Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FreeBSD 11.1 Released (freebsd.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-and-improved dept.

Billly Gates writes: Linux is not the only free open-source operating system. FreeBSD, which is based off of the historical BSD Unix in which TCP/IP was developed on from the University of California at Berkeley, has been updated. It does not include systemd nor PulseAudio and is popular in many web server installations and networking devices. FreeBSD 11.1 is out with improvements in UEFI and Amazon cloud support in addition to updated userland programs. EFI improvements including a new utility efivar(8) to manage UEFI variables, EFI boot from TFTP or NFS, as well as Microsoft Hyper-V UEFI and Secure Boot for generation 2 virtual machines for both Windows Server and Windows 10 Professional hosts. FreeBSD 11.1 also has extended support Amazon Cloud features. A new networking stack for Amazon has been added with the ena(4) driver, which adds support for Amazon EC2 platform. This also adds support for using Amazon EC2 NFS shares and support for the Amazon Elastic Filesystem for NFS. For application updates, FreeBSD 11.1 Clang, LLVM, LLD, LLDB, and libc++ to version 4.0.0. ZFS has been updated too with a new zfsbootcfg with minor performance improvements. Downloads are here which include Sparc, PowerPC, and even custom SD card images for Raspberry Pi, Beagle-bone and other devices.

112 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. W00t by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

    frosty psit du 2 lennart-free startup!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. This description is informative by whitlocktj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Linux is not the only free open-source operating system." LOL, yes we know. If anyone here knows about Linux, they SHOULD already know about Unix. FreeBSD came out in 1993 and was essentially a fork from 386BSD, another Unix OS. Linux was a kernel built to replicate Unix in 1991, but Unix has been around since the 60's in one form or another.

    1. Re:This description is informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      LOL, yes we know. [...] FreeBSD came out in 1993 and was essentially a fork from 386BSD, another Unix OS. Linux was a kernel built to replicate Unix in 1991, but Unix has been around since the 60's in one form or another.

      Do I need to point out the irony of first complaining that the story mentions commonly known background information, and then writing a more detailed version of the same information?

    2. Re:This description is informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ""Linux is not the only free open-source operating system." LOL, yes we know. If anyone here knows about Linux, they SHOULD already know about Unix. FreeBSD came out in 1993 and was essentially a fork from 386BSD, another Unix OS. Linux was a kernel built to replicate Unix in 1991, but Unix has been around since the 60's in one form or another."

      LOL, yes we know. If anyone here knows about Unix they SHOULD already know about the various Unix variants. Initially intended for use inside the Bell System, AT&T licensed Unix to outside parties from the late 1970s, leading to a variety of both academic and commercial variants of Unix from vendors such as the University of California, Berkeley (BSD), Microsoft (Xenix), IBM (AIX) and Sun Microsystems (Solaris). AT&T finally sold its rights in Unix to Novell in the early 1990s, which then sold its Unix business to the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) in 1995, but the UNIX trademark passed to the industry standards consortium The Open Group, which allows the use of the mark for certified operating systems compliant with the Single UNIX Specification (SUS). Among these is Apple's macOS, which is the Unix version with the largest installed base as of 2014.

    3. Re:This description is informative by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I'm more concerned with them laboriously pointing out the support for Amazon EC2 NFS shares (wtf is that? an EC2 instance with NFS exports? Why wouldn't that be supported for as long as EC2 has existed?) and support for Amazon Elastic File System... which is just hosted clustering NFSv4.1.

      Seriously, did this not work before? NFSv4.1 has been out for like 6 years now. I know FreeBSD moves slow, but is it really _that_ slow?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    4. Re:This description is informative by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      Since they were basing it off of Multics, I'd say it still works.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    5. Re:This description is informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      FreeBSD is a damn sight more "free" than is the Linux distro tarball. $ free too. Are you confusing "free" with "open"? Open Source doublespeak.

      We have always been at war with Microsoft...

    6. Re:This description is informative by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I am going to write some Python code tomorrow that has been around since the 1800s. I am basing it off Babbage's Difference Engine.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    7. Re:This description is informative by houghi · · Score: 1

      The fact that this is "+4 Informative" and not "+1 Redundant" means that people do not know and you where wrong with the "LOL, yes we know." and thus it should have been "-1 Overrated".

      (I am aiming for +1 Funny)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    8. Re:This description is informative by unixisc · · Score: 1

      "Linux is not the only free open-source operating system." LOL, yes we know. If anyone here knows about Linux, they SHOULD already know about Unix. FreeBSD came out in 1993 and was essentially a fork from 386BSD, another Unix OS. Linux was a kernel built to replicate Unix in 1991, but Unix has been around since the 60's in one form or another.

      At version 11, ain't it a given that anybody interested in this story already knows what FreeBSD is? The last few sentences in the summary are informative, as to what changed from 10 to 11, but the first few seemed to assume that we are idiots.

      Another point - since TrueOS - former PC-BSD - is now a rolling update, can the summary include whatever has changed in TrueOS? Like PlayOnBSD, which enabled one to run Steam games under WINE?

    9. Re:This description is informative by whitlocktj · · Score: 1

      You could, but my entire point was to illustrate that Linux spawned as a replica of Unix, which most people know. I was emphasizing the history to bring about the point that the description of FreeBSD was entirely uninformative to the general populous of ./ users. Why mention that Linux was not the only free open-sourced OS, when its history pertains to another free open-sourced OS.

