NetBSD 7.0 Released (netbsd.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NetBSD 7.0 Released (netbsd.org)

Posted by Soulskill on Friday October 9, 2015 @08:38AM from the onward-and-upward dept.

An anonymous reader writes: After three years of development and over a year in release engineering, NetBSD 7.0 has been released. Its improvements include added support for many new ARM boards including the Raspberry Pi 2, major improvements to its multiprocessor-compatible firewall NPF, kernel scripting in Lua, kernel mode-setting for Intel and Radeon graphics chips, and a daemon called blacklistd(8) which integrates with numerous network daemons and shields them from flood attempts.

58 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

NetWho? by sexconker · 2015-10-09 08:52 · Score: 0

Choosing NetBSD over FreeBSD or OpenBSD is like being offered a free soda and asking for Shasta Cola over Coke or Pepsi.
1. Re:NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  But what if I like shasta? Or do you consider it 'bad' because it is considered cheap?
2. Re:NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  Please don't talk about things you don't understand. Also, your comment history, oh well. You're a known troll.
  Sent from my NetBSD machine.
3. Re:NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you for acknowledging that FreeBSD and OpenBSD are more about marketing bluster and macho competition than understated quality and competence.
4. Re:NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  So it's a hipster OS?
5. Re: NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  Haven't played with the BSDs much, but I liked FreeBSD lot. I dont know whats up with that package manager of theirs, but man, that thing is fast. Regardless, I have a spare laptop running it right now, and it works well.
  However, I simply couldn't get it to run on my Raspberry Pi. Apparently there's some compatibility problem with my SD card. Oh well...
  I've also tried NetBSD in a VM recently. Haven't tried it much, but it was super simple to set up. After that, it worked pretty much like any other Unix so far. It's a bit spartan, though, but I guess that's not a terrible thing depending on the use case.
  NetBSD has a reputation for running on everything, so I'm hoping that I'll get it to run on my Raspberry Pi soon.
  One thing that I liked about the BSDs I've tried so far is the documentation. The FreeBSD handbook is pure gold compared to, say, the Debian documentation. The NetBSD documentation is pretty good too.
6. Re:NetWho? by MacTO · 2015-10-09 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't used NetBSD in years, but one of its selling points was portability. Perhaps portability is less relevant in our more homogenous world, but it still has a place.
7. Re:NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  NetBSD's subsystems seem to be well-designed on paper. But NetBSD is a little too bleeding-edge for my particular tastes. I use OpenBSD because it's simple, and they continually improve the _existing_ software.
  I maintain ports of my software to NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD, among other systems. I find NetBSD to have the most latent bugs in the mundane parts, like ksh, pax, etc. They're fixed reasonably quickly when I report them, of course.
  NetBSD also has a habit of changing things out of some misguided notion of purity. For example, changing the udata member in struct kevent from a void pointer to intptr_t for no reason other than somebody thought it was "cleaner". All it did was make life unnecessarily more difficult.
  There are many dimensions to quality and competence, and NetBSD isn't outstanding in all those respects, just some.
  But it's all relative. Linux is bleeding-edge but exhibits exceptionally poor design decisions that aren't well thought out, partly as a result of it becoming too commercial. Software designed for existing commercial needs doesn't age well--it makes the wrong assumptions and doesn't integrate well with current and future extensions, which pretty much describes the short-comings of Solaris, Windows, and every other commercial product out there. In this respect NetBSD is perhaps the most well designed out of any other system out there.
8. Re: NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  Re: package manager being fast: run "pkg version v" (not "pkg version -v") sometime. Look at the pkg-version man page and let me know if you can figure out what's going on there, and why this syntax (which appears to be a mistake, or if not, is undocumented) takes so long. :-)
9. Re:NetWho? by fisted · 2015-10-09 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  I use OpenBSD because it's simple, and they continually improve the _existing_ software.
  Existing software like LibreSSL? (OpenBSD rewrite of OpenSSL)
  Or OpenSMTPD? (OpenBSD rewrite of an MTA)
  Or maybe something simpler, like doas(1)? (OpenBSD rewrite of sudo)
  Lots of newly-written software in OpenBSD. These are only three examples i could readily think of, and they're all fairly recent.
  I guess your notion that NetBSD is bleeding edge is based on similar bizarre views.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
10. Re:NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  speaking of opensmtpd...
11. Re: NetWho? by fisted · 2015-10-09 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  However, I simply couldn't get [FreeBSD] to run on my Raspberry Pi. Apparently there's some compatibility problem with my SD card. Oh well...
  Yes, try a different SD card. I'm running FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE on a Model B, it's exceptionally stable:
  $ uname -a FreeBSD dbgpi.localdomain 10.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE #0 82c1d26(freebsdpi): Tue Dec 2 04:13:10 CET 2014 root@pi.localdomain:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/RPI-B arm
  $ uptime 12:00AM up 187 days, 15:26, 2 users, load averages: 0.33, 0.15, 0.07
  
