Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 10.1 Released
An anonymous reader writes Version 10.1 of the venerable FreeBSD operating system has been released. The new version of FreeBSD offers support for booting from UEFI, automated generation of OpenSSH keys, ZFS performance improvements, updated (and more secure) versions of OpenSSH and OpenSSL and hypervisor enhancements. FreeBSD 10.1 is an extended support release and will be supported through until January 1, 2017.
Adds reader aojensen: As this is the second release of the stable/10 branch, it focuses on improving the stability and security of the 10.0-RELEASE, but also introduces a set of new features including: vt(4) a new console driver, support for FreeBSD/i386 guests on the bhyve hypervisor, support for SMP on armv6 kernels, UEFI boot support for amd64 architectures, support for the UDP-Lite protocol (RFC 3828) support on both IPv4 and IPv6, and much more. For a complete list of changes and new features, the release notes are also available.
That's nice, but when will FreeBSystemD be released?
It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test. You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying. Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers. OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts. Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house. All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save *BSD from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead. Fact: *BSD is dying
I switched from Linux to FreeBSD a while ago. FreeBSD is so simple and clean, there's not all this extra bling running that I had with Linux. They have a good handbook right on their website that tells you how to do all the basics of system updating and installing things like browsers, email, video players and things. And as I use it I get the feeling that these guys are going to be around for a very long time, like I never have to worry anymore about whether my old Linux distro will just vanish with the few devs they had in comparison ending up leaving me stuck. FreeBSD is pretty huge it seems. They even have a nonprofit foundation that kicks in like a million bucks or so every year and as I read their page their projects show good results from it. Can't believe it took me so long to try FreeBSD. I'm sold and I'm never going back. Here is their foundation if you want to check them out too...
http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/
What is that? Did something die? FreeBSD 1.0: "Weekend at Bernie's".
FreeBSD comes from 386BSD (1992), which comes from 4.xBSD (older).
What 14 years? http://web.archive.org/web/199...
I don't get it. Can't you just... scroll on down past a story that you don't want to read? Why are you guys so biliously opposed to Bennet? I mean, I probably only read one Slashdot article out of five, but I don't blow a gasket when I am forced to lay eyes on a headline that doesn't interest me.
codes which was working fine in FreeBSD 7 panic'ed in FreeBSD 10
I thought I read that they warn against skipping versions when upgrading.
The Wayback machine only shows 18 years for whitehouse.gov. What's this horseshit about 1776?
Nevermind. I misunderstood your post.
Link to the commits where this happened. I'm extremely skeptical.
which itself is descended from Version 7 Unix, although since 4.4BSD-Lite there's no real Unix code any longer.
Do you ever say anything with any truth in it? The 4.x series was the worst in FreeBSD history as they switched on all the horrible SMP bits. No one used 4.x on anything that required stability.
I'm not sure you've used OpenBSD either by the words of your post.
Troll harder, will ya?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
... speechless incompetence is right. You're ranting about change that occurred in and cause problems because your customer skipped 3 versions of the OS and 6 years of updates ...
I'd say speechless incompetence would be the guy who didn't do proper testing.
I'd love for you to point out this change you're referring though since this pretty much sounds exactly like the sort of thing FBSD is known for NOT doing.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
... Freebsd.org itself was registered in 1994, and has roots in the original Berkley Software Distribution which is what it started from. BSD started in 1977, which was 37 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Its pretty difficult to get another large OS with the history that FBSD comes from, even counting Windows.
Ironically, archive.org ... was registered in 1995.
Yes, the FreeBSD domain is older than the site you're trying to use as a reference of saying that its not old.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
GP is a troll, no doubt, but my recollection was that it was 5.x series with the SMP bits starting to rollout (the start of the removal of GIANT). Am I misremembering?
... speechless incompetence is right. You're ranting about change that occurred in and cause problems because your customer skipped 3 versions of the OS and 6 years of updates ...
I'd say speechless incompetence would be the guy who didn't do proper testing.
I'd love for you to point out this change you're referring though since this pretty much sounds exactly like the sort of thing FBSD is known for NOT doing.
Are you kidding ? You should grep the tree for __FreeBSD_version to find about the mess they are creating.
You are correct. I started using freebsd 5.x, in the midst of the transition to smp. I thought that it went smoothly enough. It's been my os of choice since then.
BSD makes me happy.
which itself is descended from Version 7 Unix, although since 4.4BSD-Lite there's no real Unix code any longer.
