FreeBSD 10.1 Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Friday November 14, 2014 @11:00AM from the longstanding-contributions dept.

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.

123 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Block Bennett by sexconker · 2014-11-14 11:04 · Score: -1, Offtopic

This greasemonkey user script will hide all of Bennett's articles from the front page and the "older" pages.
http://pastebin.com/RWCxT0jJ
Make sure you're not on the beta site.
1. Re:Block Bennett by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 11:15 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  Not a long time ago, I was just a normal internet user that surfed various news sites like Sladshdot, reddit, or wsj.com. I read a story, perhaps clicked onto some links it contained, and I was mostly happy with my life.
  Then, one day, I surfed Slashdot. It was one of those days you will remember for the rest of your life. So, as I surfed Sladshdot, the title of a story got my attention. I read the summary. The topic seemed interesting, so I decided to read further. I read:
  
  Read on below for the rest what Bennett has to say.
  Usually I don't read first line of a story which contains the user who has submitted it. On that day, I didn't neither. As I've only read that bottom line, I asked myself: who is this misterious Bennett? I decided to click onto the "Read the comments" link to read more of the story that was, as it seems, written by some Bennett. During reading, I was already impressed by the clear and detailed but still concise structure of the text. As I finished reading, I was convinced it was the best story I've ever read on Sladshdot, or any comparable news site. I asked myself: perhaps this misterious Bennett has contributed more frequently than just once?
  To find that out, I went to Sladshdot's search bar and searched for "Bennett". I clicked the second entry, and it began with:
  
  Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes
  I searched for the "Read on" line, and I was happy when I found it. As it seemed, he was a frequent contributor. However the story was on a topic completely unrelated to the topic of my article. Would the other article still be as insightful as the first? And the other stories in the search result? Would they be also by Bennett? Or someone else? I decided first to be happy to have found such an insightful article, and decided to make a photograph of me, before I read the second story.
  I still have that photograph of me and I can see the hope and the satisfaction in my eyes, the hope that the other stories are also written by this brilliant author called Bennett, and the satisfaction of having read such an insightful article. As I've read the first couple of stories by Bennett, I couldn't believe what my eyes saw: all the stories were as insightful or even more insightful than the original story I read. I asked myself whether the spectators in the Globe theatre would have felt the same way when they watched a piece by shakespeare: Witnessing history of writing. I realized Bennett is one of histories great writers.
  As I've finished reading all contributions by Bennett Haselton on Sladshdot, I went back to the first Bennett story, and read them a second time. I sat three days straight, missing all social events during that span, only reading Bennett's stories, and reading them again and again. During that time my eyes opened to the fact that my whole life, I've known nothing. Bennett's stories explained every aspect of very complicated things in such detail, that I formed something in my mind. First, I couldn't describe it what it was, but years later I know that, for the first time of my life, I formed something called "opinion" on a topic. Previously, I've only adopted opinions from others, but Bennett's stories enable people to make their opinions for themselfes, to form them. With his stories, Bennett gives you the material to form your own opinion on your own. I know you will say that you can form your opinion on your own, and that you don't need Bennett for that. I
  disagree with you. What you call opinion, is in reality just ideology you imitate from others. You don't form your opinions, you don't have them.
  Every time Bennett writes a new story on Sladshdot, I take a free day and spend it reading the story
2. Re:Block Bennett by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  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.
3. Re:Block Bennett by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, he's very misterious
4. Re: Block Bennett by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  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.
5. Re:Block Bennett by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  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.
When will FreeBSystemD be released? by hawkeey · 2014-11-14 11:04 · Score: 3, Funny

That's nice, but when will FreeBSystemD be released?
1. Re: When will FreeBSystemD be released? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Why not port the windows registry into the kernel instead? Heck why not rewrite the whole OS in ruby????
2. Re: When will FreeBSystemD be released? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 18:38 · Score: 0
  
  would work nicely with the open source .NET. I can't wait.
3. Re: When will FreeBSystemD be released? by kthreadd · 2014-11-14 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  Torvalds has said he might rewrite the kernel in VB one day. With .NET going open source (one bit at the time) this might not be too far away.
4. Re: When will FreeBSystemD be released? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  would work nicely with the open source .NET. I can't wait.
  .NET apps use XML config files. Read the Application Settings Overview MSDN article for more information.
DOA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 11:07 · Score: 0