  so I'm hoping that I'll get [NetBSD] to run on my Raspberry Pi soon.
  Works equally well (this is my wifi AP and kitchen sink):
  $ uname -a NetBSD pi.localdomain 7.99.20 NetBSD 7.99.20 (PIKERN) #0: Wed Aug 5 04:37:30 CEST 2015 build@frozen.localdomain:/usr/build/obj-pi-earmv6hf-evbarm/sys/arch/evbarm/compile/PIKERN evbarm
  $ uptime 12:01AM up 61 days, 10:52, 14 users, load averages: 0.50, 0.41, 0.44
  
  One thing that I liked about the BSDs I've tried so far is the documentation. The FreeBSD handbook is pure gold compared to, say, the Debian documentation. The NetBSD documentation is pretty good too.
  Yep.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
12. Re:NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  LibreSSL is not a rewrite. In fact, it's a perfect example of them improving _existing_ software.
  OpenSMTP and doas... guilty as charged. Also don't forget their new httpd, although that's a refactoring of relayd which has been around a few years. And they wrote their own package manager from scratch, rather than reusing NetBSD pkgsrc framework.
  NetBSD, OTOH, is a cornucopia of new frameworks and libraries, especially in the kernel. Users often don't see them because they're behind the scenes. If you develop system software, especially in C, you'll notice it, though. OpenBSD's smaller number of rewrites are more high profile because they're more obvious to end users.
13. Re:NetWho? by sexconker · 2015-10-09 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  I am a known troll, but I'm also correct.
14. Re:NetWho? by KGIII · 2015-10-09 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'm actually getting to like GhostBSD and would like it even more if I could get Opera working on it. It's really stable seemingly and I've found it to be quite zippy. Right now I am still just using it in a VM but I really want to install it and start using it as my main OS on a regular basis, at least for a while. I just seem too attached to Opera to make the switch. I know... I know...
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
15. Re:NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  I use OpenBSD because it's simple, and they continually improve the _existing_ software.
  Existing software like LibreSSL? (OpenBSD rewrite of OpenSSL)
  Or OpenSMTPD? (OpenBSD rewrite of an MTA)
  Or maybe something simpler, like doas(1)? (OpenBSD rewrite of sudo)
  Lots of newly-written software in OpenBSD. These are only three examples i could readily think of, and they're all fairly recent.
  I guess your notion that NetBSD is bleeding edge is based on similar bizarre views.
  Well, part of that rewriting may be due to their (OpenBSD's) rejection of the GPL. Well, not the examples above, but maybe some other software.
16. Re: NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  Raspberry-pi model B
  uname -a
  FreeBSD raspberry-pi.bildanet.com 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #0 r271779: Fri Sep 19 01:18:53 UTC 2014 root@grind.freebsd.org:/usr/obj/arm.armv6/usr/src/sys/RPI-B arm
  uptime
  8:57PM up 326 days, 13:29, 1 user, load average: 0.14, 0.06, 0.06
  Also running on raspberry-pi2
  uname -a
  FreeBSD rpi2.bildanet.com 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #0 r285794: Thu Jul 23 00:39:41 UTC 2015 root@releng2.nyi.freebsd.org:/usr/obj/arm.armv6/usr/src/sys/RPI2 arm
17. Re:NetWho? by rubycodez · 2015-10-09 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  author of that is behind the times, major cleanup and consolidation of smtpd just done, for those that use it. Or course, OpenBSD runs the other heavyweights
18. Re:NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-10 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  I am a known troll, but I'm also correct.
  No, you're not. You are uninformed to the point of your opinion not being worth anything. You are not saying anything other than: "I am ignorant of the significance of this." The mystery is... if you don't know and understand, and obviously don't care... how does it benefit you to reveal your ignorance so exceptionally? I mean... why would you comment at all? Troll... with issues.
19. Re:NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-10 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  How can you be "behind the times" when pointing out a bad security track record? The record is in the past, so you cannot get "behind" it.
20. Re:NetWho? by rubycodez · 2015-10-11 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  The project now is fine, end of story
21. Re:NetWho? by fisted · 2015-10-11 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  continually improve the _existing_ software.
  I'll just leave this slide of a presentation by Theo here
  "Disruptive innovation is encouraged"
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
22. Re:NetWho? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-18 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  > NetBSD, OTOH, is a cornucopia of new frameworks and libraries, especially in the kernel.
  NetBSD has a very interesting approach to kernel modularity, using "rump kernels" to provide specialized kernel functionality to drivers and an "anykernel" underneath that combines the best features of microkernels and monolithic kernels.
  If you're interested in kernel architecture, take a look at Flexible Operating System Internals: The Design and Implementation of the Anykernel and Rump Kernels by Antti Kantee.
Sing it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 08:53 · Score: 0

