Beta
×

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 8.2 Released

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the free-software-keeps-on-chugging dept.

Operating Systems 183

meta coder writes with word of the release of FreeBSD 8.2: "This is the third release from the 8-STABLE branch which improves on the functionality of FreeBSD 8.1 and introduces some new features. Some of the highlights includes improvements in Xen support and various bugfixes."

cancel ×

183 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And tell me what advantages does this offer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309434)

Compared to say, a train, which I could also easily afford?

Re:And tell me what advantages does this offer (2)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35311362)

FreeBSD can run a computer, whereas trains merely run them over.

I just have to say (-1, Troll)

toygeek (473120) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309464)

I can't stand BSD. Who cares?

Put a fork in Xen and turn it over (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309468)

It's done, but it seems like the dying corpse of that BSD didn't get the message.

Netcraft Confirms It ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309476)

BSD is Dying!

Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (-1, Flamebait)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309486)

At this point Linux is far more secure, stable, and powerful than FreeBSD. Just analyze the amount of bug reports from both kernels.
At this point FreeBSD is old hat.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309496)

I will feed the troll.

Where does BSD fail while Linux succeeds? Citations plz.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0)

DMJC (682799) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309518)

Where does Linux fail where BSD succeeds? should be the real question asked.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0, Troll)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309550)

They both don't have a lack of fanboys that's for sure. Bunch of bitches. Wanna know where they both fail? At the desktop. Why do they fail? Becaus I can't get MS office with support on them and because the sims won't run native on linux nor bsd. And that is the reason why they fail. Both; *this is being typed at a debian desktop*

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309664)

I wouldn't recommend using MSO on any platform, unless you're really doing something specific Libreoffice does just fine for most purposes. I was however somewhat surprised that saving a powerpoint in MS' format wouldn't read in Powerpoint, but the open format would.

But yes, the lack of support for commonly used Windows software which one might need to interoperate with is pretty much the biggest downside to migrating to either platform.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309672)

What's the deal with people demanding MS Office, when you have a free, open, and universally accessible alternative (LibreOffice)? I will not support an office suite that is exclusionary to people that cannot afford it (and won't pirate it). Yet it seems if you want to get a job, go to school, do business with anyone, etc, you have to have this pricey, proprietary, garbage office suite.

To hell with MS Office. The sooner people realize that it is discriminatory to require it so broadly when a free version is available, the sooner it will die the death it deserves.

And don't give me this "LibreOffice can read/write MS Office formats" stuff. Not perfectly, and just because it might format differently and thus unprofessionally means that the document will be looked down upon by those who read it.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

Decker-Mage (782424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310246)

Yet it seems if you want to get a job, go to school, do business with anyone, etc, you have to have this pricey, proprietary, garbage office suite.

To hell with MS Office. The sooner people realize that it is discriminatory to require it so broadly when a free version is available, the sooner it will die the death it deserves.

If it is such garbage, why does everyone fall all over themselves to imitate and inter-operate with it. Sorry, I'm an engineer and I deal in reality not someone's rose-colored view of the world. Reality is that it is on the desktop where you work and/or your laptop ad. It's starting to be web accessible as well. It has way more features than most anyone ever needs, so much so that it has to inline help (the ribbon interface) so you don't get lost along the way. And it has no problems, so far, inter-operating with itself (big surprise). The desktop war has been over for a very, very long time. Deal with it.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309762)

Well if you're going to put it this way, it's probably better to ask why OpenOffice isn't a good enough alternative to MS Office and why Linux gaming is so lackluster.

The answer is money. Oh, business customers pay well to have their servers supported so the kernel, network stack, server software, databases etc. is in tip top shape. But the desktop? Very little. Of course open source isn't all about the money, but there's the stuff everyone want to do and there's the drab stuff no one really wants to do. Microsoft and Apple pays people to do a *lot* of boring shit, so do the application developers out there. Ubuntu and friends not so much, least not on the desktop side.