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
1. Re: DOA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  It might be 1% server market share, but don't forget to mention that FreeBSD runs on some of the most successful servers in the internet, because it has the best network performance you can get.
2. Re: DOA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 13:20 · Score: 0
  
  IOS is bad you dumbass
I tried it, it's not that good.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 11:10 · Score: -1

but good work, it's getting there.
FreeBSD by zoomshorts · 2014-11-14 11:12 · Score: -1

"A large community has continually developed it for more than thirty years", to that I say horseshit. The wayback machine only shows 14 years of existance. You must be thinking Angies List... lol.
1. Re:FreeBSD by tepples · 2014-11-14 11:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  FreeBSD comes from 386BSD (1992), which comes from 4.xBSD (older).
2. Re:FreeBSD by rev0lt · 2014-11-14 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  What 14 years? http://web.archive.org/web/199...
3. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 12:14 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The Wayback machine only shows 18 years for whitehouse.gov. What's this horseshit about 1776?
4. Re:FreeBSD by Pope+Hagbard · 2014-11-14 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  which itself is descended from Version 7 Unix, although since 4.4BSD-Lite there's no real Unix code any longer.
5. Re:FreeBSD by BitZtream · 2014-11-14 13:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  ... 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
6. Re:FreeBSD by AbrasiveCat · 2014-11-14 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  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. :)
7. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 17:28 · Score: 0
  
  Minix for me, ya bunch of whippersnappers.
8. Re:FreeBSD by fnj · 2014-11-14 18:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  FreeBSD 1.0 was released November 2 1993. The 21st anniversary was just a few days ago.
9. Re:FreeBSD by fnj · 2014-11-14 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and before somebody asks, Linux 1.0 was released 14 March 1994.
  FreeBSD was there first.
10. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 20:47 · Score: 0
  
  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!
11. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  Best comment ever!
12. Re:FreeBSD by NotSanguine · 2014-11-15 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  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
13. Re:FreeBSD by ilguido · 2014-11-15 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
14. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  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.
15. Re:FreeBSD by fnj · 2014-11-15 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  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.
16. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody fucking cares, asshole. Compare version 1.0 to 1.0, not some bullshit pre-release.
  Go upstairs and cry to mommy. Loser.
17. Re:FreeBSD by fnj · 2014-11-15 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  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.
18. Re:FreeBSD by ilguido · 2014-11-15 05:44 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  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.
19. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 18:39 · Score: 0
  
  Are you sure you guys don't use Windows? It would make me feel a lot better.
20. Re:FreeBSD by NotSanguine · 2014-11-17 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  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
21. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-27 15:14 · Score: 0
  
  Touchy, aren't we Sparky? Give it up.
I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 11:12 · Score: 5, Informative

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/
1. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by iggymanz · 2014-11-14 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  I think FreeBSD is great for a desktop BSD, but for servers the simplicity of OpenBSD is even better
2. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 11:32 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Lets just hope that the FreeBSD devs don't become like some linux devs by shitting all over their users while jerking each other off.
3. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 11:33 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on the server. If it's a personal home or small office server, sure OpenBSD is good and secure. Larger institutions might want to use FreeBSD. Honestly, there is so much cross-pollination between the BSDs, it doesn't matter which one you pick (as long as it's not Linux :P)
4. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by unixisc · 2014-11-14 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  I run PC-BSD, which is pretty much FreeBSD, albeit with a smoother installation and a wide choice of package managers. My only beef - the PC-BSD guys should add the role of writing device drivers for the OS, particularly for items not important to the server, but important for desktops. Centrino, for crying out loud, ain't supported. When you install the OS, it recognizes everything, except the Wi-Fi. While the FreeBSD guys may write drivers for everything else, the PC-BSD guys should take up drivers for Wi-Fi, maybe graphics and Wayland. The last ain't important for FreeBSD, but PC-BSD sure could use it. Oh, and Lumina is great.
5. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, fuck I hate when that happens.
6. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  PC-BSD guys should take up drivers for Wi-Fi, maybe graphics and Wayland.
  Oh no. Please don't try to tell volunteers to do something. They may be volunteers but they may have no love for users at all.
7. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  OpenBSD has a lot of nice features, but sadly it has very poor SMP performance. A lot of cool technology originates from that project, but if your want an application or kernel feature to scale past a single core in the BSD world you'll be looking at FreeBSD. Just goggle a few articles on OpenBSD and SMP and you'll find plenty of evidence to support this. For example, here is some info related to using OpenBSD as a firewall with an SMP enabled kernel ... http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/perf.html. It's one of the reasons why FreeBSD had to fork and break compatibility with upstream pf due to it's lack of forethought wrt a highly scalable re-entrant kernel.
8. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 13:08 · Score: 0
  