B b b
B s d d d
B s d d d
B s d d Deee
Things go better with FreeBSD by chaosmind · 2015-10-09 08:54 · Score: 1

Nice analogy. Thanks for equating FreeBSD with Coke!
1. Re:Things go better with FreeBSD by davester666 · 2015-10-09 18:39 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah. Unfortunately, it's New Coke. Not the good stuff made with cocaine.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
My favorite OS for 'just getting it done' by BaronM · 2015-10-09 09:01 · Score: 2

When I have a headless server/networking task to do, and don't want a side order of drama with my OS, NetBSD is my favorite way to just get it done.
1. Re:My favorite OS for 'just getting it done' by ArchieBunker · 2015-10-09 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, ran NetBSD for about a *decade* on an Alpha 21164 acting as my personal server and firewall. Totally solid.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
WTF Dice?! You dun goofed! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 09:04 · Score: 0

WhytheHellareyounotusingtheproperredthemefortherarestoriesintheBSDsection?!!
1. Re:WTF Dice?! You dun goofed! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  Sections haven't had individual colors for years. Where have you been?
best by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 09:09 · Score: 0

best too against NSA
And all three users cheered... by msobkow · 2015-10-09 09:25 · Score: 1

:P

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
1. Re:And all three users cheered... by fisted · 2015-10-09 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  *cheer*
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
2. Re:And all three users cheered... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-11 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  [cheers]
Ooooold hardware too. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 09:27 · Score: 0

I had a PII with 512m RAM and after going through too many Linux distros and all their bloatware and obese desktops (what happened to the 'no desktop/server' installs?), I ended up with a *BSD (I forgot which). If you need a bare bones *NIX that just installs, *BSD is it. The only "bad" part was that everything had to be done by the command line and modifying init and other scripts (SAMBA, Apache, etc ...) all with a text editor and if you haven't done that since 1995, it's a bit daunting. And when the only text editor available - at least the one you can remember - is vi, oh dear!
Never the less, that old boat anchor felt like a young computer again! It hit on my 25 year old HP calculator!
1. Re:Ooooold hardware too. by sound+vision · 2015-10-09 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  "what happened to the 'no desktop/server' installs?"
  
  Nothing happened? Have you tried Debian? I imagine Gentoo also won't make you install anything you don't want, but I haven't used it in years.
2. Re:Ooooold hardware too. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  So just what has happened in Computing that it is a pejorative to be expected to know what the fuck you are doing? Not knowing is OK, but for that to be the permanent state; is that a Linux thing?
Now with systemD by Billly+Gates · 2015-10-09 09:49 · Score: 4, Funny

Just kidding

--
http://saveie6.com/
1. Re:Now with systemD by gweihir · 2015-10-09 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Good. Otherwise we would have to burn it and start over....
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
2. Re:Now with systemD by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 18:01 · Score: 0
  
  I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure!
3. Re:Now with systemD by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-10 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  Actually NetBSD uses a set of highly modularized scripts under an "rc.d" directory.
  It's a simple and well-thought-out solution to the problem of monolithic rc, without all the cruft that systemd implies.
  That's not to say it wasn't controversial (the change was debated for years) but once it was implemented, there was relatively little grousing.
4. Re:Now with systemD by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-11 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  +5 Not Funny!
Re:No One Cares Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 10:34 · Score: 0

Awesome trolling attempt but still not sophisticated enough for the old /. crowd that occasionally visits.
Did the earth move for you? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 10:48 · Score: 0

Me, not so much.
* Netcraft has confirmed * by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 11:15 · Score: 0

Well, you know that old saying... *sigh*
blacklistd.conf? by thogard · 2015-10-09 12:41 · Score: 1

Blacklistd looks like a great idea but I checked out the syntax in blacklistd.conf and I think it could use some work.
I could see lots of admins getting bitten by "nfail=*" meaning never. To me, that name or a '*' isn't the right choice. Security config files absolutely must be unambiguous to people aren't going to read the manual. Cron has a similar syntax and I've seen several cases were a simple change to a crontab resulted in a 5 star screwup that ran something 1440 times a day.
1. Re:blacklistd.conf? by fisted · 2015-10-09 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  Security config files absolutely must be unambiguous to people aren't going to read the manual.
  People who aren't going to read the manual are unlikely to get their security right, blacklistd or not.
  Security-aware admins do read the manual.
  