    10. Re:This description is informative by whitlocktj · · Score: 1

      LOL, I suppose you're right. That's really ironic.... You just made my day. If I had mod points right now, and it didn't require me deleting my posts, I'd +1 funny your comment.

    11. Re:This description is informative by whitlocktj · · Score: 1

      Exactly the point I was attempting to make, but you did a better job pinpointing it. Pretty much telling the Open Source community that a primary Open Source technology exists, and what it is, seems to be useless.

    12. Re: This description is informative by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      1 year isn't multiple years in the 60's. If it was started in 1968, then you'd be right. But you're an idiot and wrong.

    13. Re:This description is informative by whitlocktj · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, GNU is a licensing framework, the GNU C Compiler was built with the GNU license, and was later used to create the Linux kernel as a GNU licensed replica of Unix. There FTFY.

    14. Re: This description is informative by whitlocktj · · Score: 1

      ROFLMAO, are you serious? You're arguing semantics over the use of a plural of the decade between 1960 and 1969? I'm sorry, if you can't understand common vernacular, then let me inform you Most English speaking people use plural decades to approximate a period of time within a decade. So for instance, if someone says that Unix was created in the 60's, they do not mean that the creation happened multiple years of the decade, but that it occurred during that period. IE, they are not using the 's to denote plurality, but of ownership.

    15. Re: This description is informative by whitlocktj · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm aware of what GNU stands for and I'm aware of Richard Stallman's contributions, and I'm aware of the fact that Linux was originally not under the GNU license. However, you seem to be under the impression that people refer to the Linux OS as the GNU OS. I have never, in my years in the open source community, heard someone call the OS GNU. I've heard people call it GNU/Linux, or just Linux, but never GNU. In fact, if you research it, every major distribution, news source, certificate name, etc indicates it's called Linux. There's even a Wikipedia article about this argument and yet even then, no one is calling it GNU, they're either calling it GNU/Linux or just Linux.

    16. Re: This description is informative by whitlocktj · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I mixed up GPL with GNU. Braindead moment. Nevertheless, you've completely failed to recognize the fundamentals of Etomolgy and fail to account for the fact that the general populace doesn't care about the distinguishing factor of the kennel versus the GNU components when referring to the OS and has opted to call the OS by the kennel name. You, my friend, are one of the very rare individuals who calls it what no one else does.

    17. Re: This description is informative by whitlocktj · · Score: 1

      Damn Stigler's law of eponymy.

  3. FreeBSD isn't really dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It just smells that way.

  4. Good LTS policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the announcement page linked in the summary,

    "Based on the new FreeBSD support model, the FreeBSD 11 release series will be supported until at least September 30, 2021."

    Very good to see.

    1. Re:Good LTS policy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Not really impressed, Centos 7 was released in July 2014 and doesn't hit EOL until 2024.

    2. Re:Good LTS policy by rl117 · · Score: 1

      I find the CentOS releases get way too stale. CentOS 6 is really crusty at this point. And even CentOS 7 is getting old now; its GCC is missing C++14 features I need.

    3. Re:Good LTS policy by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Supported for FreeBSD means still getting the latest releases of third-party software. Supported for CentOS means getting security back-ports of third-party software for a few packages and stale versions for everything else. When FreeBSD 11 goes EOL in 2021, you'll be able to build C++20 programs on it using a compiler and standard library versions that come from the official distribution channel. CentOS 7 can't even compile C++14 programs now without building the standard library and compiler from source.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Good LTS policy by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Running old CentOS isn't for people who want the newest features, it's for those who need the stability. If you're a business and have numerous servers running your internal applications, it's expensive to upgrade due to the amount of testing required, the upgrade processes put in place, then finally the upgrade itself. You want to upgrade fairly infrequently if you can - you're not interested in running with the latest features, you're more interested in your business back end systems continuing to run without interruption.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    5. Re: Good LTS policy by rl117 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are workarounds like devtoolset, but they come with their own caveats including incompatibility with the base platform. I have no problem with the intent of LTS releases, so long as you don't want to use them to deploy *new* code. Requiring new code to work with old LTS releases holds back development due to the LTS releases inevitably being the lowest comnon denominator which can push the use of contemporary features a decade into the future, and I find that a decidedly negative consequence..

    6. Re:Good LTS policy by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Just wait until September 31 2021 though

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    7. Re:Good LTS policy by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      *cough EPEL cough*

    8. Re:Good LTS policy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Right, but people who actually want a system to get support for 10 years aren't even going to consider something called C++14 until at least 2024.

      I code on Centos 7 for exactly this reason, and I'm using C99. C11 will be skipped entirely, there are no significant features added.

      I think most people who write their code specifically for *BSD are using ANSI C (C89).

      Even on other platforms, few people want to use compiler features that were only released in the past few years. What you call "stale," many of us would consider "new and not yet widely adopted." Using non-ubiquitous compiler features if often considered to be a significant act of folly.

    9. Re: Good LTS policy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That isn't what "work-around" means. If you use the correct words and say, "Yes, those features are available," then the rest of your analysis might have a better chance at being internally consistent.

      If you want to only use default, easy features, it is up to you to choose the tools that are ubiquitous, which means they will also not be new. If you want the new stuff, it won't be ubiquitous, and you'll have to do work to set it up. That is true on every platform.

    10. Re:Good LTS policy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      None of what you said is even true. None of it.

      You add a caveat to try to make it closer to true, but it is still just horse shit, eg, knowing lies. You set up a straw man about compiling GCC from source, but you already implied that you know you can just install it. But you put a No-True-Scotsman onto the GCC package, to try to hide the straw man.