Small money adds up, Angry Birds have now grossed $50m on $1 sales. But most people in the open source community would be violently opposed to a "if you like it, pay a buck" attitude. The software is free/Free/gratis, you pay for service & support. Except I've never wanted nor needed any kind of service or support for Angry Birds and if I did I'd probably declare the game broken and move on. I'm not saying you would be a multimillionaire out of it, but it would help if developers could make a living writing desktop apps. Or at least pizza and beer money. But neither the system nor the attitude is in place.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310506)

Well, I have exactly that mentality. I would gladly support FreeBSD monetarily if I weren't an unemployed grad-student. I'd love to pay for a FreeBSD disc that included good to "par" desktop functionality. Truth be told, I fully plan on making a donation once I've got funds headed my way. For now, I just try to contribute positively on their forums.

That kind of begs the question of what I do with my desktop, though. Lately, that's mostly chat, browsing, and the occasional FPS. BTW: My FPS of choice *is* free (as in beer). So, theoretically, most everything I do could be done in a BSD environment (except the Microsoft Word/Excel stuff). Oh, and my desktop and laptop have pretty interfaces. Don't laugh, pretty interfaces go a long way on a desktop. The fonts don't hurt to look at and are consistent across the interface. I've had problems with that on my BSD box. (The caveat being I don't use X11 on my BSD box much and I'm fully aware there are ways to make it pretty.)

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35310278)

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310418)

Yes, it's entirely Linux's fault that a third party chose not to port to it. The problem has nothing to do with technical capability, just the same old cycle of few quality commercial applications for Linux = little demand for Linux and Linux ports.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310538)

Wanna know where they both fail? At the desktop.

Not at all. They're both excellent on the desktop. I use Linux on the desktop. And, many people I know use linux on the desktop. I like them very much and find that they (well, I haven't had a freeBSD desktop for a while)/it provides by far the best desktop experience available. To ME. I really don't care about anyone else, and I very much doubt they care about me.

So far, the majority of the ideas for improving the popularity of Linux seem to turn it into a nasty cheap windows/OSX knockoff that nobody prefers.

And that is the reason why they fail. Both; *this is being typed at a debian desktop*

You have a strange definition of "fail". The global desktop/laptop PC market has reachd something like 180 million units per year. If Linux has the 1.64% market share claimed on Wikipedia, then that meand that there are over 2 million desktops out there running Linux. If I could fail in that style, I would be very happy indeed.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309576)

I wouldn't characterize Linux as "failing" in this regard, but one thing that keeps me using FreeBSD is the ports system. I run FreeBSD as a headless server OS only, these servers run as VM guests currently, so the clear advantages to doing GUI stuff in Linux doesn't apply to me.

I like the hybrid source/package system where I can choose what compile options I want when compiling by source, and I like the fact that the ports system has ports for so many things. On the Linux side I'm not sure what I'd move to. Maybe Debian? I want a very conservative server OS like CentOS, but without having to compile stuff by hand or searching around for an RPM. In fairness, maybe the Fedora EPEL project would make me happy in terms of software availability.

In addition to the ports system, I'm also not sure exactly why I'd switch since FBSD has been working so well for me for so long. Doing Xen paravirtualization might entice me to switch when I assess the best hypervisor to use when I go to replace my physical server, but then again, it looks like Xen support for FreeBSD guests is available now.

All of this being said, I'm not promoting FreeBSD over Linux per say, I'm just sharing some reasons why I chose FreeBSD quite a while ago.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309610)

Have you tried Arch Linux? AUR is a ports-like source code repository system, and there is no customization, patching or bloat in the install, it's basically a Slackware install plus the pacman package manager and some extra plaintext config files in /etc.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

ulzeraj (1009869) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309646)

He wants a server distro. I don't know Arch but from what I know it uses platform specific binaries and other voodoo stuff to increase performance.

