalling code has been ported.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
6. Re:Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD by TheRaven64 · 2013-10-01 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Some bits of the FreeBSD kernel make it into the BSD server in the XNU kernel. One of the big ones is the MAC framework (SEBSD), which is shared between FreeBSD and XNU and supports pluggable access control policies. This is used to implement the code signing logic on Juniper routers and the application sandboxing on iOS and OS X. There are some pretty big differences to the VM subsystems on both (they're both derived from Mach 2.5, but they've diverged hugely since then).
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Still comes with proprietary firmware? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 18:59 · Score: 0

http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html#BSD
1. Re:Still comes with proprietary firmware? by smash · 2013-10-01 19:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Still comes with proprietary firmware? by unixisc · 2013-10-02 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Can someone explain the differences in the meaning of 'blob' b/w BSD and Linux?
Re: More Than You Might Think by tomxor · 2013-10-01 23:04 · Score: 1

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.
Thanks BSD, just installed 9.1 by Gothmolly · 2013-10-02 01:33 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Thanks BSD, just installed 9.1 by kthreadd · 2013-10-02 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  You can upgrade quite easily with the freebsd-update utility.
2. Re:Thanks BSD, just installed 9.1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  Updating is quite simple. I prefer doing it from source. Checkout /usr/src/UPDATING for instructions.
3. Re:Thanks BSD, just installed 9.1 by BitZtream · 2013-10-02 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  And having done this, I've yet to run into a library compatibility issue that wasn't fixable with symlinks, though my test suite is still running.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
For those wanting a bit more MEAT by tomxor · 2013-10-02 02:14 · Score: 2
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):
- 1988, NeXTSTEP 0.8, inherited from: 4.3 BSD, Mach 2.0
- 1989, NeXTSTEP 1.0, inherited from: Mach 2.5
- 1996 - 1997, OPENSTEP, inherited from: None
- 1997, Rhapsody DR1, inherited from: 4.4 BSD lite 2
- 1998, Rhapsody DR2, inherited from: NetBSD 1.3
- 1999, Mac OS X DR1, inherited from: Mach 3, FreeBSD 3.1
- 1999, Mac OS X DR2, inherited from: FreeBSD 3.2
- 2002, Mac OS X 10.1.5, inherited from: FreeBSD 4.5
- 2003, Mac OS X 10.3 beta, inherited from: FreeBSD 4.8, FreeBSD 5.1
- 2004, Mac OS X 10.4 beta, inherited from: FreeBSD 5.2.1
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.
1. Re:For those wanting a bit more MEAT by smash · 2013-10-02 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Heaps of open/next step is inherited. Most of the core libaries of objective-c for instance.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
2. Re:For those wanting a bit more MEAT by tomxor · 2013-10-02 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  That's what i thought, but i don't know much about the early OS X before 10.4 ... did it have everything you define as inherited from rhapsody in 10.3? if so perhaps i should ask the author to add a link between the two offending nodes.
3. Re:For those wanting a bit more MEAT by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  OSX is NextStep is Rhapsody - it's all NextStep/OpenStep/Apple branding.
  Darwin is the 'core' portion of OSX, but was only ever released as essentially a 'source drop' from apple -
  and so there was never really any 'true' fork - just think of it as a 'branch' in the same source tree.
4. Re:For those wanting a bit more MEAT by Guy+Harris · 2013-10-02 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  So it looks like mostly FreeBSD and a little of the old Mach
  Well, if you call the osfmk directory of the XNU source a little, I guess it's "a little of the old Mach", although a fair bit of that code comes from NeXT and Apple as well.
  
  I think NetBSD was used as a means for porting between architectures more than a literal inheritance.
  Well, let's look at the libc source (the libc part of libSystem):
  
  $ fs . | xargs egrep -h '\$NetBSD:' | wc -l 49 $ fs . | xargs egrep -h '\$FreeBSD:' | wc -l 482
  ("fs" is a script that finds source files and prints their names to the standard output). The files it found with "NetBSD" in them were ./gen/FreeBSD/fmtcheck.c, ./gen/FreeBSD/lockf.c, ./gen/FreeBSD/stringlist.c, ./gen/NetBSD/utmpx.c, ./include/arpa/tftp.h, ./include/FreeBSD/nl_types.h, ./include/getopt.h, ./include/limits.h, ./include/NetBSD/utmpx.h, ./include/paths.h, ./include/search.h, ./include/stddef.h, ./include/stringlist.h, ./include/util.h, ./include/wchar.h, ./include/wctype.h, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/getopt.c, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/getopt_long.c, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/hcreate.c, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/tdelete.c, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/tfind.c, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/tsearch.c, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/twalk.c, ./stdlib/NetBSD/strfmon.c, ./string/FreeBSD/strndup.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcscat.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcscmp.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcscpy.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcscspn.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcslcat.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcslcpy.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcslen.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcsncat.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcsncmp.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcspbrk.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcsspn.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wmemchr.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wmemcmp.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wmemcpy.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wmemmove.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wmemset.c, and ./util/fparseln.c.
  The "NetBSD" and "FreeBSD" directory names are somewhat historical - for example, the 10.8.4 version of getopt_long() comes from NetBSD.
  
  of course there are probably newer bits of FreeBSD used that are only known internally to Apple.
  And other bits only known to people who download the open source bits and look at them. :-)
  
  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...
  That's the timeline, not reality. Darwin was always produced by taking parts of OS X and making them available in source form; the model didn't change with Leopard.
  