      You seem to be implying that FreeBSD is going to immediately port all their 3rd party software to any new GCC that gets released in the future during the support period, but that is not actually how FreeBSD versions work. The actual reality is that FreeBSD will get most new versions later than even Centos! And no, they don't just slavishly follow the upstream release schedule, they actually couldn't do what you imply if they wanted to because so much of their 3rd party software gets local changes to make it more secure, which then isolates them from upstream and means new versions have to be basically back-ported. So you don't even get all the released versions.

      FreeBSD has a slower release cycle. It doesn't have a magically faster-and-also-slower release cycle. It is more stable. Stable means "not changing." "Not changing" means less new stuff.

    11. Re:Good LTS policy by rl117 · · Score: 1

      FWIW, FreeBSD 11.1 has a current clang (4.0.0) which supports C++17 and earlier. 11.0 had 3.8.0 supporting C++14 and 10.x had 3.4.x supporting C++11. All of these have been significantly nicer to develop with than CentOS 6 or 7 (even with EPEL).

    12. Re:Good LTS policy by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be implying that FreeBSD is going to immediately port all their 3rd party software to any new GCC that gets released in the future during the support period, but that is not actually how FreeBSD versions work

      I didn't mention GCC. The default compiler for anything that hasn't actively been marked as requiring GCC is clang. The ports framework has flags to indicate required features of a compiler. If a port is marked as needing C++14, then it will be compiled with either the system compiler (if it supports one), or one from ports if required. The infrastructure for doing this is used automatically by the package-building infrastructure, so a port that needs a newer compiler than the one shipped in the base system will automatically get the one from ports.

      The actual reality is that FreeBSD will get most new versions later than even Centos!

      An assertion without evidence. We run a few CentOS machines at work and getting anything that needs a newer C++ version than was available when the base OS shipped is a huge amount of pain. Let's look at available packages for CentOS 7 and FreeBSD 10 (both released 2014 and still supported). What's the latest clang version available for them? Actually, that doesn't seem to be a fair comparison, because CentOS doesn't seem to include clang packages (and LLVM is only packaged for MESA) but, for reference, FreeBSD 10 has packages for clang 3.8 to to the 5.0 release branch (5.0 isn't yet out, but there are packages for the latest snapshot from the release branch). Okay, let's make a more fair comparison: how about gcc, since that's the system compiler for CentOS? Well, the CentOS package list has a compat package for GCC 4.4 for compiling older stuff, and an up-to-date package for GCC 4.8.5 (released June 2015), which predates most C++14 features. So, as I said, compiling C++14 code on CentOS is a pain. Okay, let's look at FreeBSD. GCC isn't the system compiler and you've said it lags updates and is behind CentOS, so I guess it will be older? I see packages for GCC 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 5.4 (after 5.0, GCC changed its release numbering, so 5.x is a release series, previously 4.9.x was a release series), 6.4, 7.11, and the (unreleased) 8 release branch.

      And no, they don't just slavishly follow the upstream release schedule, they actually couldn't do what you imply if they wanted to because so much of their 3rd party software gets local changes to make it more secure, which then isolates them from upstream and means new versions have to be basically back-ported. So you don't even get all the released versions.

      Again, look in the ports collection (follow the svnweb link next to any port to see the history of files that have changed). Most ports have no patches, or trivial ones to change a couple of paths in the build system, and these typically don't change much between upstream versions other than being removed if they're upstreamed.

      Stable is only useful if it's both stable and usable. The system ABIs across a stable FreeBSD release series are guaranteed to be compatible, but that doesn't mean that you can't run newer software and there's little use in a system with long-term support if support just means 'we won't change anything' - that's not support, that's atrophy.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. OK by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 2

    I'll give it a shot. Haven't been all that impressed with the latest Ubuntu, have forsaken RedHat, and quit Mandrake after they rebranded to Mandriva.

    --
    Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    1. Re:OK by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What advantages does FreeBSD have for desktop use? I've used it on servers for decades but always used Linux for desktop.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:OK by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight ... you were using Ubuntu because that was better than a version of Fedora that predates Mandriva, which hasn't been a thing since they forked to Mageia many years ago? Well if you are comparing today's *BSDs to decades old Linux distributions and Ubuntu ... nope, it is still a step backwards.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    3. Re:OK by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      Have you tried Linux Mint Mate too? You might just be surprised.

  6. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    So the rumors were false. FreeBSD hasn't been incorporated into systemd yet!

    1. Re:Yay! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      The anti-Poettering crowd doesn't like software that had bugs during its development. Every anti-systemd crowd member creates 100% bug free hello world BASH scripts*

      * Not really true. They don't check that I/O hasn't been redirected to overwrite critical files, like /dev/sda, but they think it is easy and have no idea how bug ridden their code is.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:Yay! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Lucky for them, since Pottering hates the BSDs

    3. Re:Yay! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Yes sir .... I believe you just listed all the Linux Distros. Good job!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  7. Re:FreeBSD 11.1, still with broken load averages by F.Ultra · · Score: 2

    And javac is linked to a script in /usr/local/bin which makes the usual way of finding jni.h non working, and why oh why does no install of Java ever set JAVA_HOME?

  8. Thinking about it by ichthus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been thinking about trying FreeBSD (currently run Mint 18.2) How well does it perform on semi-modern hardware? Say, like a notebook with Intel graphics, backlit keyboard, Intel Wifi, Synaptics i2c touchpad, etc? How's battery life? I appreciate that there's more than one non-MS choice, but I'm under the impression that Linux is still the best choice for a notebook. Am I mistaken?