The best recomendation I can pass is Debian (and I don't even like Linux but I admit Debian is pretty fine). It has a nice minimal installation very suitable for servers, easy package management and its pretty stable. I used to run a farm of Xen Dom0's operating on top of Debian 5.0 (Lenny). You can't go wrong with that. Plus, some corporate vendors are starting to support Debian and often offer .deb driver and software packages with their products.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

marsu_k (701360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310986)

He wants a server distro. I don't know Arch but from what I know it uses platform specific binaries and other voodoo stuff to increase performance.

If by "platform specific binaries" you mean the 32-bit packages are optimized/compiled for i686, that is certainly true - but really, who runs anything older than a Pentium Pro these days? And now I'll probably get a reply from someone still on a 486; but my point is, the vast majority of PCs still in use are at least i686-compatible, as such it doesn't make sense to have 386-optimized packages.

But even as an Arch user, I wouldn't use it in a server. I do run it on my home file server/mythbackend, and it works really well there, but I'm willing to do some tinkering if needed. The bleeding edge/rolling release-approach doesn't cut it for production servers.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309714)

Arch doesn't even have signed packages so it's trivial to root an Arch install through simple man in the middle attacks. Even Windows and OS X handle updates in a more secure manner. Furthermore, there's absolutely no security infrastructure surrounding the AUR so malicious packages can, and are, uploaded at will. The AUR is about as safe as adding random Russian repositories to your apt configuration.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35311354)

That's a good point. I actually hadn't thought about that at all.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309618)

I forgot to also add that if you want to run ZFS FreeBSD offers an alternative to Solaris/OpenSolaris, and ZFS is fucking awesome.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0)

underqualified (1318035) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310920)

ZFS is fucking awesome.

why? because it has a Z?

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309642)

I used to use FreeBSD, but switched to Debian because I needed a few applications that weren't available for BSD. Personally, I don't really see much of a point in running FreeBSD anymore. The Debian repositories have far more packages, it's trivial to compile packages from source when needed, and it's easily as stable as FreeBSD. ZFS and PF are the only real advantages of FreeBSD, and only a zealot would claim that ZFS on FreeBSD is stable and reliable.

Security is the real advantage (2)

judeancodersfront (1760122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309690)

Linux servers get taken down all the time, FreeBSD not so much. I'm sure some of this is due to security by obscurity but I really don't care.

Re:Security is the real advantage (2)

ForumTroll (900233) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309748)

The vast majority of those servers are being compromised through insecure web applications and misconfigured mail servers. The underlying platform has almost no bearing on that. From an attacker's perspective, there's little difference between a Linux box and a FreeBSD box running nothing but SSH.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

ulzeraj (1009869) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309698)

I had some abysmal performance issues while testing 8.1-RELEASE and their istgt iSCSI implementation. Tests with dd and crystalreports reported something like 4.1mb/s read and write speed on a dedicated gigabit switch.

Needed an iSCSI+ZFS solution, so a guy on IRC recomended me OpenSolaris+COMSTAR. I had a NAS server up and running 15 minutes after completing the OpenSolaris default installation. Very good performance (went 150-200 mb/s using the same hardware), easy to use and admin. A shame what Oracle is doing with Osol.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

ulzeraj (1009869) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309712)

Just to reiterate. ZFS+FreeBSD NAS solution works fine on FreeNAS. I don't know what the hell happened on that system to present such a terrible performance. Maybe it was my mistake configuring istgt (because local disk performance seemed fine) but the point is that having a very impressive system like COMSTAR ready in some minutes was a big point towards Osol on that project.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35311172)

the clear advantages to doing GUI stuff in Linux doesn't apply to me.

