×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FreeBSD 8.0 Released

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the to-be-thankful dept.

Operating Systems 235

An anonymous reader writes "The FreeBSD Release Engineering Team is pleased to announce the availability of FreeBSD 8 stable release. Some of the highlights: Xen DomU support, network stack virtualization, stack-smashing protection, TTY layer rewrite, much improved ZFS v13, a new USB stack, multicast updates including IGMPv3, vimage — a new virtualization container, Fedora 10 Linux binary compatibility to run Linux software such as Flash 10 and others, trusted BSD MAC (Mandatory Access Control), and rewritten NFS client/server introducing NFSv4. Inclusion of improved device mmap() extensions will allow the technical implementation of a 64-bit Nvidia display driver for the x86-64 platform. The GNOME desktop environment has been upgraded to 2.26.3, KDE to 4.3.1, and Firefox to 3.5.5. There is also an in-depth look at the new features and major architectural changes in FreeBSD 8.0, including a screenshot tour, upgrade instructions are posted here. You can grab the latest version from FreeBSD from the mirrors (main ftp server) or via BitTorrent. Please consider making a donation and help us to spread the word by tweeting and blogging about the drive and release."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

235 comments

Awesome! (2, Insightful)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239004)

I was going to put Win7 on my HP dv7, but now this!

Re:Awesome! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239246)

FreeBSD 8.0 Released

I won't believe it until Netcraft confirms it.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239306)

Yes! 8 > 7, thus FreeBSD 8 must be better than Windows 7!

Re:Awesome! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30240006)

Which explains why Win2000 was the best version of windows ever made.

Re:Awesome! (1, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239492)

Seriously though, is there even enough BSD desktop users to even worry about? That must be a truly itty bitty number, like 0.0001% or something. Not trying to cut down BSD, it is just from what I understand BSD is THE distro to go to to make routers, firewalls, all kinds of uber hardened network appliances for corporate and enterprise usage. I have never really heard of anybody doing large BSD desktop deployments like you do with RHEL or SUSE.

So is there really enough users out there to make all this hard work worth it? I know if they want to do it "just because" that of course is fine too, but I would think that since BSD is so widely used in the network appliance role that someone would build a Redhat style corporation around BSD and most of the funding would be that way. Is there any major corps funding BSD?

Re:Awesome! (3, Insightful)

cboscari (220346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239552)

I was going to make a joke like "You mean other than Apple?" but that's too easy.

BSD's desktop users fill the same nitch as Slackware. Advanced users that want to do it themselves. That said, most Linux distro's were put together because, as we all know, Linux is a kernel, and not a complete OS. BSD's, are a more complete distro, and the ports system alleviates the need for a lot of stuff that Linux distros take care of (like a package manager.) Still, they both are "worth it" to develop for for their developers and users, and that's a good thing.

Re:Awesome! (2, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239886)

Gentoo fills the same niche with the Linux kernel. And since when is Slackware not a complete distro? Perhaps you meant “Linux From Scratch”...

P.S.: Please get your spelling right. It’s “niche”, “distros”, “BSDs” (second one only), and “develop for their developers”. Be happy that no grammar Nazi is close. With that amount of errors he would have ripped you to shreds. ^^

Re:Awesome! (5, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30240302)

Be happy that no grammar Nazi is close. With that amount of errors he would have ripped you to shreds. ^^

Yes, well, you'll do until he shows up.

Re:Awesome! (1, Insightful)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239894)

"Seriously though, is there even enough BSD desktop users to even worry about? That must be a truly itty bitty number, like 0.0001% or something."

Seriously though, does it matter a damn? If it's good for the purpouse, then it's good for the purpouse no matter how many (or how little) people use it. If number of users were a quality indicator, Windows would be the best system by an order of magnitude (hint: no, it's not).

And then again, for the casual desktop user, there's no difference between KDE on FreeBSD, KDE on Debian or KDE on Ubuntu. For the expert user differences between FreeBSD and, say, Debian or Red Hat are quite within the same league (and certainly they are much more akin between them than the three compared to any Microsoft offer).

"it is just from what I understand BSD is THE distro to go to to make routers, firewalls, all kinds of uber hardened network appliances for corporate and enterprise usage."

It is just that your understandment fails. That maybe can be the 'vox populi' about OpenBSD, not BSD as a whole.

"I have never really heard of anybody doing large BSD desktop deployments like you do with RHEL or SUSE."

Do you know that exactly your very flipplant rant can be used for unix-like systems as a whole, do you? ("I have never really heard of anybody doing large unix-like desktop deployments like you do with Windows"). Now, so what?

