FreeBSD 9.3 Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @11:25AM from the check-it-out dept.

First time accepted submitter k4w0ru writes "The FreeBSD Release Engineering Team is pleased to announce the availability of FreeBSD 9.3-RELEASE. This is the fourth release of the stable/9 branch, which improves on the stability of FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE and introduces some new features. Some of the highlights: ZFS bookmarks, OpenSSL 0.9.8za, OpenSSH 6.6p1, SNI, BIND 9.9.5. For a complete list of new features and known problems, please see the online release notes and errata list.

77 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 11:27 · Score: 0

OpenSSL? WTF are they thinking?
1. Re:LOL by mi · 2014-07-16 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  OpenSSL?
  There is no alternative, with a license compatible with BSD.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
2. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  LibreSSL isn't compatible with BSD?
3. Re:LOL by laffer1 · 2014-07-16 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't done at the time of testing. Besides, it's not recommended for use on non OpenBSD systems yet.
  
  --
  MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
4. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 12:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  LibreSSL is not even a mature project. FreeBSD doesn't change things on a whim... well sometimes they do but they warn users like 2 years in advance:
  Dropping GCC for Clang
  putting LZMA into the base system (thereby screwing up everyone upgrading from 8.x to 8.3 and beyond)
  Changing all the version numbers in the source code for no damn reason.
5. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  What about sysintall being re-named to bsdinstall ? ;} I didn't check the background for this change, but oh well...
6. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 12:45 · Score: 0
  
  I do like bsdinstall, none the less. On FreeBSD 10.0, though... ;}
7. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 14:25 · Score: 0
  
  sysinstall is written in c
  bsdinstall is written mostly in sh
  they are totally different beasts
8. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 17:09 · Score: 0
  
  sysinstall*
9. Re:LOL by styrotech · 2014-07-17 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, it's not recommended for use on non OpenBSD systems yet.
  It's not recommended for use on any system yet.
Haven't used FreeBSD in years. by mateo650 · 2014-07-16 11:29 · Score: 1

Will it run well on an ARM based TV Stick / BOX ?
1. Re:Haven't used FreeBSD in years. by mi · 2014-07-16 11:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There is a FreeBSD/arm project. Whether it will work on your particular hardware — and recognize all of the peripherals you care for, that's another topic...
  It is a "Tier 2" — so there are no official builds for it, for example.
  It is a "Tier 1" for NetBSD, so you may have better luck there. They even distinguish between "ARM evaluation boards" (evbarm) and "StrongARM based Windows CE PDA machines" (hpcarm). I'm sure, OpenBSD is similar in this regard, but I'm tired of copy-pasting links...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
2. Re:Haven't used FreeBSD in years. by Desler · 2014-07-16 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  ARM is a Tier 2 architecture for FreeBSD so I wouldn't get my hopes up too far, but you might get lucky.
  http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_...
3. Re:Haven't used FreeBSD in years. by Darinbob · 2014-07-16 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  It does seem odd to have non-PC ports, since FreeBSD basically began life as a 386BSD fork. NetBSD and OpenBSD are for more CPU agnostic over their history.
4. Re:Haven't used FreeBSD in years. by Desler · 2014-07-16 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? NetBSD was a 386BSD fork as well.
5. Re:Haven't used FreeBSD in years. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  There are official snapshot builds for some arm products:
  ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/ISO-IMAGES/11.0/
  armv6-RPI-B (Raspberry Pi)
  armv6-WANDBOARD-QUAD
  armv6-ZEDBOARD
6. Re:Haven't used FreeBSD in years. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  It runs well on Atom. I'm running mini-dlna, samba, apache, dns for about 8W. SSD for OS, 2.5" HD for data.
  FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE-p3 #0: Tue May 7 09:11:52 EDT 2013
  root@merlin.local:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MERLIN amd64
  CPU: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N2800 @ 1.86GHz (1866.77-MHz K8-class CPU)
  Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x30661 Family = 6 Model = 36 Stepping = 1
  Features=0xbfebfbff
  Features2=0x40e39d
  AMD Features=0x20100800
  AMD Features2=0x1
  TSC: P-state invariant, performance statistics
  real memory = 8589934592 (8192 MB)
  avail memory = 8227819520 (7846 MB)
7. Re:Haven't used FreeBSD in years. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 21:11 · Score: 0
  