Whaa? As a user of both FreeBSD and gentoo, I'd like to remind you that there is no difference in the GUI, they both use xorg. In fact, the only real advantage I've found Linux has over BSD is the support for so many filesystems and partition types. I do wish they'd add that to BSD, but whenever I've brought it up the devs were somewhat antagonistic toward the notion. Can't imagine why, really... But anyway, that's why gentoo became my preferred desktop OS, it's the swiss army knife utility of being able to mount and read/write just about any filesystem. I love FreeBSD though; there's a lot to be said for using a kernel so small you could easily configure it in ee if you wanted. :)

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (5, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309736)

Where does Linux fail where BSD succeeds?

For some people it's the licensing (BSD vs GPL). For others it is the coherence of the system (how many places hide an IP address in Red Hat?). For others, it is a question of style (BSD vs AT&T type Unix). For some, its functionality (I always liked the way the BSD _______ command worked). From some, it's the simple Joy [wikipedia.org] of BSD, or the McKusick [mckusick.com] - take your pick. For some, it could be the approach taken to a particular problem taken by one of the BSDs, such as the continuous OpenBSD code audits [openbsd.org] . For some it might be a particular platform maintained as part of the main distribution. For some, it may be the continuing BSD innovations. For some it might be the counter-culture aspect BSD in the Linux world. Plenty more reasons that people could have, including: Linux - 5 letters, BSD - 3 letters. Do the math.

You could say that the only truly popular Unix desktop is Apple's Macintosh running OS X.
Mac OS X: What is BSD? [apple.com]

What's The Greatest Software Ever Written? [informationweek.com]

OpenBSD [openbsd.org] FreeBSD [freebsd.org] NetBSD [netbsd.org] PC BSD [pcbsd.org]

FreeBSD Mall [freebsdmall.com] BSD Magazine [bsdmag.org]

To each his own.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310546)

For others, it is a question of style (BSD vs AT&T type Unix).

There are distros that are more BSD-like than others. Some have gone most of the way and scrapped the SYSV-init style, others keep in the traditions of older commercial unicies.

Of course, that doesn't affect the other stylistic things like having working man pages for every file in /dev.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

|DeN|niS (58325) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310176)

One example:

I have some server apps still on python2.4, and some on python 2.7. They're completely unrelated apps.

On fBSD, just create two jails, and set up the two environments how you like, update them independently.

On Linux (are vservers at the convenience and security level of jails?) goodluck installing a myriad of python2.4 and python2.7 packages, hope the "system python" points to the right one, make you sure everywhere replace "python" with "python2.X" in your apps; or set up virtualenvs or such, which make updating more cumbersome since you now need to track these manually.

That's just a small example, you'd have jails for your database, mailserver, etc, you'd have them on ZFS partitions, and they are completely independent from your main system (i.e. when you update from 8.1 and 8.2 the jails might not work until you update them, but your base is extremely lean and does not carry any of the baggage of the jails, so some python2.4 dependency is not going to break one of your python scripts or whatever. Also, your ports are up to date (see Debian).

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

gpuk (712102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35311146)

In the Linux world, the combination of OpenVZ and btrfs would offer a very close approximation to what you describe.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35311230)

That's a lot of unnecessary trouble to go through though. I just specify the appropriate interpreter. Works perfectly well, both in BSD and Linux (I have multiple versions of python in each). Like this:

#! /usr/bin/python2.4

or

#! /usr/bin/python2.7

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310342)

Maturity.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310376)

Where does Linux fail where BSD succeeds?

Sound. I switched to FreeBSD 4.x almost a decade ago, when Linux had two sound stacks. OSS didn't support sound mixing, ALSA did, but needed apps rewriting for it. So you needed a userspace sound daemon if you wanted more than one app to play audio at once. Some of my apps used the GNOME one, some the KDE one, and some just opened /dev/dsp. With FreeBSD 4, you could set up multiple /dev/dsp.x devices, and set each sound daemon or app to write to a different one. With FreeBSD 5 (2003), each device that opened /dev/dsp got a new audio channel. Multiple apps all playing audio just worked.