"So is there really enough users out there to make all this hard work worth it?"

Of course yes. Proof: the ones doing the hard work consider themselves enough of a user pool to push for it -and in fact do it.

"I would think that since BSD is so widely used in the network appliance role that someone would build a Redhat style corporation around BSD and most of the funding would be that way."

Again you miserably misundestand what BSD is but, anyway, there *is* in fact a "Redhat style corporation around BSD" and it's even bigger than Red Hat. You may recognize its name: Apple.

Re:Awesome! (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30240276)

First of all, there is no reason to act like a douche when someone asks a question. it is THAT kind of attitude that has non Windows/OSX platforms labeled as Operating Systems for the maladjusted. Nobody likes THAT guy, and I'm sure you don't want to be THAT guy, and since my post was quite civil it wouldn't be too much to ask to have the same in kind.

Now is Apple actually supporting BSD with serious funding, or are they just building off the work? Because it is pretty common knowledge the MSFT networking stack is in fact the BSD networking stack, but I don't see a "MSFT BSD corporation" anywhere. My question is very simple- is there a large corporation putting the kind of funds into BSD in the network appliance arena that Redhat puts into Linux on the enterprise server arena? Is there any corporations putting millions directly into one of the BSDs?

And I'm sorry that nobody can know everything about every OS. My expertise is Windows on the desktop and Windows/Linux on the server, I've never really had the time or inclination to learn yet another OS, and since Slashdot is the home of the ubergeeks I thought what better place to ask about BSD than an article on BSD here? As for as Windows goes, Win7 is REALLY nice, I mean really. No hassle, everything just works, no driver issues here, it just went out and found them all and set it up pretty as you please. So while I'm glad you have the time to tear into the nitty gritty of a non mainstream OS like BSD, here the economy is kinda in the shitter and after fixing PCs for 9 hours+ the last thing I want to do when I get home is have to work on my own PC. So for me and my customers the new Win7 "just works".

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30240184)

I have never really heard of anybody doing large BSD desktop deployments like you do with RHEL or SUSE.

(Nelson)Ha ha!(/Nelson)

And Happy Thanksgiving to *you*, re@!

And you over at Nvidia too!

Re:Awesome! (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239682)

Yes, but does it run... oh, wait ;P

I'm getting a surplus Dell Latitude from work. Was going to load Ubuntu but FreeBSD 8 plus KDE 4.3.0 (or later) looks like a fairly crisp choice for me. Anybody have any experience with this combination?

Moderators, please take your job seriously (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239734)

Whoever modded this shit insightful should be banned from moderating.

Re:Moderators, please take your job seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30240022)

I agree that can't possibly be taken seriously, unless there are some serious features missing in FreeBSD 7 that somehow Windows 7 addresses but FreeBSD 8 implements better?

Funny how similar the free Unices are (1, Insightful)

amorsen (7485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239020)

Most of this could be from a Linux distribution list of new features... Slightly ahead in some ways, slightly behind in others.

Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239078)

FreeBSD is way ahead for serious users. I'm talking about people running high-availability and high-traffic servers, and workstation users who need a stable and reliable operating system.

Most Linux distributions just can't provide the high level of quality that the FreeBSD project manages to offer. FreeBSD may not have the best accelerated 3D graphics drivers, or the flashiest X desktops and themes, but it's there when you need it, and it doesn't disappoint.

Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239174)

Most Linux distributions just can't provide the high level of quality that the FreeBSD project manages to offer.

Wow - your impeccable logic has convinced me! Where do I sign up?

Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are (5, Informative)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239218)

Most Linux distributions just can't provide the high level of quality that the FreeBSD project manages to offer.

Wow - your impeccable logic has convinced me! Where do I sign up?

Right here! [freebsd.org]

Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239272)

Agreed, installing openbsd and packet filter has been on my to do list for years and I swear it is only the lack of time that prevented me to do so, I am still using Linux netfilter.

Linux is more multi-purpose (desktop for instance), has a wider audience hence more functionality available, a little like Windows ;-))

P.S. No, I am not confusing freebsd and openbsd but I assume freebsd also has neat functionalities ;-)

Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are (3, Informative)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239442)

Agreed, installing openbsd and packet filter has been on my to do list for years and I swear it is only the lack of time that prevented me to do so, I am still using Linux netfilter.

Linux is more multi-purpose (desktop for instance), has a wider audience hence more functionality available, a little like Windows ;-))

P.S. No, I am not confusing freebsd and openbsd but I assume freebsd also has neat functionalities ;-)

FreeBSD has ported pf from OpenBSD.