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re:Thinking about it by i-sob · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've been thinking about trying FreeBSD (currently run Mint 18.2) How well does it perform on semi-modern hardware? Say, like a notebook with Intel graphics, backlit keyboard, Intel Wifi, Synaptics i2c touchpad, etc? How's battery life? I appreciate that there's more than one non-MS choice, but I'm under the impression that Linux is still the best choice for a notebook. Am I mistaken?

      I had a smoother experience with OpenBSD on my (old-ish) ThinkPad. FreeBSD tends to have newer drivers than OpenBSD. I've seen similar anecdotes that one or the other was much better out of the box on various laptop models.

      Intel graphics was smooth sailing on FreeBSD and OpenBSD. I had to change one setting to get the Intel wireless working in FreeBSD (fine out of box in OpenBSD), and the Synaptics touchpad works under both, but FreeBSD took a kernel extension and playing around with config files to make the touchpad less finicky.

      If you're curious, I suggest a test install of one and then the other on an external hard drive or USB stick to see which best detects your hardware.

    2. Re:Thinking about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Okay, first thing. Linux has gotten a lot simpler through the years. BSD on the other hand has as well just not to the exact same degree. When you get your system up and running you're more than likely going to have to compile a few things and get some config files in place. Additionally, BSD is more aimed at servers. You can still run it on desktop if that's what you wish, but you're going to find more exotic drivers lacking from BSD. If you want to have that BSD feel with Linux kernel, I suggest Slackware. Again, I'll point out, that a lot of the distros and kernels that Slashdot tends to like are mostly command line interfaces with dozens of config files you'll need to tweak out of box.

      So if you want a *just works* system and don't care about OS, go to Windows. If you want a *just works* and do care, use Ubuntu, suse, Fedora, or any of the other user friendly distros. If you want to tinker on your system, go full power user, or basically you're ready to get down and dirty with an OS. Go Gentoo Linux, Slackware, or any of the BSDs out there.

      Don't get me wrong, BSD is a fine OS, but if you don't have the time to devote to the OS or you don't want to devote the time, stick to something more friendly to the user side.

    3. Re:Thinking about it by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      A few of the BSDs have dropped 32 bit support, so that could be a limit if your hardware is old.

      It requires a bit of investigation and reading, just for the differences from Linux with config and management, but if you enjoy that sort if thing it is not too difficult. If you expect GUI setup doing everything from a single click, then its prolly not for you.

      I put FreeBSD on a very old IBM Thinkcentre PC last year, which took a little bit of work getting all the hardware supported, but for me that was all good fun, I got onto the FreeBSD irc channel to get some direction, which I found to be friendly and informative.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    4. Re: Thinking about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Linux with systemd is far more complex, complicated and fragile than any of the BSDs are.

    5. Re:Thinking about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm running 11.1 on a Lenovo T430. All of the above mentioned devices work (except 'etc'). No need to recompile anything, although it takes a bit of mucking about in various config files to get everything working.

    6. Re:Thinking about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Get "PC-BSD", which is a respin of FreeBSD aimed at being that "easy drop-on-hardware all-done experience".

      IMO, FreeBSD actually moved away from servers and more towards desktops (by making a number of changes that I think are mistakes), to the point that I'd consider a systemd-free linux first at this point. But then I've been using it since 4.0, and thought the thing has gone pretty much to pot since 8.*, mainly due to idiot developers not understanding the impact of their doings beyond their own desktops and unhealthy amounts of infatuation with things like zfs. (Yes, it's all-singing all-dancing fancy, but that's no excuse to forget about your own historic fs that brings a couple worthwhile things to the table that zfs cannot and will not.) For those interested on diving deeper, one thing is that "pkgng" has a bad case of second system effect compared to pkg_*. Less code-related but more damning is the rather spectacularly mishandled communication and related handling around both its and unbound's introduction. Just as many in the linux community had (and have) a hard time seeing just what's wrong with poettering's crap, many in the FreeBSD community have a hard time seeing what's wrong with the above. So take this rant with a grain of salt, it's my opinion, but for me it's enough to mostly write off FreeBSD as a thing of the past. Useful while it lasted, not so useful now. Not enough to stick with it, at any rate.

      Of course, if you start with it now, say through above PC-BSD route, you won't know the difference between what was and what is, and so you won't see many of the problems. Have fun.

    7. Re:Thinking about it by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Considering it performs well on very old hardware (eg. 32 bit netbooks with tiny batteries) it's going to be even better on new stuff. Then again, everything performs well on new hardware apart from MS Win10 if you are unlucky enough to hit one of it's teething problems.

    8. Re:Thinking about it by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You're probably better off trying TruOS (once you get past the stupid name). It's a FreeBSD friendly fork, which includes some improvements to the UI for initial setup and also merges a load of stuff that isn't yet in mainline FreeBSD (newer versions of GPU drivers, for example).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Thinking about it by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried switching between Debian/Ubuntu and Fedora/RHEL/CentOS?

      Yeah.

      Bloody hell, it's Linux right? How different could they be? Turns out the answer is a lot.

      Not really that different. Most of the userland is the same, your local user directory is pretty portable from one to another without your applications losing their settings etc. At most the typical user is going to see a difference in package manager.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    10. Re:Thinking about it by macsuibhne · · Score: 2

      PC-BSD has been re-branded as TrueOS.

      --
      -- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
    11. Re:Thinking about it by fisted · · Score: 1

      Linux has gotten a lot simpler through the years.