Been a while since I used Version 7, but it is what I learned Unix on. The command list was a lot easier to learn then. BSD still feels the same from the command line. :)
However it certainly seems pretty robust to me, quite happy with it. Any ZFS performance improvements are definitely welcome, as long as very very good stability is maintained.
I've finally become someone who is happy to sit behind a few versions and wait. 9.2.1.6 FreeNAS here and I'm not moving to 9.3 until at least 3 months after it's settled.
Minix for me, ya bunch of whippersnappers.
FreeBSD 1.0 was released November 2 1993. The 21st anniversary was just a few days ago.
Oh, and before somebody asks, Linux 1.0 was released 14 March 1994.
FreeBSD was there first.
While we are arguing about who was first,NetBSD 1.0 was released on 26th October 1994, although their formal release history goes back to 0.8 on April 20, 1993.
Don't forget though, that these BSD releases comprised the entire OS, though it was not written from scratch (heavily based on 4.4BSD), as the Linux kernel was (release 0.01 in 1991, according to wikipedia). The first BSD releases were back in the 1970s!
This is finally going to be the year of the FreeBSD server!
I go to http://www.freebsd.org/release...
It says FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE may be downloaded via ftp from the following site:
But that site resets connection immediately
It says However before trying this site, please check your regional mirror(s) first by going to:
Yeah well they don't have a regional mirror for the USA. I mean, that is it. I know because I tried.
So then I tried Canada's regional mirror, because it seemed logical. There is no FreeBSD directory on it. Guess that's not a FreeBSD mirror any more.
So then I see More information about FreeBSD mirror sites can be found at:
So I go there (https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/mirrors-ftp.html)
I try the second link and finally find the mirrors, and the ISOs.
Maybe someone ought to try following these directions before giving them. Obviously they can be followed with some trial and error, but it's pretty lame that I can't just get to the downloads with one click. Maybe two, allowing for a failure on the first attempt. The release document should give enough information to download the release without referring to another document.
Off to see if the actual experience is any better
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
the entire build for amd64 and x86 has moved to the llvm compiler and clang
this is a gigantic plus in the long run, llvm/clang is a great project, and having such a widely used operating system out in the wild relying on it will only bring good.
changing to an entirely different compiler *could* expose new and interesting problems or bugs that can't be anticipated until the code is run by the masses in all different environments. this could be stuff that's very hard to find during release candidate testing.
for that reason, the 10.x series is one release i'd probably wait a good long while before installing on any of my own systems...
codes which was working fine in FreeBSD 7 panic'ed in FreeBSD 10
translates to: codes which was working fine in Windows 95 panic'ed in Windows 7
Best comment ever!
Oh, and before somebody asks, Linux 1.0 was released 14 March 1994.
FreeBSD was there first.
True enough, but I was using (IIRC) SVr3 (HP/UX) in '91, SunOS 4.0.x (BSD)in '92 and (Yggdrasil as I recall) Linux v0.91 in '93. You got the order right, but the dates wrong, friend.
As for the quibbling about who killed who, that link should help.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
FreeBSD was there first.
Lol, no. You're comparing the version of a kernel (Linux) with a distribution or flavour (FreeBSD). Slackware Linux 1.0 was released July 17th, 1993. Yggdrasil Linux was released in 1992.
It says they synced the bhyve code with CURRENT but I didn't found anything mentioning anything about making it available to AMD processors.
Yes, he's very misterious
You don't understand the power he commands. He Who Shall Not Be Named must not merely be scrolled past, he must be obliterated from the front page.
Yeah...no it wasn't, fanboy.
Try to revise history all you like but the first distribution of Linux came out in 1992 (Yggdrasil). Maybe the version of the kernel didn't reach 1.0 until 1994, but it was already good enough for Slackware and Yggdrasil to start using it, two years and one year respectively before FreeBSD reached the same milestone.
BSD? Sure, that's been around for a hell of a lot longer. That's not what you're talking about though. In fact I'm pretty sure that apart from a cursory Google search for that little tidbit of yours, you don't know what you're talking about to start with. Just another fanboy, circle-jerking it to the tune of your own, revisionist history.
FreeBSD was not there first. Period. All the lies you spew out can't change the facts little man.
It works, what are you talking about?
No. 5 stank and FBSD pretty much acknowledged it, but it had to be done. 4.x was sweet but some graybacks said it was not up to snuff after 4.5; slowed down a bit. I used it from 4.2 all the way to 4.11-EOL and then jumped to 6.x. Cake. DragonflyBSD is (sort of these days) based on about 4.9. That was my favorite and I keep an install of it on a 486/66 Compaq, until I grow up enough to send it to recycling and leave IT for good.