Pf is nice.

Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239524)

Yep, I know this.

So would you say that if my primary goal is to run Pf, it will make no difference if I install either freebsd or openbsd ?

I am thinking ease of installation, patches, etc. where there could be a delay before updates for freebsd. Also, does the freebsd port support 100% of the features implemented on openbsd and can it be considered as a totally equivalent alternative ?

Thanks for your reply.

How the fuck is this insightful?!?!?! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239338)

Seriously - some anonymous person makes vague claims about how it's "higher quality" - without defining "quality" or providing any citations, reasons, or examples, and it's modded "insightful"?!?! TWICE!??!!

What. The. Fuck!??!!

Here's my refutation of this post - containing just as much "insightful" commentary as yours:

Nuh-uh!

So, where are *my* "insightful" mods?

Re:How the fuck is this insightful?!?!?! (2, Informative)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#30240246)

Given that any sysadmin worth his salt knows that Linux and FreeBSD offer different tradeoffs between "completeness" and "rigorous quality", it's not unreasonable for him to point out that FreeBSD has a "higher quality", even if the actual words he uses are subjective. Everyone familiar with FreeBSD and several Linux distros would know what he's saying and agree.

Unfortunately, I can't say that your "nuh-uh" also resounds with common experience in this way, so I disagree with your contention that it is a valid response under these circumstances.

Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239384)

Riiight. Whatever you say. I'm sure that you and all the other 27 FreeBSD users will love this new release.

Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239400)

FreeBSD is way ahead for serious users.

Yes, like the NYSE, the London Stock exchange, etc. They all run FreeBSD exclusively.

Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are (2, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239530)

What utter drivel.

I'm sure FreeBSD some times performs better or with greater stability than Linux, and I'm just as sure that some times it's the other way around. Some times Windows beats them both. And who knows, perhaps even Solaris. It depends on a lot of things, though, and to say that FreeBSD is simly 'better' for 'serious' tasks just makes me convinced that you've never used a computer for serious tasks.

As for your other claims, that "FreeBSD may not have the best accelerated 3D graphics drivers, or the flashiest X desktops and themes": that's also wrong. FreeBSD can use all the X desktops and all the themes that Linux can use. Nvidia makes drivers for FreeBSD, too.

You know you're on Slashdot when a jar full of fanboy wank is called 'insightful'.

Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239866)

You know you're on Slashdot when a jar full of fanboy wank is called 'insightful'.

I wish! My FreeDOS drivel never got that much attention despite it being a full featured, state of the art, operating system with a mature code base.

Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30240376)

BTW, Nvidia only makes the 32-bit drivers for BSD, nothing 64-bit. I'm using BSD-current at home for the (brief) time being, and I'm still deciding what to install instead. I used Slamd64 before this, and I'm unhappy with Slackware 13's lack of a 32-bit toolchain (Yes, I know that one could build one's own, but I simply haven't the time for that at the moment). I do like BSD, and it's a pity there are no 64-bit Nvidia (or anything current from ATI for that matter) drivers for it.

if only... (-1)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239824)

For AMD64, on FreeBSD 8.0-RC2, as on FreeBSD 7.2:

Linux emulation is broken and has been broken for ages. Linux processes segfault unpredictably but often.
Live UFS dump is broken. That's right, the dump command doesn't work. Oh, it seems like it works, and restore in test mode reports that the archive produced by dump is valid. You have to run restore in full test mode, where it checks the integrity of every file in the archive instead of just listing its contents in order to detect the corruption.
USB mass storage support is broken. Expect kernel panics if you attempt to move gigabytes to a USB 2 external drive.
Wine is not supported; you have to build it on a 32-bit machine and install the resulting package in 32-bit emulation mode.
ZFS in double parity mode is broken. Try offlining two disks in a double parity pool. You can't. Fail. Try replacing two dead disks in a double parity pool. You can't, the replace operation never completes. Fail.
MTRR for older ATI cards is broken and has been broken for ages.

The problem with FreeBSD is that, compared with Linux, its user and developer communities are microscopic. Glaring bugs that have existed since forever will never be fixed and nobody cares.

Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239928)

"FreeBSD is way ahead for serious users."

Comparing to what?

"I'm talking about people running high-availability and high-traffic servers, and workstation users who need a stable and reliable operating system."

Oh, you mean like there are high-availability and high-traffic servers and stable workstation perfectly running Linux?

"Most Linux distributions just can't provide the high level of quality that the FreeBSD project manages to offer."