  I have a FreeBSD 1.0 CDROM in my closet at home. 1.0 was better than some of the current Linux distros... LOL It's still the best.
9. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  He didn't. PC-BSD is just ixsystems employees. They get paid to work on it now.
  However, asking to port wayland really means trying to make a replacement for Weston. Wayland has been ported in an experimental repository already but there is no compositor/window manager type thing for it. Some people hoped KDE or Gnome would make a portable one so the need would not be there. However, if they use the code from Weston it's still a non starter for any BSD.
  The Wayland developers need to start writing portable code rather than go all in on Linux.
  The biggest issue in BSD is graphics card support not wifi. OpenBSD developers rock at wifi and most of that eventually ends up in FreeBSD. There are also a few really talented FreeBSD devs that already work on wifi.
  There is no support for open source nvidia drivers (but commercial driver exists) and Radeon KMS is just starting to get done. Intel support is stuck at ivy bridge still. IT's really a mess on graphics. That is what you should complain about.
10. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Pope+Hagbard · 2014-11-14 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  PC-BSD is pretty nice for a desktop OS. Unlike FreeBSD it's immediately ready for an end-user with a well thought-out environment.
  One analogy might be PC-BSD is to FreeBSD what Linux Mint KDE is to Slackware.
11. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by BitZtream · 2014-11-14 13:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  OpenBSD is good for a firewall with specific hardware that performs well on OpenBSD.
  Outside of that FreeBSD is far more likely to be what you want to use. OpenBSD is kind of like Oracle DB. It can serve its niche REALLY well, but using it feels like you're stuck in the 70s with some of the archaic crap it does. Due to its security related background, they don't do anything they don't have to. Which is fine, and the only way to go when security is your main concern.
  Or you can run FreeBSD, which isn't cut down to the bone, really doesn't have any more major problems security wise than OpenBSD, and is about 4 orders of magnitude more 'user friendly', where 'user' means 'systems admin'.
  Performance wise, FreeBSD still maintains the fastest network stack on the planet, so if you need to move packets, you're going to want to be running FreeBSD, and since it can do so with PF, it makes OpenBSD less attractive as a firewall in all but the most sensitive installations.
  OpenBSD isn't better because its simplistic, its simplistic by design but not 'better'. 99.999% of the systems on the planet don't need to be like OpenBSD, and FreeBSD makes very sane trade offs in what they do to be way more usable.
  Calling FreeBSD a desktop BSD is really really silly. Linux is a desktop Unix clone (and can be a fine server). FreeBSD is a server BSD that will run X and some desktop UIs, but its not a desktop UNIX, you're thinking of OS X.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
12. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 13:47 · Score: 0
  