      Hahahahahahaha. Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder.

      Honestly, Linux has become a giant clusterfuck over the last years. In comparison, FreeBSD is all about maintaining the POLA.

      --
      CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
    12. Re:Thinking about it by unixisc · · Score: 1

      By semi-modern, if you mean that you're still 32-bit, then stay w/ Linux: FreeBSD and its derivatives had moved to 64-bit only a while ago. You'd have to go w/ a really old version of FreeBSD. If you are still 32-bit, might wanna consider either NetBSD or Minix

    13. Re:Thinking about it by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The main place where BSD has gotten a lot easier has been in software installation - w/ PBIs. In Linux, it's still fragmented - some things are available only in .rpm, and some just in .deb. In PC-BSD/TrueOS, they've gone to .pbi. The only place you can install software from is the AppCafe, which I find really convenient.

      TrueOS could use some improvement in updates: one of my previous updates got stuck, so I haven't bothered upgrading. Result: I can't install new software from AppCafe. Will probably need to order a new TrueOS DVD for $6, so was checking about some alternatives, like OpenBSD.

    14. Re:Thinking about it by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Until you find out that some s/w is available only as .rpm and some only as .deb. Unless you know how to make install.

    15. Re:Thinking about it by unixisc · · Score: 1

      You too disliked that name? I found it to be a tad hubris - much preferred PC-BSD. If they wanted to rebrand it, they should have picked a more catchy name.

      GP mentioned 'semi-modern' hardware, which was somewhat nebulous. If it means that it's a 32-bit CPU, or has limited memory/storage, TrueOS may not be an option, since it's now 64-bit only

    16. Re:Thinking about it by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      $ man alien

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    17. Re:Thinking about it by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You too disliked that name? I found it to be a tad hubris - much preferred PC-BSD.

      TrueOS sounds too much like Tru64 to me, and that's not a particularly positive association. The Oppose Sun Foundation had some good ideas, but a lot of bad ones and Tru64 managed to combine the worst parts of a monolithic kernel and a microkernel (as did NeXTSTEP and early versions of OS X) without getting most of the benefits.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:Thinking about it by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Did OS X at some point completely replace XNU i.e. underlying Mach 3.0 kernel w/ FreeBSD? I thought that OS X is Mach kernel + FreeBSD userland. Or is it something else?

    19. Re:Thinking about it by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's still XNU and it still contains some Mach things, though system calls are just system calls and talk directly to the BSD server without going via Mach ports (which was what really hurt performance on early Mach implementations). They also completely rewrote the VM subsystem around 10.4/5, which improved performance dramatically. FreeBSD's VM is based on the old Mach VM, but has had a lot of refactorings, cleanups, and rewrites of important parts since then, OS X 10.0 was still pretty close to the CMU version (right down to support for external pagers). There's a lot of FreeBSD code in the XNU kernel, including things like kqueue (though extended to support Mach ports) and even more in libc, which is why it's usually a lot easier to port OS X code to FreeBSD than Linux.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    20. Re:Thinking about it by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 1

      Completely false.

      You can still upgrade 32-bit installs of FreeBSD to the latest version. And you can do fresh 32-bit installs of the latest FreeBSD version.

      PC-BSD (now known as TruOS) has moved to a 64-bit-only version. But FreeBSD still support 32-bit systems.

  9. Good to see it's still around by bursch-X · · Score: 2

    FreeBSD keeps on dying forever. That is true immortality!

    --
    There are two rules for success:
    1. Never tell everything you know.
    1. Re:Good to see it's still around by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It might even be the most popular OS in the world, how is that for a slow death?

  10. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by epine · · Score: 1

    The mascot raises all kinds of questions for people. Rather than having people focus on the benefits of the OS the first thing they see is the mascot and thus the OS is dead to them before they go any further.

    I would just love to see you in action in a focus group round table discussion.

    Why are all these other people here? Trust me, I've got it covered.

  11. Re:This description Will they keep UUCP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I guess removing the r-commands makes sense, but, surely they'll keep UUCP (Unix to Unix Copy) for all of us with our null modem serial cables connected to all the serial ports on the backs of our modern computers. Right?

  12. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by epine · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It screams not for business or adult use or Christian use.

    Let's also mention your invocation of "all Christians are created equal".

    Publicly they move as a group (sort of, sometimes), privately they bicker lick hell. But they sure love to sell "we are all one" when it allows them to assert their particular brand of moral spray paint.

    Catholics and birth control are high on the list of All World hypocrisy gradients.

    Let's consider another case. On the plus side, they got Neil Gorsuch. On the down side, they just sold their collective souls to a devil who is a real life cartoon figure possessing real life nuclear weapons, but bereft of any emotional, spiritual, or moral hesitation whatsoever to turn the other ass cheek at the least provocation.

    (What would Jesus do? He would run. Run, run, run far away. Nice guy, backbone not included. Think about it. If he is still in the business of carrying people along the sandy beach of life, he lately seems to be pointed in the wrong direction. Hey, Jesus, if you're listening, get yourself a moral compass and turn this damn ship around.)

    Meanwhile, the Victorian era just called. They want their table drapes back.

    Going ape shit over the FreeBSD logo—to give you troll post any credence at all— is a form of triviality porn, a favoured "gotta do it my way" micro-penis performance art of legacy privilege.

    Relative importance of the FreeBSD logo semiotics compared the daily news cycle: about 10^-12.

    Finally, I guess I bit the wormy apple after all.

    You won. Lucky you.