Which is a great tribute at both the versatility and diversity of the Linux ecosystem. There are Linux distributions almost for everything. There's no problem if "most Linux distributions just can't provide the high level of quality that the FreeBSD project manages to offer" even if that were true. It's enough that *some* Linux distributions can do it. And you can bet they are up to the task just as FreeBSD is.

Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are (2, Funny)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30240010)

FreeBSD may not have the best accelerated 3D graphics drivers, or the flashiest X desktops and themes, ...

Hey, Neither does Windows 7!

Why would a desktop user would run it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239038)

Why on earth would a desktop user run FreeBSD instead of Linux, when it doesn't add a single feature available on Linux?

What? You can emulate Linux binaries?

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239076)

By the looks of it, ZFS.

BTRFS is coming, but it's not really here yet.

Ok, ZFS isn't *necessary* for the desktop user you suggest, but it's awfully nice.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (1)

Pope Reinhardt I (1682720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239136)

Personally I was rather disappointed to find out the installer doesn't support ZFS. For a ZFS-only system, you need to do some manual partitioning. I found it a bit hard-ish, even with their instructions [freebsd.org] .

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239382)

If ZFS is what you want (and on a desktop that's unlikely), Solaris has more mature ZFS support than FreeBSD.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239902)

The solaris implementation of DTrace is also significantly better than the one found in FreeBSD. If these are the features you are interested in, you really should be using OpenSolaris, not FreeBSD.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (2, Interesting)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30240312)

A more complete feature list :

-> ZFS
-> DTrace (if anyone tells you SystemTap is equivalent, take them out and shoot them in the head. Twice. Carefully make sure they're dead. Shoot a few more times to make sure)
-> jails (if anyone tells you chroot or even vserver is equivalent, see above)
-> pf, and even other options (anyone tells you iptables ... you know what to do)
-> faster routing code (all juniper routers run a modified version of fbsd, for good reason)
-> actual coherent system (ever worked on a busybox linux system ?)
-> drivers are not so plentiful, but they are better quality. Rare hardware simply doesn't work, instead of sort-of working and then crashing your system every now and then
-> binary compatibility, not just with linux, but SCO and System V
-> sensible network defaults
-> default filesystem supports snapshots. It's not impossible with linux, but still this is nice
-> netgraph : there is no such thing as a way to mangle packets that fbsd doesn't support. Plus : easy to add stuff to. Fast (if not perfect, but faster than doing stuff in linux user space), and ultimate flexibility
-> application-level firewall (meaning applications can push firewall rules into the kernel that only apply to that one application. Helpful for stability and ddos mitigation)
-> coherent, existing organisation, polite even (try getting something done via lkml. I hear it's been known to cause nervous breakdowns. (jokingly) Even murder [wikipedia.org] )

So, personally, I'd agree with "better quality". Especially for network servers.

If you want to use it on a laptop ... better look elsewhere. It will run, though.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (1)

Ian Alexander (997430) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239106)

Since when have BSD's been known as primarily "desktop" operating systems?

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (1)

toejam13 (958243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239948)

I've been using FreeBSD as a secondary desktop environment for about two years now, having used some flavor of BSD since I ran NetBSD 1.0 on my Amiga 3000.

For the most part, the experience is not dissimilar to using Linux as a desktop. I use WINE to supplement a few programs that have poor equivalents in the POSIX/GTK/Qt world, just as I would under Linux. Otherwise, most of the programs I use would be the same ones I'd used under either Windows or Linux.

FreeBSD as a desktop environment shines over Linux in that the sound management is easier. I also find the package installation, at least under the i386 branch, to be easier as well. Whatever doesn't have a package, ports seems to do a superior job than under Linux.

However, in my opinion, FreeBSD will never beat Linux as a desktop replacement until Adobe Flash, hardware video and 3D acceleration and library management are better handled. Linux has FreeBSD beat in most of those respects. Most of the core FreeBSD team is aware of this, but the work required to fix it just seems to be above what people are willing to donate. So, FreeBSD goes without.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239114)

s/Linux/Windows/g
s/FreeBSD/Linux/g

There will be your answer.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (1)

doti (966971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239444)

No, because Linux does add features not available on Windows.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (3, Informative)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239138)

Why on earth would a desktop user run FreeBSD instead of Linux, when it doesn't add a single feature available on Linux?

FreeBSD is a very nice, clean system which is a pure joy to use as a server or desktop -- especially if you like to build your own software. But to each her own. :)

What? You can emulate Linux binaries?

For quite a few years now we've had the ability to run linux binaries via a kernel module called the linuxulator. Handy for flash and a few other things.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239260)

But to each her own.