With FreeBSD 8, the sound system added full OSS 4 compatibility, and a few things that the 4Front OSS implementation lacks. It also added a new sound mixing algorithm, which has even better performance. Oh, and per-channel (i.e. per app) volume control. From a developer perspective, audio is simple: open /dev/dsp and write audio data, with a few ioctl()s to tweak parameters. No libraries to link, no complex APIs, it's simple to use. From a user perspective, there's no messing around with sound daemons, no dependencies, stuff just works. Every time I hear a Linux user complaining about PortAudio, I wonder why they're still bothering with Linux.

What else? Jails are useful - lightweight VMs that cost about as much as a chroot. The ez-jail port uses union mounts to allow you to create new jails in a few seconds, with about 5MB of disk space each. It also integrates with ZFS, so you can use ZFS cloned volumes instead.

From a developer perspective, BSD libc is a lot less painful to work with than glibc. The system actually comes with documentation - compare GNU/Linux man pages with their FreeBSD equivalents some time. There's also the fact that FreeBSD doesn't change user-visible interfaces without a good reason. If you learned how to use FreeBSD 2.x, most of that knowledge is still valid. New stuff gets added, but the older stuff still doesn't get changed randomly. You may get new implementations of features, but they're exposed using the same set of commands or the same APIs.

Not sure about performance these days. Last benchmarks I saw showed FreeBSD outperforming Linux. Not sure if this is still the case. I did some tests recently for a course that I'm teaching, with large numbers of threads and found that Linux seems to have much lower defaults for the maximum number of threads - not sure what the FreeBSD limit was: Linux was running out of threads but with 64 times more, FreeBSD was still going.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309876)

See: Ubuntu.

Next question?

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

koinu (472851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309970)

Why does PCBSD fail in your opinion?

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309546)

Maybe... but I guess the list of companies that build their devices based off it and some of them are security devices...

Cisco (IronPort email appliance)
F5
Juniper
Netapp
Nokia

list goes on...

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309622)

Amateur

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309718)

Freenas kicks the crap out of the linux-based openfiler, pfsense is a heck of a distro, etc etc.

BSD is still relevant as Im concerned.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

ruinevil (852677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309770)

Pretty sure FreeNAS moved to Linux.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309800)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeNAS

Second paragraph.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309826)

You're wrong [freenas.org] .

Re:FreeNAS is still FreeBSD based... (1)

bgalbrecht (920100) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309836)

Yes and no. iXsystems sponsored development of FreeNAS to upgrade it to FreeBSD 8, so it's still FreeBSD based, but there is a fork of FreeNAS that is Linux-based called OpenMediaVault.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309840)

yeah that's why they have the BSD demon on their home page
http://freenas.org/

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309740)

Next time you hear about a network speed record being broken, check the OS. Betcha it's FreeBSD.

Why use Ubuntu when you could use Debian?

To sum up - get bent is why.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35310490)

Why use Ubuntu when you could use Debian?

Up to date packages. Debian often leaves users insecure.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35310850)

No. Debian stable sometimes leaves the user stuck with packages that have non-security related bugs, but updates are provided for known security issues.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35311170)

Is that meant to be a joke or just a very clumsy troll?

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

dylan_- (1661) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310528)

Which ones? Googling for network speed records gives: http://www.internet2.edu/lsr/history.html [internet2.edu] and they're Linux...

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (3, Interesting)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309750)

I'll bite. The main reasons I consider using FreeBSD nowadays are:

1) Reasonable filesystem support. ext3 and ext4 are just terrible filesystem for 24x7 production systems. The potential for long fsck times alone is enough to remove them from a lot of serious applications. XFS does better, but with its lack of popularity the user base is a little scary. Meanwhile, FreeBSD has ZFS, which is just a better filesystem that almost any other choice. And it also has UFS2, which avoids the whole "let's keep the server down while we do a long filesystem check sometimes" problem Linux suffers with by doing background fsck [usenix.org] .