  13. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

    Yes, that's exactly what Mozilla was thinking. "Obviously, the reason we're losing marketshare is because of our outdated logo."

    And of course, they were absolutely right. Firefox's popularity has once again begun to skyrocket upward, now that their company and product logos have been updated and modernized. As it turns out, that was the only significant thing holding them back from unrivaled popularity, and they're well on the way to finally winning the browser war.

    FreeBSD need to follow Mozilla's example, obviously. Who the hell drew that silly thing? Why didn't they get someone like John Lasseter to design them something awesome? And Linux.... Don't get me started. If they had abandoned that stupid penguin, it would have been "Year of the Linux" desktop a decade ago, easy.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  14. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by LesFerg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you for real? Its just a logo and a fun mascot. You don't have to buy the shirt.
    So do you think Christians are also offended by the bitten apple logo, cos of, you know, that whole incident in the garden with the serpent? Or the Windows logo with that blasphemous rendition of a cross in the middle of it? Sheesh, how is a good Christian supposed to choose a clean wholesome O/S these days?

    --
    If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
  15. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by Aighearach · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Christians are not all created equal, the Parable of the Sower explains that.

    They're just not allowed to attempt to weigh themselves in this life.

    Also, they have to be able to figure out who was created to be the least deserving, because if they don't treat that person well they can't go to Heaven. That's really the funny part about Christian "Conservatives" and all the groups they hate. If those people are so horrible, you better start loving them because Jesus is measure your love for Him by your love for the people you know are least deserving.

  16. Re: Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    OTOH, Jose prefers IBM DOS 3.30 and Maria can't be parted from Apple ProDOS.

  17. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by F.Ultra · · Score: 3, Funny

    And if you see the Windows logo you think about scam calls with an Indian accent?

  18. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    Wait till he finds out about the OpenBSD Release Songs!

  19. Re:And if you use it, you're Gay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    When Steve Jobs died of AIDS, Apple retired the gay rainbow flag thingy.

  20. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by mike2006 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1. Pitching an operating system for critical systems and data that uses a childish looking and potentially nefarious mascot in the corporate world != having a mascot at an entertainment-sporting event.

    2. If you want people to contribute and have widespread adoption for the OS in the future you do not insult your user base or drive off potential users by using a mascot that looks like your OS is intended for nefarious purposes, kid hackers or is demonic.

    Any data breach or failure of a server or system within a company, you can just imagine the looks of management when they discover you chose to use an operating system with a demon mascot on it.

  21. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by gweihir · · Score: 2

    They probably do not want people shallow enough to have issues with the mascot as their users. Smart decision.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  22. A lot of corporate names and logos are childish by dbIII · · Score: 1

    A lot of corporate names and logos are childish anyway so what's the problem?
    Even medicines that can mean life or death have "cool" and "trendy" branding.

  23. Re:And if you use it, you're Gay. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    Is that different from gay like George Neville-Neil is gay? Or gay like Eric Allman is gay? Don't we get to choose? I'm not going to list all of the gay FreeBSD contributors - I'm not sure I could, because we care more about their code than their sexual orientation.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  24. Its a unix Daemon you clown by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    You know what a daemon process is? No one has ever complained about that nomenclauture not being grown up enough have they?

    If you're going to comment on something at least get a clue first.

    1. Re:Its a unix Daemon you clown by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You know what a daemon process is? No one has ever complained about that nomenclauture not being grown up enough have they?

      Sigh. Yes. Of course they have, and much more ridiculous things have happened besides. Remember when LA County banned the use of master/slave terminology?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Its a unix Daemon you clown by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Ok, no sane person has ever complained. PC lefty councils don't fall into that category.

    3. Re:Its a unix Daemon you clown by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Ok, no sane person has ever complained. PC lefty councils don't fall into that category.

      It's insane to pretend that the world doesn't contain insane people who make purchasing decisions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Its a unix Daemon you clown by mike2006 · · Score: 1

      "If you're going to comment on something at least get a clue first."

      I guess you are young and are new to Freebsd since this has come up time and time again. In fact there was a contest to replace it back in 2005.

      I have also been taken to task by a VP at a large national company over it even though I had not deployed it on any of our servers. I was warned that if I ever did my ass would be fired.

      Nothing ever changes with the Freebsd fanboys denying it has been a problem for people and it's widespread adoption since the 90s. Instead they just attack and insult people pointing out the obvious all these years.

    5. Re:Its a unix Daemon you clown by unixisc · · Score: 1

      When I was in grad school, my Computer Design professor, while mentioning the term 'master-slave', suggested that while 'master' be replaced by 'initiator', 'slave' be replaced by 'mastery-challenged'.

    6. Re:Its a unix Daemon you clown by mike2006 · · Score: 1

      > So what? There are always idiots in every company, in positions of power.

      Right. So you do not make it more difficult for engineers to sell it to them.

  25. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    So do you think Christians are also offended by the bitten apple logo, cos of, you know, that whole incident in the garden with the serpent?

    Yes. There is absolutely a set of die-hard christian wankers who find the bitten apple logo offensive. I recall them getting into the news several times over it.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  26. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by BadTuna · · Score: 1

    Found the /. WBC member.

    --
    Your sig here!
  27. Re: Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by dnaumov · · Score: 1

    Regarding #2: I am pretty sure FreeBSD is much better off without users that could be driven off by something like that.