Well, aren't you hip and and with it.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239304)

No, she's just female.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239162)

Why on earth would a desktop user run Linux instead of FreeBSD, when it doesn't add a single feature available on FreeBSD?

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239422)

Support for more hardware, especially workstation oriented hardware?
Greater availability of applications? (Most desktop oriented apps are written for linux first and later possibly ported to bsd, many closed source apps cant be ported to bsd at all).

When i tried to use FreeBSD as a desktop, admittedly a few years ago, it worked well on my desktop (which was self assembled and intentionally bought using well known hardware) but wouldn't boot on my laptop (an ibm thinkpad 600e) and wouldn't run vmware (which was very new at the time if i remember and had no other alternatives)...

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239424)

Sound works. That's why I switched for FreeBSD. Back in the 4.x days (around 2001) multiple applications could write to /dev/dsp (back then they needed to have /dev/dsp.1 and so on, but that was fixed with FreeBSD 5), and all could play sound even though my cheap AC97 on-board sound didn't support mixing in hardware. On Linux, apps needed to be rewritten with ALSA to take advantage of mixing, or needed to use sound daemons which gave horrific latency. Meanwhile, I was playing music with XMMS, getting sound effects in BZFlag, and having my mail and IM clients go bing in the background when I got a message. FreeBSD 8 improves this with a full OSSv4 implementation, including per-application volume channels. Unlike the 4Front OSS implementation, there are some hacks that let apps that use the old OSS 3 API (and ABI) use these by faking a mixer device for each app. It also has the highest-performance mixing algorithm around and supports a few things like encoded digital pass through (for AC3 and similar on an external decoder) without disabling the in-kernel mixing.

ZFS is pretty useful to a desktop user. Run hourly / daily snapshots as cron jobs to guard against accidental deletion and then use zfs send to transmit them to your backup server.

The ULE scheduler originally provided better performance on latency-sensitive workloads (a typical desktop) at the cost of throughput. As a result, it wasn't enabled by default. With FreeBSD 8, it's been improved and now does better on all workloads (including beating Linux on MySQL SMP benchmarks) and scales linearly to 8 cores (I've not seen tests beyond that).

Jails probably aren't useful to most desktop users, but they are to power users. With ZFS, creating a new fail filesystem is just a matter of cloning a fresh install, which is an O(1) operation (and very fast) and that gives you an isolated install to work with. Great for running untested or untrusted apps; just install them in a jail and they can't get out. With FreeBSD 8, you can now assign a CPU to a jail and each jail has a complete virtualised instance of the network stack, so FreeBSD jails are effectively very lightweight VMs.

DTrace, again, is more useful to developers than end users. It lets you insert probes into running applications (using binary rewriting tricks, where function prologs are replaced with unconditional jumps to JIT-compiled code that does the profiling). This is by far the most powerful profiling and debugging framework I've come across.

So, I guess, the real question is why you'd use Linux over FreeBSD?

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (2, Interesting)

maztuhblastah (745586) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239726)

Well said. I agree with everything except one bit:

So, I guess, the real question is why you'd use Linux over FreeBSD?

Laptops. Power usage.

FreeBSD isn't (AFAIK) tickless. Furthermore, a lot of my laptop's power saving features (SATA power saving, FB compression) aren't supported at all. My WiFi card is, but I'm not sure if the power-saving stuff is supported for that either.

With Linux, all of the above features are supported. As soon as FreeBSD gains support for those, I'm switching.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30240032)

Spinning down the drive has been supported since 7.x with atacontrol.

However, you may run into problems with things writing to the disk (I found 900seconds prevents spurious spin-downs; Read: never spins down).
  http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=1012

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239792)

So, I guess, the real question is why you'd use Linux over FreeBSD?

Wi-Fi.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (1)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239892)

I'm almost convinced. I've been toying with FreeBSD 7 on a vm a while ago, and I liked it. There's a certain "feel" about the whole system, and I really like that feel. Now I'm considering putting it on my laptop. I'm just wondering about a few possible showstoppers. Tell me about...

  - Ports. I'm very used to apt&dpkg. I haven't spent a lot of time learning to use the ports system, so tell me: can I expect the ports (after learning them a bit) to be as comfortable in everyday use as apt? I like installing&testing new stuff, trying out various funny Python libraries, etc. I need the process of finding, installing, upgrading, removing packages to be quick and efficient.

  - Hardware support. Can I expect the new FreeBSD to "just work" on a 1-year old laptop? I don't care about stuff like the wifi light, but other small things like SD card reader or the webcam are something that I'd hardly be giving up.