  Why not? That sounds so hot I'm already stroking my cock in anticipation.
13. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Bengie · 2014-11-14 14:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  FreeBSD devs are almost entirely System Admins or ex-system admins. They eat their own dog-food. Many FreeBSD devs run "current" on production servers at their own jobs. FreeBSD "current" is currently 11.0. The FreeBSD SMP PF changes were running on several production servers as a "beta" for over a year. Each server was a router than handled tens of gigabits per second in a datacenter. These people really eat their own dog food.
14. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by unixisc · 2014-11-14 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  Better analogy is PC-BSD:FreeBSD::Windows7:Windows2008 Server, or PC-BSD:FreeBSD::Fedora:RHEL.
15. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by unixisc · 2014-11-14 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  If a commercial driver exists, then it's supported, since BSDL allows a mixing & matching of liberated & unliberated software. I have no issues running Lumina or LXDE, and I've managed to tame KDE (disabled Nepomunk & Akonadi). Maybe b'cos it's just Intel Graphics? Only GNOME/GTK apps are a problem when run under a different DE. OTOH, none of the PC-BSD updates I've done to date has enabled the OS to recognize the built-in Wi-Fi that comes with the laptop. And it's not a no-name laptop or a weird configuration from someone - it's a Dell Inspiron using off the shelf Intel Centrino. If anything, that should be the first thing supported, ahead of Atheros or Broadcom or anything else. iXsystems should make that a priority.
  As for Wayland, since qt 5 supports it, it may not be a major issue for Lumina to support it. They can make that the default DE for starters, and then get the other WMs ported to Wayland.
16. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by x0ra · 2014-11-14 16:48 · Score: 1
  
  You must not have recent graphics. Their i915 driver is largely outdated, and the update is laughably a ripoff of Linux' 3.8.
17. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by floodo1 · 2014-11-14 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  Have you heard? Those FreeBSD devs sure eat their own dog food!
  
  --
  I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
18. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by fnj · 2014-11-14 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  Or ... I've got an idea. Stick with X11. It works perfectly fine. Let the losers waste their time developing Wayland for some other OS.
19. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 21:54 · Score: 0
  
  Have you heard? Those FreeBSD devs sure eat their own dog food!
  Yeah, but did you know that they eat their own dog food?
20. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by drinkypoo · 2014-11-14 23:43 · Score: 2
  
  I think FreeBSD is great for a desktop BSD, but for servers the simplicity of OpenBSD is even better
  If I were building a uniprocessor machine to do a high-security task, I might well choose OpenBSD. For literally any other purpose, or if I already own the hardware and compatibility might be an issue, I won't even consider it, because literally every time I've tried to run it I've had problems with drivers. My first problem with it was a problem with the eepro100 that caused first lots of dropped packets, then panics. Not really what you want on your firewall.
  OpenBSD is a good idea, but they don't care about things they need to care about in addition to security, like compatibility.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
21. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 00:33 · Score: 0
  