  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
5. Re:For those wanting a bit more MEAT by fisted · 2013-10-02 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  is fs a script because you aren't able to operate 'find', or is find simply not available on your oh-so-unixish os x?
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
6. Re:For those wanting a bit more MEAT by Guy+Harris · 2013-10-02 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  is fs a script because you aren't able to operate 'find',
  fs is a script that runs find with a long list of file extensions because I'd rather not type the long list of file extensions in a find command every time I want to find source files. I can operate find, I just prefer to write a shell script to do it for me rather than doing it manually over and over again.
  
  or is find simply not available on your oh-so-unixish os x?
  As per the above, fs wouldn't work if find weren't available on OS X.
7. Re:For those wanting a bit more MEAT by tomxor · 2013-10-02 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, never new that info was retained in the sources, interesting :)
  Yeah i was a bit confused at the temporary switch in 2006 - 2007 in the timeline that suggested Darwin was the main development branch... i always viewed Darwin as the excerpt that Apple occasionally kept up to date.
How many parallel tracks? by unixisc · 2013-10-02 05:24 · Score: 1

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?
1. Re:How many parallel tracks? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  10 is bleeding edge (it will crash often, lose your data, kill your dog...), 9.2 is considered stable, 8.0 is legacy.
  In FreeBSD world (and many other) they use x.y version where change in x is considered a major feature change or change in ABI. The y is increased when new bugfixes and minor features are added.
  Typically the higher they y the more stable the version is.
  Many places prefer stability over new features so they will stick with 8.x right now, they will switch over to 9.x. When 10.0 will be released those places won't switch to it immediately, since it might still have many bugs, they might do it when 10.2, 10.3 is released.
Windows TCP/IP not BSD derived by Sits · 2013-10-02 06:00 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Windows TCP/IP not BSD derived by tomxor · 2013-10-02 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  O_o strange, thanks for pointing it out. I was repeating what i read from Wikipedia on the BSD page a long time ago, but it appears to still be there: BSD
  
  [...]These, in turn, have been incorporated in whole or in part in modern proprietary operating systems, e.g. the TCP/IP (IPv4 only) networking code in Microsoft Windows and a part of the foundation of Apple's OS X.
  Where does this myth come from then, and how did it end up being passed of as fact on wikipedia? perhaps you could correct it for us being as you know the whys and hows. I'm being sincere, no sarcasm here :)
2. Re:Windows TCP/IP not BSD derived by Sits · 2013-10-08 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Where does this myth come from
  Since the late 90s there have been mumblings ("Someone I know who works at MS said they knew someone who said...") that code from BSD TCP/IP stack was in Windows but there was never any proof. Some speculated that because they were susceptible to some of the same vulnerabilities they must share common code but there were some vulnerabilities that affected the Windows TCP/IP stack not the BSD one (and vice versa) so this seems unlikely.
  In 2001 the FreeBSD folks decided to search for proof but other than utilities nothing much was found. You can even see them correcting the "Windows uses the BSD TCP/IP stack" misconception years later.
  Around the same time an article saying Microsoft uses open source code was published in the Wall Street Journal. Here's a quote:
  
  Software connected with the FreeBSD open-source operating system is used in several places deep inside several versions of Microsoft's Windows software, such as in the "TCP/IP" section
  This assertion is somewhat broard but it was enough to kick off a new round of speculation and rebuttals with regard to the Windows TCP/IP stack but everyone loves a good tale so the counterclaims are less well known. Perhaps this would qualify as a Snopes urban myth.
  
  [H]ow did it end up being passed of as fact on wikipedia?
  Who says Wikipedia only consists of facts? :-) Nothing saves you from having to use critical analysis on sources, especially since anyone can edit Wikipedia but I will note there is a citation needed link further down on that page.
  All the above sources were found via a Google Windows/BSD stack query so with these starter links and a quick search you're now well armed to correct Wikipedia and anyone else who repeats this rumour. Welcome to the club!
3. Re:Windows TCP/IP not BSD derived by tomxor · 2013-10-08 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, informative
To BSD from Windows by unixisc · 2013-10-02 06:23 · Score: 1

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?
1. Re:To BSD from Windows by fisted · 2013-10-02 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  If he's leaving Windows, why in the hell would he want to configure his Free^H^H^H^HPC-BSD to look like what he just left?
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
2. Re:To BSD from Windows by unixisc · 2013-10-02 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  To start from something he knows, and then go into something he doesn't?
3. Re:To BSD from Windows by fisted · 2013-10-03 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Chances are, though, that because of him having 'something he knows', he won't bother to learn what he doesn't (the CLI, notably) and eventually be frustrated about the brokenness of unix GUIs
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
4. Re:To BSD from Windows by unixisc · 2013-10-03 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  For something like PC-BSD, given its target audience, CLI should not be essential. On FBSD/OBSD/NBSD, I agree that it has its place.
Does the 9.2 have ZFS NOP-write optimization? by MatthiasF · 2013-10-02 09:25 · Score: 1

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.
Why Continue to Develop So Many Differnt Versions by Pigskin-Referee · 2013-10-03 04:58 · Score: 1

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 ...