They overlapped 7 development with 8 for 3 years! I'm all for deliberate, incremental changes, but you had 3 whole years to think, "Huh, I wonder if this code will work on 8?" and then fix it. Do you think that the OS should be backward-compatible forever? You can always run 7 in a jail if you are really hard up.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It's the new (and not very good) troll post. Don't feed him (it's always a him) and he'll (eventually) go away.
Your interesting anecdotes do not in any way contradict the FACTS. I was using SysV in the early 80s. So what.
You might as well point out that BSD's first release was in 1977. Doesn't in any way change the 1.0 dates for FreeBSD and Linux.
Nobody fucking cares, asshole. Compare version 1.0 to 1.0, not some bullshit pre-release.
Go upstairs and cry to mommy. Loser.
You're trying really hard, but it's not working. Slackware 1.0 boasted Kernel source and image at .99pl11 Alpha. Yggdrasil had 0.98.1 version of the Linux kernel.
1.0 to 1.0 or it's a bullshit comparison.
Unsure with what to do with the hot grits.
I can't comprehend this inferiority complex towards Linux that plagues FreeBSD users. The first public releases of the Slackware and Debian distributions predate the first public release of the BSD flavour known as FreeBSD. That's it. Clinging to software version numbering, in the Open Source world, where software version numbering means basically nothing is laughable at best and a troll attempt at worst. I suppose that none used OpenSSL before 2010 or that 6.8% of the world sites in April 2011 were running on nothing, since nginx was still at version 0.9.7. Yes, it's that laughable.
Nice to see UDP-lite supported in FreeBSD. I am an author of this protocol (RFC 3828) and we made our initial implementation of UDP-lite in BSD many years ago. I would be interested to hear of any experiences using UDP-lite.
The 4 series had legendary stability. The 5 series, not so much. I think by 5.3 it was stable enough for some purposes, and by 5.4 things were cleared headed in the right direction again. (How about you create a keyboard binding to output that phrase "Do you ever say anything with any truth in it?" and use the time you save for an itty bitty Google refresher course?) The unusually flaky 5.x releases covered a time period of about 18 months beginning January 2003.
The problem was that the FreeBSD transition to kernel SMP came late in the day, and by 2005 one tended to strongly desire kernel SMP performance levels. Unfortunately, there was a highly inconvenient period where you couldn't enjoy legendary stability and critical-path kernel SMP at the same time. It was a good time to run Linux for some purposes.
I recall that some FreeBSD deployments running 5.3 had spotless stability, but you had to get your build right and then muck with things hardly at all, which I guess went against the grain of some server admins. The 5 series was not a release for these people.
GIANT hung around for a long time on some less critical kernel paths. It was a long, slow excision.
The Linux social contract at the time was that you put your finger in the air to find out what the cool kids were doing, and if you did mostly the same things—for whatever was trending that month—you couldn't go too far wrong. The problem was the different things were trending every six months, so the moment you took your finger out of the air and stopped pumping your feet like a teenaged Fred Flintstone, you'd find yourself running a not-entirely-supported combination of Old Things.
The rate at which The New Hotness decayed into An Old Thing in the Linux community was truly terrifying if you were trying to build a security appliance to be deployed in the worst possible places—places where you might prefer to buy a new ride rather than cross the tracks to fetch your old ride, even a ride barely six months old and custom armored.
Under FreeBSD it remains a good idea to read the release notes and then exercise personal restraint over unsuitable flavours of ice cream. The cool kids algorithm does not work well.
*****
At a very late hour on Prometheus Night, Fred's car glides to a silent stop at the side of a dark road. "What's the matter?" Wilma asks. "My dogs are beat," says Fred. "Rub my feet for a just a minute?" Wilma harrumphs silently to herself for a short moment, but doesn't wish to create a scene. "Well, put your filthy feet up if you must," says Wilma. Fred's hesitates. He had vaguely hoped that Wilma would halfway invert herself under the steering plinth.
Sorry, Fred. Life's not that easy.
Are you sure you guys don't use Windows? It would make me feel a lot better.
More like Windows Vista -> Windows 8.1. FreeBSD 7.x wasn't that long ago.
Your interesting anecdotes do not in any way contradict the FACTS. I was using SysV in the early 80s. So what.
You might as well point out that BSD's first release was in 1977. Doesn't in any way change the 1.0 dates for FreeBSD and Linux.
And your fetish about 1.0 versions doesn't change the facts either. Those facts being listed in the posted link. Have a lovely day!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Touchy, aren't we Sparky? Give it up.