  - Full disk encryption. This is a must and I'm not going anywhere without it. I suppose it's there; but can I have swap on encrypted logical volume and still be able to do suspend to disk? (suspend to ram is also really handy)

  - NetworkManager? Or something equivalent. I don't want to go to commandline unless a task that I'm performing demands by its very nature a command-oriented user interface.

  - 3D support on Intel graphics?

  - read&write support for ext3, ntfs, etc for Linux and Windows inter-op?

That'd be all for now...

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30240266)

I'm just answering the ones I can... :)

  - Ports. I'm very used to apt&dpkg. I haven't spent a lot of time learning to use the ports system, so tell me: can I expect the ports (after learning them a bit) to be as comfortable in everyday use as apt? I like installing&testing new stuff, trying out various funny Python libraries, etc. I need the process of finding, installing, upgrading, removing packages to be quick and efficient.

I find ports to be very easy to use (as well as packages, which are precompiled binaries). But I've never used apt etc. so I can't give a comparison sorry.
To install something like apache2.2 though, you'd type pkg_add -r apache22. To uninstall you'd type pkg_delete /var/db/pkg/apache22

- Hardware support. Can I expect the new FreeBSD to "just work" on a 1-year old laptop? I don't care about stuff like the wifi light, but other small things like SD card reader or the webcam are something that I'd hardly be giving up.

Webcam support isn't great (at least last time I checked). Check out http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/FreeBSD/usb-cameras.html for more info.

- Full disk encryption. This is a must and I'm not going anywhere without it. I suppose it's there; but can I have swap on encrypted logical volume and still be able to do suspend to disk? (suspend to ram is also really handy)

Not sure about suspend to disk, never used it. Full disk encryption is available though via GELI and GBDE (check them both out in the FreeBSD man pages or the handbook at http://freebsd.org/handbook)

  - NetworkManager? Or something equivalent. I don't want to go to commandline unless a task that I'm performing demands by its very nature a command-oriented user interface.

NFI, sorry..
  - 3D support on Intel graphics?

Yep

- read&write support for ext3, ntfs, etc for Linux and Windows inter-op?

That'd be all for now...

NFI again sorry. It does support FUSE,and the FUSE NTFS module works a treat in my experience.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (0)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239970)

Because I could not stand a package manager worse than portage anymore. ^^
Yes, that means that all RPM-based distros can go to hell in my personal opinion. ;)
(I know that Gentoo got the idea from Ports. That is why I respect FreeBSD.)

But what you write sounds like it’s a pretty great system to make music on, right? I hope it has a real-time kernel...
Also ZFS is a giant plus for me, after I lost half my archive because of data corruption.

DTrace again, is not very useful for me, because the Haskell compiler (GHC) is freakin’ sweet. The debugger allows you to go backwards in execution, amongst other things.

But when I look at the features listed in TFS as being new to FreeBSD... I have those things in my kernel for a loong time now. I would be pretty worried to not have them until now.

Another thing I don’t get: What is the point of putting a version number to a whole distro? I mean it’s not as if it were in any way related to the version of anything in it. But I guess you get used to it, when using Portage...

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239496)

Why on earth would a desktop user run FreeBSD instead of Linux, when it doesn't add a single feature available on Linux?

I'm not staying FreeBSD is better than Linux but FreeBSD is a more consistent system.

Linux, even with the best distributions, is a bunch of separate bits stuck together with 15 ways to do any given thing.

FreeBSD also does have some stuff Linux doesn't like PF, Jails, and better ZFS support.

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239578)

Why on earth would a desktop user run Linux instead of Windows, when it doesn't add a single feature available on Windows?

What? You can run notepad and solitaire in Wine?

Re:Why would a desktop user would run it? (1)

Ziest (143204) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239984)

What? You can emulate Linux binaries?

Yes, FreeBSD has been able to run Linux binaries for years. A little effort on your part to do some research before you post could have saved you from looking like a fool. Oh, wait..

Jumping the gun... (5, Interesting)

cperciva (102828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239052)

Technically, 8.0-RELEASE has not yet been announced. Judging by the links in the submission, it looks like the "anonymous reader" is whoever owns cyberciti.biz, and he decided to submit the story early in order to drive traffic to his site.

Re:Jumping the gun... (2, Funny)

MrMr (219533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239080)

But in order for that to work we would have to rtfa.

Re:Jumping the gun... (1)

cperciva (102828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239110)

We all know that slashdotters don't rtfa, but he'll probably get some traffic from people who aren't regular slashdot readers and don't know how things work around here.