  28. Re:FreeBSD 11.1, still with broken load averages by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Sure, we could spend the next 10 years trying to make it current. Of course we could also recognize that the "Linux doesn't work anymore because of Pulseaudio and systemd" FUD is exactly that and keep using it without missing a beat.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  29. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by maestroX · · Score: 1

    1. Pitching an operating system for critical systems and data that uses a childish looking and potentially nefarious mascot in the corporate world != having a mascot at an entertainment-sporting event.

    You mean, like, a penguin, nginx with the unmistakenbly Russian logo?

  30. Choosing BSD over Linux by maestroX · · Score: 2

    As a long time user of Linux (used other unices as well, including BSDs), I find myself wondering whether to move over to FreeBSD every announce of a release.
    The only drawback of Linux currently is systemd (Linux distro's with good community support, loads of scripts and tools are readily available for ubuntu/redhat/arch etc.), the drawback of Free/OpenBSD is lack of experience (hardware/performance tuning/etc).
    I'd like to hear pro-con lists of developers (system,web) moving from Linux to FreeBSD.
    Thanks in advance!

    1. Re:Choosing BSD over Linux by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      As a server there is nothing wrong with FreeBSD.

      As a desktop, I dunno.

      FreeBSD does not run as many apps, and especially does not run the most recent versions.

      FreeBSD has no dropbox client. I don't think FreeBSD with work with LibreOffice 5.x - you have to go back to LibreOffice 4.x.

      I am not sure about the future of BSDs. I think the BSDs are dependant on apps that were built for Linux. The BSDs use a Linux compatibility layer. So if Linux apps start requiring systemd (a real possibility IMO) the the situation for desktop apps might get even worse.

    2. Re:Choosing BSD over Linux by ottdmk · · Score: 1

      You're correct that FreeBSD doesn't have a Dropbox client. You are incorrect about LibreOffice. I'm currently running LibreOffice 5.3.4, the "enterprise" release. I've been running FreeBSD as my desktop for over a decade. I've yet to find anything that I really needed that wasn't available for it.

  31. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by jwdb · · Score: 2

    ...
    2. If you want people to contribute and have widespread adoption for the OS in the future you do not insult your user base or drive off potential users by using a mascot that looks like your OS is intended for nefarious purposes, kid hackers or is demonic.

    Any data breach or failure of a server or system within a company, you can just imagine the looks of management when they discover you chose to use an operating system with a demon mascot on it.

    So, should we instead support people's tendencies to judge a book by its cover?

    If you have a good boss (they exist), then talk to them, show them what's beyond the logo, convince them why BSD convinced you it was the best tool for the job. If you have a shitty boss, well, then you have my sympathy.

  32. Re: Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by houghi · · Score: 1

    I rather have the people with knowledge running Windows 95 and those without knowledge running FreeBSD. That would be a LOT safer.

    The reason I get spam is because it isn't the case. It is like vaccines. You vaccinate not only for your own safety.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  33. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by lactose99 · · Score: 1

    That's funny, I've run this "childish" OS at a few Fortune 500 and 1000 companies over the years. They never seemed to mind it, only that it helped the bottom line.

    Take your ass-backwards thinking elsewhere

    --
    Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  34. Dropbox? LibreOffice 5.x? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Lots to love about FreeBSD. Makes a great server.

    But I doubt it has a dropbox client, and I doubt it will work with LibreOffice 5.x.

    1. Re:Dropbox? LibreOffice 5.x? by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      I've no personal experience running LibreOffice on FreeBSD, but there are packages for it. FreeBSD on the desktop was always a bit more painful than I'd prefer, unfortunately. Haven't tried in a few years now, though.

  35. Re:I'll wait out for the TrueOS rebase on 11.1 by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    I find it slower than FreeBSD. It does not do anything you cannot do with FreeBSD. Also, I prefer the MATE desktop.

    I suppose setting up FreeBSD desktop takes more work. But real UNIX people should not be afraid of that.

  36. Re:And if you use it, you're Gay. by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Is one of them the happy gay, as opposed to the homosexual gay? I'll avoid asking which is which

  37. OpenBSD vs TrueOS by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Thanks. Three questions:

    - How is OpenBSD w/ drivers, particularly WiFi? TrueOS refuses to recognize the driver of this Dell Inspiron 17 that I'm typing on. Will OpenBSD?

    - In terms of DEs, does Lumina run on OpenBSD? If I were on Linux, I'd have gone Razor-qt, but being on a BSD, I'd go for Lumina

    - Can something like TrueOS's PlayOnBSD run on OpenBSD, so that I can play Steam games if I want?

  38. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by mike2006 · · Score: 1

    Oh look another newbie that denies the 20+ year debate history over this. Nothing ever changes with the Freebsd fanboys denying it has been a problem for people and it's widespread adoption since the 90s. Instead they just attack and insult people pointing out the obvious all these years.

  39. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Agree w/ you here. On one hand, as the creators of the software, they do have the right to make it whatever they desire. However, from a branding standpoint, it's a fiasco. Not that the Linux Tux is much better. Or for that matter, OpenBSD or GNU's logos. NetBSD's is half decent: it's a flag.

    In a professional environment, people are used to products w/ professional looking logos. Someone above mentioned Windows, but a Window, or previously a flag, is exactly what one would expect. But the image of a devil holding a spear just looks too goofy, w/o bothering about one's religious inclinations. Some versions of derivatives - like PC-BSD 9.0 was codenamed 'Isotope' and had an image of an atom, which would have been a lot more interesting, and more professional & modern looking if used.

    If they can change PC-BSD to TrueOS, they can surely change the logo/mascot to something that looks more like it was built for the workplace.