2) The new FreeBSD 8.2 includes userland DTrace support, which has been the missing piece that has kept earlier verisons from replacing Solaris for me on a lot of systems. systemtap on Linux just completely misses the point from a complexity and "scary" perspective. It just doesn't have that feel that you're not going to hurt the running process by using it that DTrace has always managed.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309796)

As an administrator of a large site (larger then slashdot), that runs linux and freebsd I can put it simply: You're wrong.

Our linux boxes lock up randomly, suffer more downtime, have had more security patches against them, and have been hacked more (twice) then their FreeBSD counterparts on identical hardware.

If you want an actual METRIC rather then unsubstantiated claims, check out: http://www.freebsd.org/security/advisories.html _10_ advisories, total, for 2010. Of those only 6 affect the anything freebsd specific (the other 4 were things like openssl, bind, ntp.. that, guess what, affects everyone).

A quick search for "linux kernel vulnerabilities 2010" turns up PAGES of results:
CVE-2010-3081 ksplice (again?! wow, what a great system!)
CVE-2010-4073
CVE-2010-0291 (mremap resource exhaustion)
CVE-2010-2240 (one of the many memory related security exploits for linux last year)
CVE-2010-3848 (sendmsg exploit)
CVE-2010-3301 (ptrace related security exploit)
    oh look we're tied now, and I'm only through the first page on google!)
CVE-2010-3904: Local RDS permision escallation (gee.. AGAIN?)
CVE-2010-4249: Local socket DOS
CVE-2010-4258: ANOTHER kernel memory overwrite bug.

Look, its been fun pwning your complete lack of knowledge, but you simply aren't smart enough to warrant spending any more time on this.

We have fewer linux macihnes then freebsd, and yet the linux systems take the most time.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

toejam13 (958243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309886)

FreeBSD has a centralized support system for everything from kernel drivers to userland binaries. Not so much with Linux.

FreeBSD has an excellent centralized configuration system. Almost all of my system configuration settings are stored in /etc/rc.conf. Under Linux distros, they tend to be scattered all over the place.

The FreeBSD ports and packages system is easier to use than APT or RPM.

Excellent Unicode support on a standard console (non-X) terminal using jfbterm.

Ability to run network services within separate sandboxes using the FreeBSD jail mechanism. Easier to setup than Linux-VServer.

I just downloaded Debian 6.0 the other day, and I was constantly frustrated at how much more difficult it was to setup a SOHO firewall with DNS, DHCP, HTTP and SMB services. I could see using a Linux kernel with a FreeBSD userland to gain some additional device drivers, but IMHO, the various userlands are a mess. I really wish that somebody would make the opposite of Debian/kFreeBSD.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

gpuk (712102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35311374)

What exactly is difficult with setting up bind, dhcp3, apache and samba?

Seriously, these are all very mature, well documented pieces of software. It is literally as simple as issuing a few aptitude install commands, editing the config files to your taste (all of which are found in /etc) and writing a basic iptables script to open up the necessary ports.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

koinu (472851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309910)

Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux?

I'm using FreeBSD since 2002. Tell me the opposite, why should I use Linux?

secure, stable, and powerful

Do you have something that proves it? Buzzwords alone don't convince me.

Just analyze the amount of bug reports from both kernels.

Do you want to say that FreeBSD does not have many bugs, so it has high quality code in it? Or do you want to say that FreeBSD has many fixes, so people actually work hard on the development and improve the system everyday?

I'm using FreeBSD because it's ONE distribution that is very popular and not only a mere kernel, like Linux. And the way they handle applications (FreeBSD ports) is totally the way I WANT them to be handled. Gentoo, Ubuntu, Debian and SuSE are nice, but the only distribution I don't get headaches from after a while is FreeBSD. Try it at least, before bitching about it. I tried Linux distributions and didn't like them.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

mpol (719243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310474)

Why I prefer BSD over Linux. There are several reasons:

1. Tcsh is the best shell ever. I just don't understand why Apple ever switched to Bash.
2. Nvi is a really nice vi editor, much better then Vim. Combined with minimal but effective terminal settings I get my work done much faster.
3. Bind 4 is a proven and secure DNS platform.
4. A command-line with strict ordering is fully POSIX 2.0 compliant. I just can't stand anything with sloppy ordering.
5. The package management is simple but effective.
6. Security patches should come as source code only, so you can review them.