  NSA troll?
8. Re:Haven't used FreeBSD in years. by Desler · 2014-07-17 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  An Atom is not ARM. How exactly does that have any relevance to their question?
upgrade of stable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 11:56 · Score: 3, Informative

9.2 EOL has been moved to the end of the year allowing a longer migration period for those still running the stable 9 branch.
I'm running 10 with zfs-on-boot in production. working excellently .. as expected ..thanks BSD.
For the usual knockers, give it go ! - though i do admit that non-tier-1 such as ARM, could pose challenging.
like all choices, fit for purpose.
FreeBSD 9.3: "Weekend at Bernie's" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 12:01 · Score: 0

O most merciful Father, who hast pleased to take unto thyself the soul of this thy servant FreeBSD, grant unto us thy servant so to follow in faith where thou hast led the way, that we may at length fall asleep peacefully like FreeBSD. Through thy mercy, who livest with the Son and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.
OpenSSL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 14:02 · Score: 0

Who are the crack smokers that make up OpenSSL version numbers??
OpenSSL 0.9.8za
Does anyone outside of the vanishingly small and shrinking circle of OpenSSL developers know what that number means or why they persist on inflicting whatever stupid, parochial numbering convention it's the fault of on everyone?
1. Re:OpenSSL by ChunderDownunder · 2014-07-16 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  za - the South African release?
2. Re:OpenSSL by McNally · 2014-07-16 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  Does anyone outside of the vanishingly small and shrinking circle of OpenSSL developers know what that number means or why they persist on inflicting whatever stupid, parochial numbering convention it's the fault of on everyone?
  
  Yes, why can't they use alphabetically-sequenced Alliterative Animal names, or maybe choose selections in no particular sequence from an unordered set such as large cat species?
  Sure, they could be clearer, but they're very far from the worst version naming out there.. Count your blessings.
What is BSD good for? by EmperorOfCanada · 2014-07-16 14:16 · Score: 1

I know that BSD lives somewhere in the guts of my Mac OS and I used it many years ago only to stop because of a single incompatibility (but a critical one).

So I am honestly asking, what is BSD good for. I presently use CentOS and I am perfectly happy with it but for some reason BSD has a magical "hard core" allure. So what I should ask is: what excuse do I need to use it?
1. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 15:06 · Score: 0
  