  40. My PC-BSD and FreeBSD Experience by organgtool · · Score: 1

    Since I see a lot of people contemplating trying FreeBSD, I figured I'd share my experience. My goal is not to dissuade you from using it but to prepare you for some of the challenges you may face.

    Like many people here, I wanted to avoid systemd, so I decided to try PC-BSD when I was setting up a server on a new Intel NUC. While PC-BSD is more oriented for desktops than servers, I wanted to see how the user experience was on the desktop so I went with that. However, getting X Windows to start proved to be very difficult. I realized that the Intel graphics chipset was not supported, so it was falling back to the VESA driver but I was willing to live with that. However, X seemed to crash about 70% of the time on boot. Worse yet, it kept trying to restart X even as I was debugging the problem in a console. If I remember correctly, it was spitting out error messages onto the console as well which was really irritating when trying to debug. I eventually gave up and installed FreeBSD but then I started to find another irritating issue - my network card was not supported. Apparently the manufacturer made a minor change to the model number and FreeBSD refused to load a driver for it. I attempted to find a way to force it to use the driver of the previous generation (they were extremely similar) but that effort was in vain. Finally, I downloaded the source to the driver of the previous generation, added the new model number, and compiled a new driver and that worked well.

    When X did work in PC-BSD, the experience was a bit rough. Boot times were much longer than Linux and there was a lot more screen flicker and artifacts. Overall, it reminded me of where Linux was about 10 to 12 years ago. However, using FreeBSD as a server has proven to work pretty well. It supports jails and Docker and it is extremely stable. The documentation is extensive, well prepared, and easy to follow. Of course, it has excellent support for ZFS as well. Overall, I highly recommend it for servers but if you're looking for a desktop experience, be prepared to put in a bit of effort to get everything running and even then it will likely be a bit rough around the edges.

    1. Re:My PC-BSD and FreeBSD Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you wanted a server and ended up fighting X.

      Hm.

      Personally I always set up FreeBSD without any graphics (or ports); simply have the installer give me a booting system with nothing but a command line. Only after I have a tried-and-tested X configuration will I contemplate starting it on boot (so far: never had that set up, ever; I'll just run startx instead, and not log out--though with kernel mode setting and the scons replacement they did done fsck up quite a bit, shipping with broken code that'd lock up the box if you dared exit X, and you might have gotten bitten by that). Same with services: First configure, then translate configuration to start-on-boot parameters in rc.conf, then start by hand, and only when I'm done with all the services I want we'll do one (if I did everything right) or a couple (otherwise) reboots to get everything starting up on boot correctly.

      Oh, and for a long time FreeBSD had basically more wired network support than linux even (wireless is a different story), so it might be interesting to share what network card you had trouble with. (If it was one of the "killer" series, well, there was this developer with a reference card and a driver mostly ready, but he sat on it while the linux folks were yabbering about a "unified" driver that never surfaced, so....) Personally I tend to buy my hardware after consulting the FreeBSD supported hardware list (apropos on man.freebsd.org works pretty well for this), then cross-check with linux. For ethernet cards, digital equipment corporation "tulip" cards used to be the go-to cards, and most of that IP went to intel, so intel, for all their sins, do have decent ethernet cards on offer. The other rule of thumb is to avoid realtek anything and go with something mainstream-ish after checking the supported hardware list. Wifi tends to be a toss-up and confusing jumble, though for a while (perhaps still) OpenBSD, of all things, had the edge there. And then there's NDIS. Fugly, but it might just work.

  41. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by mike2006 · · Score: 1

    True. Linux Tux-Penguin that came up a few times in this discussion but the thing is none of the major Linux distributions use the old mascots and have professional looking websites-logos. This combined with Linux more widespread adoption - marketshare, corporate sponsorship and enterprise solutions. Yet Freebsd at a major disadvantage against Linux in that respect sticks with this logo fiasco.

    Some people want to keep Freebsd a small niche it seems and kill the messenger on this point about how they are perceived.

  42. FreeBSD for servers, Linux on the desktop by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

    Has been my way for almost 10 years now...and since work bought me a MBP a couple years ago, even that almost isn't entirely true* -- FreeBSD everywhere! :)

    * - yes I know Darwin =/= FreeBSD

  43. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by Thad+Boyd · · Score: 1

    C'mon, man, even Ned Flanders once let Todd by some red hots with a cartoon devil on the box.

  44. Can FreeBSD be used as a developer machine? by Saija · · Score: 1

    I've used Linux on various incarnations over the years: Debian, Mandrake(Mandriva), Suse/OpenSuse, last is Mint.
    I just used to develops mainly on Java and help various FOSS Projects with translating(from English to Spanish, my native language).
    Ultimately I've teaching myself Android development using Java and would like to learn Kotlin. Having this in mind: Can I switch my development Operative System to this new one FreeBSD?

    --
    Slashdot ya no es que lo era! ;)
  45. Did Slashdot turn stupid? by chaoskitty · · Score: 1

    This copy was written for the Slashdot crowd? What's up?

  46. Re:Mascot holding them back and rightfully so by mike2006 · · Score: 1

    > Personally, I don't give a crap whether people adopt or contribute to the OS. It's there for their use if they want, if not they can use something else.

    > If you want to make crucial business decisions out of ignorance [freebsd.org] that's your prerogative.

    When an engineer has to make the software case for a project with management types in a conference room an engineer will pick software where they are not going to end up getting tied up debating the unprofessional presentation of the software company or any related mascot controversy.

    If most people use something else, how long do you think freebsd will be around?