  Cron [...] 5 star screwup
  Well put
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Re:No One Cares Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 12:44 · Score: 0

Windows 10? Wow, have you bought into the MS marketing or what? Windows is nothing but legacy cruft with a new(ish) GUI. It's a privacy nightmare. iOS is for consumers/education, not really for business. I look at all this from a business perspective since I'm in IT.
I work with Linux, Windows, and Apple OSes every day. I loathe touching Windows in any capacity other than to remove it from a machine. If I were in charge at work, it would be BSD on the servers, Linux on the desktop. Nothing else needed.
Re:No One Cares Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-09 13:05 · Score: 0

I loathe touching Windows in any capacity
I am sure Windows do not want to be touched too...
What does FBSD & OBSD not have... by unixisc · 2015-10-09 23:19 · Score: 1

...that NetBSD offers? Not trying to troll here or start a war, but was genuinely interested. If I wanted a bullet proof firewall, I'd pick b/w OpenBSD and pFsense, and for a more generic OS, I'd go w/ FreeBSD, since I already run PC-BSD. Does NetBSD bring anything to the party? Particularly since both FreeBSD and OpenBSD support most of the CPUs that NetBSD supports (although FreeBSD has dropped Alpha & PA-RISC, while neither NetBSD nor OpenBSD support Itanic)
1. Re: What does FBSD & OBSD not have... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-10 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  Openbsd uses PF.
  FreeBSD uses pfSense.
  Why have an openbsd firewall with pfSense? IMHO PF is a lot better. I could be biased as all my servers are openbsd.
2. Re: What does FBSD & OBSD not have... by fisted · 2015-10-10 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Openbsd uses PF.
  Yes.
  (NetBSD uses npf as of late, formerly ipfilter)
  
  FreeBSD uses pfSense.
  No.
  FreeBSD has both ipfilter and pf available.
  pfSense is FreeBSD, and probably uses pf
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
3. Re:What does FBSD & OBSD not have... by Noryungi · 2015-10-10 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Let's see... NetBSD offers much better performances than OpenBSD, and performances that are sometimes even better than FreeBSD. It's also a smaller installation than either FreeBSD or OpenBSD: the base installation of NetBSD is simply ridiculously small.
  It offers npf (the NetBSD packet filter), which is a fully-SMP capable version of pf, with a much more modern syntax than pfSense (which runs an oooooold version of OpenBSD pf). And, in general, its SMP support seems to be much better than OpenBSD and on a par with FreeBSD at the very least (including USB!).
  Its Hardware Abstraction Layer seems, at least to my untrained eyes, much better than either FreeBSD and OpenBSD's HAL. And it does include support for Itanium, but only in source code form -- it's right there in the 7.0 announcement.
  Other stuff I am not so sure about include kernel programming using Lua and the new blacklistd, which sounds like an interesting idea. Oh, and pkgsrc, its packaging system, just rocks.
  
  --
  The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
congratulations by jmccue · 2015-10-10 00:00 · Score: 1

Congratulations to the NetBSD team, I installed 7.0 replacing 6.1 on my my B/U system without a hitch. So far all working very well.
Not likely by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-13 00:51 · Score: 0

Not likely, as the BSD family isn't just "unix-like", it IS unix. Providing a free unix is the entire goal of the BSD's. If they were to adopt systemd (which is windows-like, not unix-like), then the BSD's would lose their entire reason to exist.
1. Re:Not likely by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-13 13:06 · Score: 0
  
  > Not likely, as the BSD family isn't just "unix-like", it IS unix. Providing a free unix is the entire goal of the BSD's
  Er, no. The goal of BSD was originally to improve UNIX, but they got in trouble with AT&T's when they tried to distribute it outside academia... or did you miss the whole BSDI vs. AT&T lawsuit drama?
  In the end, all AT&T code was removed (so there's no "UNIX" code in the BSDs) and they are not certified by Open Group as compliant with the Single Unix Specification. So there's really no reason to call them UNIX.