  It's dead. Don't use it.
2. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  I'd like to hear some responses to this as well.
  I run CentOS. Looking at security building from ground on up in the future. I have noticed a lot of chatter about BSDs, in particular FreeBSD and OpenBSD. I haven't managed to exactly find or form (from what I've read) a concise summery of the pros and cons of each. BSD = Berkeley developed stuff (I've also used BIND, so this is the point where I chime "It ain't half-bad!", even though a) it's the only DNS software I've used, and b) it's pretty much a sentiment echoed from some websites I've read, because FUCK dns [but FUCK sendmail more]).
  So given that I'm no longer at LAMP Skylark level, but I'm not fully armed for entry into the cyberturf that is today (on a medium-large client scale, mind you), I am also honestly asking, what is BSD good for.
3. Re:What is BSD good for? by Voyager529 · 2014-07-16 15:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So I am honestly asking, what is BSD good for. I presently use CentOS and I am perfectly happy with it but for some reason BSD has a magical "hard core" allure. So what I should ask is: what excuse do I need to use it?
  Three reasons I personally can think of. First, NetBSD specifically is a fork intended to run on basically anything with a microprocessor. CentOS will run on x86 hardware, and in the form of Pidora and similar, runs on ARM. Try it on an Itanium or SPARC or PowerPC Mac, and things get a smidge more interesting.
  Second, ZFS. Now cue those who believe that file system nirvana is found in btrfs or ReiserFS or HFS+, but I'm a huge fan of ZFS as a file system. If you're like me, you'll be using BSD in the form of one of its descendants, like FreeNAS or NAS4Free, where ZFS makes lots of other things much easier.
  Finally, the license. I'm neither a programmer nor a recompiler so my use of BSD licensed software is essentially identical to my use of GPL software ('free as in beer', with the occasional bug report). For purists and programmers, there is a difference in what is and isn't allowed under the respective licenses.
4. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  It is good for.. a lot of stuff.
  I use it because it does what I expect it to do.
  There is a reason the private sector uses it. Some people use it because they are geeks.
5. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  As a system admin that used CentOS and FreeBSD in the same environment; I can say that I much prefer FreeBSD. Both systems will get the job done. I made it a point to use FreeBSD for all of our data stores from database servers, NFS servers, and infrastructure systems. I used CentOS basically for application servers as that is the platform that the developers develop on and it also makes troubleshooting JBoss issues easier as "Linux" is a much more popular platform to run JBoss on.
6. Re:What is BSD good for? by dbIII · 2014-07-16 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  So I am honestly asking, what is BSD good for. I presently use CentOS
  The largest difference between the two platforms is the capability of ZFS - rock solid for years on one and sort of coming out of alpha on the other.
  A second reason is you can use really crappy old hardware as a test box for it and it still works - for instance I ran it on a retired file server with IDE drives for a while to learn how to use it and it ran with far more speed than I expected.
7. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 17:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If you are happy with CentOS, use it. We are not like Linux people, we are not out to convert you. We are not hoping you see the one, true way. I have never understood the concept where people are happy with a solution or product, and they actively seek out something else.
  For me, I was a Linux user goign back to 1992; I dumped it in favor of FreeBSD in 1999 and never looked back.
8. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  commercially, the bsd style licensing favors it's usage in nested or black box items. i think my apple airport extreme is netbsd inside. the gpl makes people share. sometimes that detrimental to your business model.
  The openbsd packet filter PF, now also default in freebsd is good value. adding to popularity of monowall and pfsense.
  bsd's make great infrastructure servers. and generally have low resource overheads. even includes a linux compat layer so you have run linux apps.
  firewalls, routers, time, dns, mail etc.. all those things behind the scenes, those yucky protocols invented 40 years ago.. bsd easts them up.
  Personally i find the general end-to-end ecosystem more palatable in freebsd. certainly for a server role.
  freebsd supports jails. the ports system, and now the improved package and update systems have really impressed.
  linux and distros like centos is great. however often the linux world can feel a little fragmented. the bsd world is a little more uniform. that doesnt make it right.. just different. :) in the sameway that sun, hp or ibm os feel to their admins.
  horses for courses. and fit for purpose
  try it, you might like it.. :) once you get past the text installer hahaha
9. Re:What is BSD good for? by satuon · 2014-07-16 18:54 · Score: 2
  
  Second, ZFS
  From what I've read about ZFS, it sounds like it comes from science fiction. Built-in snapshots and copy-on-write, are you kidding me? Too bad there's nothing comparable in Linux. Well, there is btrfs, but it is not stable last I heard. Why can't they just port ZFS to Linux?
10. Re:What is BSD good for? by satuon · 2014-07-16 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  One other thing I really like is how they use the Makefiles as a package manager, and how the Makefiles themselves are under version control. It's a really elegant solution, basically they created Debian's apt without coding anything, using only existing tools.
11. Re:What is BSD good for? by WiPEOUT · 2014-07-16 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  In addition to Voyager529's response above, another major BSD is OpenBSD, which focuses on security.
12. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 19:08 · Score: 0
  
  linux is like a young 20 something.. gogogogogogo partypartyparty, lets do it all, lets do it now. wooohoooo. great fun and enthusiasm but can be a little tiresome.
  bsd is a bit more like a middle aged executive , cuts through the crap, focuses on whats important and gets it done.
  the good news is no-one is best, they can work together and be complementary.
  ill leave it /. to name who the mac and windows might be :)
13. Re:What is BSD good for? by burni2 · 2014-07-16 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  Well:
  the chance not needing to start up many services to have a modern *Nix*Free*Li*net* OS
  that is running like a quick, responsive machine, three generations older than the one needed for CentOS.
  The "Free" in FreeBSD - is for Freedom: we choose what services our machines run, no fucking installer.
  The "Free" in FreeBSD - is for OptIn not to be Opted in by default.
  And the BSD in FreeBSD - stands for structure, clean, deterministic behaviour, not that clutter a Linux Distribution is built uppon
  (have a look at linuxfromscratch)
  Just download the FreeBSD source tree kernel and userland, you will recognize every source for each non-builtin-command is placed in a directory with a make file.
  If you want to alter something just edit the source "make" it, and install it in your system.
14. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  I switched to FreeBSD after 1 year or so of using numerous Linux distros. Linux feels like relatively organised chaos, FreeBSD simply feels organised, there's a consistency to the latter that appeals to people not looking for bleeding edge programs.
  My main focus is OmniOS these days but whenever I jump back to FreeBSD I feel completely at home, ZFS, jails, ipfw, ugidfw etc. Can't help but feel Linux is rather esoteric, that feeling just doesn't exist with FreeBSD, simplicity and consistency are the rule of the day.
  Recompiling a kernel on FreeBSD is as easy as could be compared to the a decent amount of familiarity needed for a Linux system. Total separation of the base OS and installed programs are a godsend, for both backing up and management of packages. Performance, documentation, consistency and backward compatability are superb.
  Despite my FreeBSD favouritism, neither FreeBSD or Linux trump Solaris for integration.
15. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 20:11 · Score: 0
  