  "and the update is laughably a ripoff of Linux' 3.8."
  MIT licensed code being ripped off... interesting...
22. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  Lets just hope that the FreeBSD devs don't become like some linux devs by shitting all over their users while jerking each other off.
  Linux as scheisse video (no. don't do it!), eh?
23. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  Would be glad to know your affiliation as far as Open Source is concerned...I was convinced to use FreeBSD 9.x when ZFS seemed to become a viable option for serious work (Opensolaris/Openindiana desktop apps getting less and less), using OpenBSD and Linux etc...for decades now. Not long ago I therefore sent FreeBSD a small amount of money for their good work and motivation...Of course the handbook (and all the other docs) are helpful in the beginning - as far as they correspond to recent releases etc. - 9.1 worked fine for me, but it is obsolete now. 9.2, 9.3: looks like some misconfiguration prevented a stable gnome, 9.3: firefox-ESR probably has a funny memory leak: it eats all swap space while RAM stays mostly unused,...10.0: never got gnome running (where is it? just a reply: "package does not exist" - did not put much effort in it, though) - so what should I expect from 10.1 ? NB: I surely am a "known troll" who does not just believe...BTW: FreeBSD afaik is lauded for being an excellent "server" system, not a "desktop" solution - so far ok, but a little bit more openness as to what runs and what does not surely would contribute to the professional image not only as developers but also as supporters...If you want a clean and thoroughly professional system with IMHO _always_ correct and uptodate docs from the BSDs: use OpenBSD (it has avoided "extra bling" from the beginning and they keep their eyes wide open, not "wide shut"...). The only thing I miss is ZFS, and they explain why this cannot be for now.
24. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by F.Ultra · 2014-11-15 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Performance wise, FreeBSD still maintains the fastest network stack on the planet
  Proof to that?
25. Re: I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  I like FreeBSD but you cannot say that since it has pf you dont need to use OpenBSD to get it. The pf in FreeBSD is _seriously_ outdated.
26. Re: I Switched To FreeBSD by urbanriot · 2014-11-15 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with this and with each new release of FreeBSD and OpenBSD, I weigh my considerations for each OS due to the lack of updates with pf on FreeBSD. Following firewall documentation provided for OpenBSD pf configurations is frustrating when similar FreeBSD functionality follows a different, older syntax or simply can't be achieved as easily as it can with the newer OpenBSD functionalities. However I feel that I can achieve more with FreeBSD and faster, simply because I find the OS more accessible and compatible with other packages.
27. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Could you evtlly. please specify on what brand/type of server it usually is/was running - many different or "100 times the same" ? Maybe I have to buy one of them... ;-)
28. Re: I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  'with each new release'?
  I know you want security and all but that's a lot of installing/updating. Do your computers ever get any actual work done for their clients?
29. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by jones_supa · 2014-11-15 03:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  3 months ago there was a Facebook job application which sought for people having the skills to improve Linux's network stack to match the performance of FreeBSD's.
30. Re: I Switched To FreeBSD by TheRaven64 · 2014-11-15 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  The pf in FreeBSD is _seriously_ outdated
  The pf in FreeBSD is not just a copy of the OpenBSD code that was then forgotten about. It has been worked on since it was imported, for example adding significantly better SMP scaling in the 10.0 release.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
31. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by TheRaven64 · 2014-11-15 04:18 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Many FreeBSD devs run "current" on production servers at their own jobs.
  A good example of this is Netflix. Because their infrastructure is designed to support server failures, they're quite happy to deploy random patches against -CURRENT on machines that saturate their network and disk bandwidth pretty much full time and report performance numbers. This has been a really good way of stress testing network and storage stack improvements recently.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
32. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  OpenBSD is a good idea, but they don't care about things they need to care about in addition to security, like compatibility.
  Ahahahaha. No. Are you serious? OpenBSD cares about compatibility. They care very much. But it's just impossible to catch up with major, commercially sponsored systems like Linux and FreeBSD. They simply don't have the manpower.
  You make it sound like they don't give a shit, and don't care when their software fails on untested hardware. That's a lie.
33. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by drinkypoo · 2014-11-15 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  You make it sound like they don't give a shit, and don't care when their software fails on untested hardware. That's a lie.
  I think reading the mailing lists pretty much backs it up. I've got a netbook with a super-common NIC which is unsupported, a patch was contributed which consisted of just some values, and they declined the patch on the basis that the values came from linux and that might be a GPL violation, which it explicitly isn't. They just didn't want to absorb the patch for some reason. That's just the failure I encountered the last time I tried to use OpenBSD, but something like that happens every time.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
34. Re: I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Does OpenBSD have support for the enter key? What the hell happened to paragraphing long bodies of text.
35. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by goarilla · 2014-11-15 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  Slackware makes an awesome desktop. With FreeBSD you'll have to
  compile KDE from ports (make config galore) or use the precompiled but
  broken version (old Xorg) on the media.
36. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 23:29 · Score: 0
  
  Or perhaps, being the developers of a system rather than users, they know better than you? Did you actually post on the ML to find out more, instead of just assuming "I'm right, they're wrong, this system is dumb?"
  User error seems far more likely in the situation you've described.
37. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by ThePhilips · 2014-11-16 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  FreeBSD outperforms Linux only in certain scenarios. In most common cases you would hardly find any difference. Otherwise.
  It is not the problem that Linux network stack sucks. The problem is that linux-netdev people believe that Linux network stack is already perfect.
  AND. The biggest problem is with the certain Linus Torwalds who insists on perfect design for any net redesign.
  That's why we still do not have interrupt polling/interrupt throttling or anything like pf.
  That's why we have the technically perfect ip - but totally unusable to literally any human being. And the iptables with near O(n) performance.
  It's basically the same story as with the sound subsystem. As long as the design is good, it doesn't matter that the end result sucks.
  