Re:Jumping the gun... (5, Funny)

Razalhague (1497249) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239278)

Tell me about it. When I was new here I always used to read the articles before posting, but by then everyone had already commented and spent their mod points so I never got any karma! But then I learnt the proper way of doing things and now I've got karma to burn on offtopic posts about slashdot!

Re:Jumping the gun... (4, Informative)

cperciva (102828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239094)

I should also add that one link the submitter didn't include was instructions for upgrading to FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE from a previous release: http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2009-07-11-freebsd-update-to-8.0-beta1.html [daemonology.net] (obviously, apply s/8.0-BETA1/8.0-RELEASE/ to the instructions).

Before anyone asks, yes, that link is on my personal website -- but no, I'm not just posting it here to drive traffic in my direction. That link is going to be in the official release announcement too.

Hey, you're the guy! (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239458)

Your blog has been a great resource for me for a very long time. Thanks for all the informative posts... you were the only set of instructions that made sense for doing a binary upgrade :-)

Thank you sir!!!

Re:Hey, you're the guy! (1)

cperciva (102828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239516)

Thanks for the kind words -- I certainly should be able to write coherent instructions for doing a binary upgrade, though, given that I wrote FreeBSD Update. :-)

freebsd-update via wlan? (1)

Conley Index (957833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239506)

I did not read your blog using freebsd-update this time, but as far as I see, it would not have saved me needing hands on assistance for the system that I tried to update remotely with the last connection being a wlan. I added the appropriate lines to rc.conf before the update, but after the first reboot with the new kernel and old userland, the wlan did not come up. Thinking about it, nothing else could be expected...

Re:freebsd-update via wlan? (1)

cperciva (102828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239532)

Good point... come to think of it, I'm not sure how it's possible to do that even with a source upgrade, since trying to run an 8.0 world on a 7.x kernel would break too.

Re:freebsd-update via wlan? (1)

Conley Index (957833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239624)

Remote updates via the wlan are probably not very common. And I guess I could have put a brave "freebsd-update install && reboot" somewhere in the startup scripts that would have been replaced if that really succeeded. (Probably something a little more intelligent would be better.)

Re:Jumping the gun... (1)

Opyros (1153335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239296)

I was wondering about that; I saw "FreeBSD 8.0 Final" a few days ago on FileForum [betanews.com] , but the FreeBSD homepage said RC3 was the latest.

Re:Jumping the gun... (2, Funny)

krelian (525362) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239804)

I was wondering about that; I saw "FreeBSD 8.0 Final" a few days ago on FileForum [betanews.com], but the FreeBSD homepage said RC3 was the latest.

Was it released by RAZOR1911?

TECHNICALLY, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239882)

YOU MOM HASN'T BEEN WET SINCE YOU BROKE HER TWOT.

WGUN is an Atlanta area AM broadcasting station (licensed to Atlanta, Georgia) that broadcasts Christian and brokered time programming. It broadcasts at a frequency of 1010 kHz with 50,000 Watts of power during the daytime and 78 Watts during nighttime hours using a non-directional antenna. WGUN is classified as a Class-D AM broadcast station according to the Federal Communications Commission.

FreeBSD rocks :) (4, Interesting)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239060)

I was intending to install RC3 on a new desktop machine a few days ago, but got the error message "this version not available on this server". So I went to the options screen and changed it to 8.0-RELEASE just on a hunch and happily it was there and installed without a hitch. Definitely several good performance improvements over 7.2, especially when copying large amounts of data from a USB disk. So far this seems like a nice, solid release and I look forward to migrating my servers to it (after a month or so, just to be sure).

F YOU FUCTIRD (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239376)

FREEBSD IS FO PANTY-WEARING JOHNS

In Greek mythology, Helen (in Greek, – Helén), known as Helen of Troy (and earlier Helen of Sparta), was the daughter of Zeus and Leda (or Nemesis), wife of King Menelaus of Sparta and sister of Castor, Polydeuces and Clytemnestra. Her abduction by Paris brought about the Trojan War. Helen was described by Dr. Faustus in Christopher Marlowe's eponymous play as having "the face that launched a thousand ships."

Using it now for my home "superserver" (1)

RT Alec (608475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239068)

PF + AltQ, a ZFS raidz array, and booting from a CF card. Excellent job, kudos to the FreeBSD team!

Nothing yet... (1)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239132)

Nothing yet on the website. Only 8 rc3 released on November 12th.