  Thou shall ask and The Internet shall provide: zfsonlinux.org and wiki.ubuntu.com/ZFS.
  Note however the license problem en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Linux (the article even talk about potential patent problems in case a re-implementation is attempted ...)
16. Re:What is BSD good for? by ratsg · 2014-07-16 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe I am just missing your /humor tag, but I thought the ZFS on linux thing had been taken care of years ago.
  http://zfsonlinux.org/
17. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 21:43 · Score: 0
  
  "Clean, deterministic behaviour" eh? From the 10.0 release notes:
  "A bug in killall(1) has been discovered. It makes killall -INT to deliver SIGTERM rather than the desired SIGINT, and may cause blocking behavior for scripts that uses it, as -I means “interactive”. A workaround of this would be to use -SIGINT instead."
  Yeah, great release engineering that. Sloppy bugs, lack of proper testing... Not good for production environments. And FreeBSD has nothing compared to the 7+ years of security updates you get with CentOS.
18. Re:What is BSD good for? by satuon · 2014-07-16 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  No humor, I really thought it was not available. Is it stable? Why did the parent list it as a reason then?
19. Re:What is BSD good for? by guacamole · 2014-07-16 23:08 · Score: 0
  
  I suspect the primary use for FreeBSD is a development platform for operating systems such as Darwin and others. An average user is not expected to touch it, even though a device in your pocket or your closet may be running a piece of FreeBSD.
20. Re:What is BSD good for? by Mikkeles · 2014-07-16 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  Mac is the CEO's hot, airhead secretary (AA) who drinks double mocha lattes with extra cream and thinks her magnetic bracelet will cure her cold.
  Windows is the fuckup team member (nephew of the chairman of the board) whose output is so bad that build scripts were developed to automatically remove his code.
  
  --
  Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
21. Re:What is BSD good for? by Bengie · 2014-07-17 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  There are many cases where the GPL cannot be used, so BSD immediately fits that niche. Many sysadmins like BSDs over Linux distros because the BSD tend to focus more on design than flavor of the month, even CentOS has more breaking changes than many BSDs.
  
  In general, BSD's tend to exhibit a quality over quantity mentality that attracts a certain group of people.
22. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 00:36 · Score: 0
  
  Some day CentOS may support an in-place upgrade across major versions. You need 7+ year support when there's no upgrade path other than a reinstall.
23. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed. We use Linux at work for various things, but the more I use BSD for little projects, the more and more it impresses me in regards to stability, sane config files, less resource hungry. So far I've worked with Free- and OpenBSD and have been impressed.
24. Re:What is BSD good for? by wjcofkc · 2014-07-17 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Also the ports tree is a joy to work with. It also offers a much more sane environment for editing and managing configuration files. Not to mention the excellent FreeBSD handbook and well thought out, easily searchable documentation in general.
  