  --
  All hope abandon ye who enter here.
38. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by drinkypoo · 2014-11-16 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Or perhaps, being the developers of a system rather than users, they know better than you? Did you actually post on the ML to find out more,
  No, I actually read the mailing list archives to see that the patch had been contributed, they had complained about it, and then it was contributed again. Then there were no responses. If someone posting a working patch has no chance to get a positive response, what chance do I have? The mailing list archives told me it would be a fat fucking waste of time. Someone actually handed them a working patch which broke nothing and they decided it wasn't worth committing. But the patch no longer applies and I don't care enough to figure it out. I just installed Linux, and now the system is working. If they don't care enough to take on patches that people hand them, then they don't care. And since they don't care, I don't care.
  
  User error seems far more likely in the situation you've described.
  I didn't describe the situation in enough detail to make that assessment until this comment, at which point it clearly isn't the case. You shouldn't make assumptions, because you're an asshole.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
39. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 00:35 · Score: 0
  
  I couldn't agree more. Used Debian and Debian based Linux since 1997, but in recent times it seems the community has become more and more fractured and click'ish. With distro's coming and going regularly, and constantly changing their focus I grew tired of it all. I was tired of networking with other Linux users and being told their distro was always "superior" to the one I was currently using.
  I started by using PC-BSD. It frustrated me at first, but it slowly grew on me to the point were it's all I want to use now. I've moved several servers at my work from Windows or other proprietary systems to FreeBSD based systems (FreeNAS and TrueOS). And I'm currently considering the idea of a BSD certification for my resume (http://www.bsdcertification.org/). (Disclaimer: I still use Linux for friends and family desktops.)
  I don't have a lot to donate, but I do donate yearly to the FreeBSD Foundation. This is something I want to see perpetuate itself for a long time.
40. Re: I Switched To FreeBSD by urbanriot · 2014-11-17 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  I know you want security and all but that's a lot of installing/updating. Do your computers ever get any actual work done for their clients?
  I can't make sense of your question. Note you're replying to a post that read "I weigh my considerations" meaning it's a thought process that does not involve updating servers or systems outside of perhaps a VM for evaluation.
41. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by unixisc · 2014-11-17 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  I just upgraded to PC-BSD 10.1. So far, looks like an improvement. Will be interested in seeing the UEFI experience
42. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by iggymanz · 2014-11-20 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Haven't notice any issues with OpenBSD smp for things like web serving, and with rthreads becoming the default libpthread lightweight threads have good performance
43. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by fnj · 2014-11-27 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  [root@loki ~]# pkg search kde
  kde-4.14.2
  [root@loki ~]# pkg search xorg
  xorg-server-1.12.4_9,1
  Funny, they're binary packages, don't have to compile them, and it doesn't look broken to me. If it isn't xorg-server 1.16, SO WHAT?
44. Re:I Switched To FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-28 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  As with all FOSS OS's I wish hardware support was better. But that's largely out of the hands of the OS developers. Personally, I've gotten frustrated with FreeBSD at times and looked at Linux, then MacOS or rebooted to ugh Windows. FreeBSD sucks least.
Its dead jim by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 11:28 · Score: -1

What is this, an obituary?
What's that smell? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 11:39 · Score: 0

What is that? Did something die? FreeBSD 1.0: "Weekend at Bernie's".
1. Re:What's that smell? by Skylinux · 2014-11-14 21:50 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That smell comes from that dead penguin over there. It blew its head off after failing to become the desktop OS during the past 20 years. To top it of, more and more server admins have started moving to *BSD.
  He just could not take it anymore - SystemDisconnected
  