But on the FTP there is something on Nov. 22 labelled as 8.0

ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ISO-IMAGES-i386/8.0/

Use the mirrors! (1)

Conley Index (957833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239564)

It appeared on the main ftp server on Monday and only an hour later on some of the mirrors. Now most of them got the bits. This is really not the time to stress the main ftp server more than necessary. The checksum files from the main server might be worse getting -- or better yet, wait for the official announcement that will contain them, too.

wpa_supplicant replacement? (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239194)

wpa_supplicant needs to either be dumped and replaced with something better or the people that work on wpa_supplicant need rework it to support a wider variety of wifi cards

Re:wpa_supplicant replacement? (3, Informative)

cperciva (102828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239328)

Are you running into the "need to create wlan0 instead of using the wifi device directly in 8.0" change? This has tripped up a lot of people.

Re:wpa_supplicant replacement? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239810)

I'm confused... how the hell is it wpa_supplicant's job to support specific wifi chipsets/cards? Isn't it the kernel's job to implement drivers for each card while exposing a general API that wpa_supplicant then uses?

Elegy for *BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239196)

Elegy For *BSD

I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.

I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.

Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.

To slightly paraphrase The Who (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239480)

Meet the new Boss, Same as the old Boss.

Maybe it's me, or are we starting to see BSD & Linux become the new Gnome vs KDE or new .deb vs .rpm? Debian & BSD they can now handle each other's packages (like KDE apps can run in Gnome and vice versa if the right libraries are installed) and I stand back and wonder if Google and others might be right where the apps are everything and the underlying OS means very little to the average consumer.

Irregardless, cheers to the OpenBSD crew on another release, even if I'm a Kubuntu user. When one of us does well, we all do.

You are right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239596)

It's the apps, stupid.

People run apps. OSes are just a necessary evil. I personally would love to see the day when apps are coded like console games, with only the needed parts to boot and run and do the job.

Re:You are right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239834)

You mean you want computers to be like they were in the 80s. Enjoy booting and running your single tasking PC.

Re:You are right. (2, Insightful)

sound+vision (884283) | more than 4 years ago | (#30240026)

If apps were "coded like console games"... *Every application would need to include device drivers for every piece of hardware on the system. For every system you want your app to run on. So that boils down to coding (or getting from the manufacturer) drivers for every computer device in existence. *There would be no multi-tasking. Let's say you are working on something in Microsoft Office. In order to look up something on Google real quick, you'd need to save your work, unload Office, load up Firefox, look up whatever you needed to, unload Firefox, re-load Office, and open your file back up. I could go on, but I don't feel like doing so in a reply to an AC. Simply put, there's a good reason that operating systems to exist. They act as an abstraction to the hardware, making development of applications *way* easier since you only have to code your program to interface with the APIs of an operating system, which in turn has drivers installed to work with whatever particular hardware is on a machine that you are trying to run your app on. I'm pretty sure all the game consoles developed in the past decade have their own pseudo-OS, to let Xbox Live etc. run concurrently with all the games. Or maybe they just have libraries for that stuff that they give to the developers to include in their games. Either way, it works because all PS2s/Xboxen/Wii are the same. That is not true of personal computers.

Re:To slightly paraphrase The Who (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239696)

are we starting to see BSD & Linux become the new Gnome vs KDE

No, because GNOME and KDE have comparable numbers of users. With Linux and FreeBSD it's not even close. What are you smoking?

Irregardless

That's not even a real word.

cheers to the OpenBSD crew on another release

The article is about FreeBSD, not OpenBSD. You are a moron.

Re:To slightly paraphrase The Who (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239714)

Meet the new Boss, Same as the old Boss.

Maybe it's me, or are we starting to see BSD & Linux become the new Gnome vs KDE or new .deb vs .rpm? Debian & BSD they can now handle each other's packages (like KDE apps can run in Gnome and vice versa if the right libraries are installed) and I stand back and wonder if Google and others might be right where the apps are everything and the underlying OS means very little to the average consumer.

Irregardless, cheers to the OpenBSD crew on another release, even if I'm a Kubuntu user. When one of us does well, we all do.

Anyone using 'Irregardless' as a real word needs to step back.

Roundabout (1)

hey (83763) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239740)

Seems pretty roundabout... to make youtube work they needed Flash. To make Flash work they got Fedora 10 compatibly going.

No XFS support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239874)

I would have loved to try and dual boot FreeBSD, but it doesn't support XFS at all. The partitions that hold my media files are all XFS filesystems. One of the best features of linux is its wide support of various filesystems, even long obsolete ones.

Re:No XFS support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30240298)

Switch to ZFS. You wont regret it.

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239972)

I'm going to guess something got lost in translation in this summary. I have an amd64 machine that runs 64-bit nvidia glx without any problems.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...