  --
  Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
25. Re:What is BSD good for? by Fweeky · 2014-07-17 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's stable enough for general use, but maturity counts for a lot with filesystems, especially when they're as complex as ZFS. It's also a third-party add-on rather than an official part of the OS which does raise some issues.
  Conversely it's practically the default on FreeBSD, and it's been available since 2008.
26. Re:What is BSD good for? by Fweeky · 2014-07-17 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Not really - ports doesn't even have a *concept* of upgrading, it's just uninstall/reinstall and hope you can work out how to handle all the dependencies. This is why FreeBSD's got so many tools for managing them - portupgrade, portmanager, portmaster, all with their own little and not so little quirks.
  We do have an apt-alike these days, in the form of pkgng. pkgsrc also has pkgin.
27. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  I have been using ZFS on Linux for about two years now. It is quite stable and very useful.
28. Re:What is BSD good for? by ratsg · 2014-07-17 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  +1
  I am happy that this 9.x release occurred for the people who need it, but the 10.x version will install, out of the box, with ZFS root straight out of the box.
  Either way, you don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict that your favorite OS + ZFS is a big step forward.
29. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  Couldn't have said it better myself!
30. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Since I can seamlessly upgrade my FreeBSD installs with every release and snapshot/clone my ZFS filesystem to roll back if anything goes wrong (which has never happened, but I do it anyway) I feel like I have forever+ years of security updates.
31. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  ZFS On Linux is okay. The reason it's listed as an issue (aside from being third party as already mentioned, which doesn't bother me or most people) is that FreeBSD has been polishing their ZFS implementation since 2007 while Linux spent the first 5-6 years with their fingers in their ears going "na na na na BTRFS will be better... some day.. eventually.. ZFS sucks!!"
  FreeBSD's ZFS implementation is just plain better, faster, and more reliable. This will change over time as ZFS On Linux matures, and I'm not knocking it.. ZFS is awesome and I'm glad Linux finally has it.
32. Re:What is BSD good for? by Just+Some+Guy · 2014-07-17 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  I understand the concept. By getting other people excited about your favorite OS / band / TV show / game, you increase the likelihood that people will want to bother with continuing to make it.
  There are plenty of projects that exist because they scratch the author's itch, and will continue to be maintained even if their authors were the only person in the world using them. Something as big as a Linux distro, or enormous as an entire OS like one of the BSDs, likely needs a certain user base to make it worthwhile. As such, I don't care if everyone in the world uses FreeBSD. I just want it to be popular and widespread enough that no one starts asking themselves if it's time to pack it up and go home.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
33. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  You are 100% correct. I work with all of them, and by far the BSDs are easier to deal with. It's often said, and I think true, that BSD is engineered and Linux is hacked together. This makes sense given that Linux is simply a kernel and the BSDs are full OSes. In general, though, and from my own experience as well, I've noticed that BSD code tends to be better written. I recall one driver for a now-forgotten wireless chipset that was written by some Linux developers and was released under the GPL. Some OPenBSD developers wrote a similar driver with the exact functionality. The Linux driver source code was over 10 times bigger yet offered no additional functionality. That driver was included in major distros. That's telling...
34. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  Same thing here... Linux through late 90's. FreeBSD ever since and I'm not looking back or switching to anything else, ever.
  Linux is just a complete mashup of shit from everywhere. Look at Ubuntu... sooooo much unnecessary crap running in 'ps'. Shims, on top of shims, on top of intermediate wedges and pointless abstraction. And dependencies as far as the eye can see. Reasonably interesting kernel, shit for userland, and distro hell. That's Linux in a nutshell.
  When I sit here on FreeBSD with less than 30 non-kernel processes running, all clean and tidy, with the kernel and base coming from one house... yeah, simple bliss, I love it.
  I'd rather use MAC before ever considering Linux again. But I won't because it ain't open.
35. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  Oooooh! Look what a cute little troll. It's so nice, isn't it?
36. Re:What is BSD good for? by fisted · 2014-07-17 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Except that he isn't a troll, and his information is spot on.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
37. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  I use FreeBSD because it's simple, it works, and it doesn't change on a whim. (i.e. there isn't a new firewall/filesystem/startup system every year). The base install is basic, add-ons go into /usr/local.
  I appreciate being able to install a package with the precise options that I want, with dependencies against what's actually on my system, rather than whatever the binary package developer decided to depend on.
  RHEL makes things unnecessarily complex, and they keep changing things for no apparent reason. When I run RHEL I generally install packages and don't upgrade for fear of dependency hell. With FreeBSD if I want to upgrade just *one* package to the latest version, it's no big deal -- the package gets built from source and will depend on the libs currently present on *my* system, even if they're not 100% what the package maintainer had in mind.
38. Re:What is BSD good for? by epine · 2014-07-17 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  So I am honestly asking, what is BSD good for.
  When exactly did "honestly" become a synonym for living under a rock? This question comes up on almost every thread where FreeBSD is mentioned, though granted this is barely more often than its major releases.
  The first answer in every such thread for years now is always ZFS, but actually this just disguises how many people have been using it for years or decades and just plain like the way FreeBSD does things even if nine out of ten, or ninety nine out of a hundred, or nine hundred and ninety nine out of a thousand have different tastes.
  I get intensely piqued over the implication that there's a nuisance hurdle that needs to be cleared just for existing. When "honestly" becomes a cover story for living under a rock (or an equivalent not-be-bothered-hood) this ultimately seems to resonate as the main implication.
  It's especially irritating when FreeBSD predates all the Johnny-come-latelies. It would have needed to be clairvoyant to have correctly decided to not exist, so as not to strain the reputational resources of open source groupthink.
  