  --
  Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
2. Re:What's that smell? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-28 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  Even if tux was dead, tux is OSS. That means tux is a hydra, a multi-headed penguin. Blow off one head and two more shall take its place. BSD advocates may still hate GNU v3, but apart from a license encumbered compiler, meh.
Kernel mess by x0ra · 2014-11-14 11:47 · Score: -1, Troll

Let's rant about the kernel internals, and FreeBSD committers utterly brainfucked engineering decisons:
In FreeBSD 8, a KPI has been renamed. Though FreeBSD committers decided to reuse the old KPI's namespace, and the exact same prototypes, for a new a new KPI. This resulted in a totally transparent change code wise. Though, at the end of the game, codes which was working fine in FreeBSD 7 panic'ed in FreeBSD 10 . I found about this yesterday while debugging a failed assertion for a a customer of mine updating their codebase.
Speechless incompetence.... Though, keep at the bad work, fixing your incompetence is putting food on my table !
1. Re:Kernel mess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  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.
2. Re:Kernel mess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  Nevermind. I misunderstood your post.
3. Re: Kernel mess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  Link to the commits where this happened. I'm extremely skeptical.
4. Re:Kernel mess by Billly+Gates · 2014-11-14 13:18 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  The developers do not actually run the OS outside of a VM in MacOSX.
  OpenBSD seems to be tried and tested and true.
  FreeBSD heights were the 4.x series. I kept on 4.x until 4.12 when 6.x was being released. Gave up. Started using XP and Linux off and on before leaving Linux altogether. Sad
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
5. Re:Kernel mess by BitZtream · 2014-11-14 13:42 · Score: 2
  
  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
6. Re:Kernel mess by BitZtream · 2014-11-14 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  ... 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
7. Re:Kernel mess by Moridineas · 2014-11-14 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  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?
8. Re:Kernel mess by x0ra · 2014-11-14 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  ... 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.
9. Re:Kernel mess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 16:37 · Score: 0
  
  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.
10. Re:Kernel mess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 00:21 · Score: 0
  
  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
11. Re:Kernel mess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  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.
12. Re:Kernel mess by MightyYar · 2014-11-15 03:48 · Score: 2
  
  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.
13. Re:Kernel mess by epine · 2014-11-15 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  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 last 4-STABLE branch release was 4.11 in January 2005 supported until 31 January 2007.
  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.
14. Re:Kernel mess by goarilla · 2014-11-15 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  translates to: codes which was working fine in Windows 95 panic'ed in Windows 7
  
  More like Windows Vista -> Windows 8.1. FreeBSD 7.x wasn't that long ago.
My only exposure is through FreeNAS by AbRASiON · 2014-11-14 17:07 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:My only exposure is through FreeNAS by fnj · 2014-11-14 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing wrong with conservative in this context. Also, most people don't understand, but FreeBSD ports/packages are essentially individual rolling releases, and are not tied to the OS version. E.g., the current version of bash for the release 8 branch (yes, it's still supported) is 4.3.30. Release 9 - 4.3.30. Release 10 - 4.3.30. If you upgrade 10.0 to 10.1, the packages remain exactly the same version, and are stored in exactly the same repo directory. If you jump a major version, they actually switch to different repo directories, so presumably there are SOME differences.
  Keep in mind, though, that FreeBSD 9.2 hits EOL the last day of this year. I imagine FreeNAS is the same; it's just a derivative.
  I'm a little more cutting edge, or ambitious, as the case may be. My 24 TB of files are sitting on a computer I call a "file server", not a "NAS" (there is no meaningful difference AFAIK). It is running FreeBSD 10.0, and I will upgrade to 10.1 soon.
  You can help me out by telling me why you use FreeNAS instead of FreeBSD. I am guessing, from what I've read, that the only appreciable difference is that the former has some added graphical file-server control utilities.
2. Re:My only exposure is through FreeNAS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 21:57 · Score: 0
  
  You can help me out by telling me why you use FreeNAS instead of FreeBSD. I am guessing, from what I've read, that the only appreciable difference is that the former has some added graphical file-server control utilities.
  It gave me ZFS without having to deal with BSD. Not that I don't like learning new things but not just to sever a couple of TBs. I used the time I saved to learn the filesystem features instead.
3. Re:My only exposure is through FreeNAS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 22:02 · Score: 0
  
  not that I put much effort into the comment but damn. Not trying to sever files, serving them should keep my job :)
4. Re:My only exposure is through FreeNAS by ulzeraj · 2014-11-15 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  ZFS and its command utilities are comfy to operate. I think that the only advantage of FreeNAS over FreeBSD is that you don't have to mess with file sharing and other daemons.
5. Re:My only exposure is through FreeNAS by fnj · 2014-11-15 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds rather circular to me, but I get the idea. FreeNAS is more of a click-and-use solution.
6. Re: My only exposure is through FreeNAS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  yea I was going to reply with what you just said. geared towards people who want a quick solution without getting lost in MAN pages.
The year of FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-14 22:46 · Score: 0

This is finally going to be the year of the FreeBSD server!
Wheee! by drinkypoo · 2014-11-14 23:26 · Score: 1

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.'"
1. Re:Wheee! by fnj · 2014-11-15 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't have any trouble at all downloading the ISO the day BEFORE the release announcement appeared.
2. Re:Wheee! by drinkypoo · 2014-11-15 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  It works, what are you talking about?
  The site presumably recovered from slashdotting. And in any case, simply following the instructions if it should fail doesn't work if you're a citizen of the USA, where FreeBSD is probably most common.
  It's not like I'm deciding not to try it because it took me multiple steps to download the ISO. I just don't understand why it still takes multiple steps to get my hands on it in 2014.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:Wheee! by unixisc · 2014-11-16 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  The PC-BSD DVD, if you get hold of that, has installations for all 3 OSs depending on which one you want - PC-BSD, FreeBSD or TrueOS. The last is PC-BSD with the GUI stripped out, but with all the PC-BSD improvisations that can be used for servers.
i'd be careful with this one by resfilter · 2014-11-14 23:47 · Score: 1

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...
1. Re:i'd be careful with this one by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  I'm running 10.x on many hosts, no relevant problems due to compiler issues.
2. Re:i'd be careful with this one by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry - but did you read the earlier post ? Here it is: ...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...just fell 10 stories from the roof - no problems so far...
3. Re:i'd be careful with this one by TheRaven64 · 2014-11-15 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  the entire build for amd64 and x86 has moved to the llvm compiler and clang
  We flipped the default switch in 10.0, but 9.x shipped with a src.conf option to build with clang instead of gcc. We found quite a few LLVM bugs during this time and didn't flip the switch until we were confident that it would work.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
4. Re:i'd be careful with this one by rl117 · 2014-11-15 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  10.0 used LLVM/clang 3.3 by default. Worked fine for me with the exception of not having support for some C++11 features (e.g. no typeinfo for std::nullptr_t). 10.1 is using LLVM/clang 3.4, which should solve those issues. That said, they would only be noticed if you're specifically using C++11; you'd also need a recent GCC if you stuck with GCC. 3.4 is a good improvement over 3.3.
  That's not to say there aren't bugs in various packages which haven't been identified yet, but this is the same toolchain that's been default in MacOSX since 10.8 (and the standard library since 10.9), so it's not exactly untested. Personally, I've only seen minor issues with clang++ being stricter with some C++ syntax which needed a little tweaking, and these are generally seen at compile time, not runtime.
Behyve for AMD processors by ulzeraj · 2014-11-15 01:18 · Score: 2

It says they synced the bhyve code with CURRENT but I didn't found anything mentioning anything about making it available to AMD processors.
1. Re:Behyve for AMD processors by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  It says they synced the bhyve code with CURRENT but I didn't found anything mentioning anything about making it available to AMD processors.
  this is still being worked on in -CURRENT and will likely make it into 10.2.
Wheee! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 02:59 · Score: 0

It works, what are you talking about?
What about 32v you insensitive clod! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 05:39 · Score: 0

Unsure with what to do with the hot grits.
UDP-lite by spink008 · 2014-11-15 06:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.