  I used to use an axe, but I stopped using it when I had to cut down a tree ten-feet wide at the base. I am presently using a Husqvarna and I am perfectly happy with it but for some reason the axe retains a magical "hard core" allure. So I am honestly asking, what is an axe good for?
39. Re:What is BSD good for? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-18 22:55 · Score: 0
  
  Waaaah he's saying something I don't like. Quick let's slap a troll label on him...
BIND??? SENDMAIL??? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 14:40 · Score: 0

BLEAAAAH! OpenBSD has been shipping with NSD/UNBOUND and OpenSMTPD and NSD/UNBOUND for a few months now...
1. Re:BIND??? SENDMAIL??? by X0563511 · 2014-07-16 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  Give me BIND or give me... well, nothing. BIND of GTFO.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
2. Re:BIND??? SENDMAIL??? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 17:21 · Score: 0
  
  It available in ports. There is no reason to have it in the base system.
3. Re:BIND??? SENDMAIL??? by Daeron · 2014-07-16 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  FreeBSD 10.x comes with unbound instead of bind, however this change is likely not done in the 9.x series because it would be a large change that would go against POLA (the principle of least astonishment). FreeBSD tries to keep binary compatibility and a consistent base system throughout a Release-Branch.
  This basically means 9.x and lower will stick with BIND whereas from 10.x onward the base system will come with unbound instead. Also i seem to recall there are efforts underway to replace the basesystem sendmail as well.
4. Re:BIND??? SENDMAIL??? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 19:15 · Score: 0
  
  i kinda like sendmail.. but im keen to try the openbsd subproject of opensmtpd.
  link= https://www.opensmtpd.org/
  looks like a nice and concise implementation, without all the historical baggage and should cater for most peoples requirements.
  it is french though :) , so i hope its more like their cuisine than their cars (or world cup team) . ~ allez le bleu !!
5. Re:BIND??? SENDMAIL??? by Bengie · 2014-07-17 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  I can't find the quote, but one of the FreeBSD devs mentioned that BIND represented something like 50% of all security vulnerabilities in the FreeBSD base for the past 10+ years. BIND is the OpenSSL of DNS servers, but it does have a lot of features that can't be found anywhere else.
2014 is the Year of the BSD Desktop! by wiredog · 2014-07-16 22:33 · Score: 1

Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
If you are having a problem with accounts or comment posting, please yell for help.

--

Best Slashdot Co
Licensing does effect end users by jago25_98 · 2014-07-16 22:56 · Score: 1

I don't code and rarely recompile. But I do take an interest in licenses since I find it has an effect in both my user experience and also my interaction with the community. This is what users need to understand.
I buy older cars rather than BMW because I don't want to have to find an authorised garage and pay the premium to decode the onboard computer for the repairs. Likewise, a difference in license can make a difference. In linux vs BSD there are probably some difference which I tend to summerise in my head as:
- if BSD can do it, then the functionality is probably safe in the free software world; it's going to be there in the future and if it's not then a company can be paid through closed software to fix the void
- if linux can do it then the function is less likely to be something to rely on, but it's better than closed software
"Finally, the license. I'm neither a programmer nor a recompiler so my use of BSD licensed software is essentially identical to my use of GPL software ('free as in beer', with the occasional bug report). For purists and programmers, there is a difference in what is and isn't allowed under the respective licenses."

--
A blog I run for the wealth