These are the reasons why you should switch to BSD today.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310626)

Why I prefer BSD over Linux. There are several reasons: ...

1. Tcsh is the best shell ever. I just don't understand why Apple ever switched to Bash.

What on earth are you talking about? Do you even know ANYTHING about unix? Install tcsh and use it! One of the main innovations in unix was userland shells so you could do just this! From the beginning. It's ALWAYS had this feature!

2. Nvi is a really nice vi editor, much better then Vim. Combined with minimal but effective terminal settings I get my work done much faster.

I'm beginning to smell trollish ness here. Firstly, you can install nvi on any Linux system. Secondly, one can set up vim to behave very similarly to the original vi, or much like nvi. Your claim that nvi is much faster for work than vi is really subious unless you can provide any examples.

4. A command-line with strict ordering is fully POSIX 2.0 compliant. I just can't stand anything with sloppy ordering.

I assume this is a dig at the GNU tools, not Linux. export (or rather in your case setenv) POSIXLY_CORRECT, and bask in the glory of posix.

5. The package management is simple but effective.

Hahaha. If there's one thing you will never get people to agree on, it's package management. But, seriously, many Linux distros have decent package management, as do the various BSDs. On both OSs it's mostly a question of "oooh I don't have $PACKAGE".

# $PACKAGEINSTALLER $PACKAGE ... and that's it.

6. Security patches should come as source code only, so you can review them.

Oh, that's just silly. You can easily not install updates until you've reviewed the source. I (not being a security expert) have not the time, incinnation or expertise to read most of the updates. I'll take them on trust, just like I took the entire OS on trust.

These are the reasons why you should switch to BSD today.

Yes, but you haven't really listed any of them.

I personally found it very easy to start hacking drivers in the OpenBSD kernel. I also asked a question on a mailing list and got a speedy, polite and helpful reply from Theo De Raadt. The extensive man pages and consistent documentation made it very easy.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

Shaiku (1045292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310578)

My thoughts on FreeBSD vs Linux... FreeBSD chroot jails are more secure than Linux chroot jails. Even says so in the Ubuntu man pages: http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/jaunty/man2/chroot.2.html [ubuntu.com]
http://www.bpfh.net/simes/computing/chroot-break.html [bpfh.net]

FreeBSD also has kernel-level virtualized jails which are far more secure than chroot jails, and a virtual network stack for jails is right around the corner (vimage/vnet). Then there's also the kernel securelevel, extended attributes/ACLs, TrustedBSD/MAC, and pf/ALTQ which is far superior to iptables. BSD has really been leading Linux in the area of security--Linux is more focused on spreading GPL and getting the media wheel on your USB keyboard to work.

I would say that Linux has much more diverse hardware support and more complete support for cutting-edge whiz-bangs and desktop gadgets like sound cards and webcams--although current FreeBSD is not too far behind. Meanwhile, FreeBSD is focused on powerful features for administration and for servers, such as jails, pf, ZFS, netgraph, GEOM framework, HAST replication, CARP failover, consistent integration of kernel and userland, consistent interface for startup scripts, the ports system and repository, etc.

Of course FreeBSD has the better license without question.

I think the clear choice for security and network related infrastructure is always a BSD box. The only times I choose Linux are when I'm forced to, such as installing to embedded hardware or using as a desktop/workstation.

Re:Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? (1)

gpuk (712102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35311326)

"Then there's also the kernel securelevel, extended attributes/ACLs, TrustedBSD/MAC, and pf/ALTQ which is far superior to iptables. BSD has really been leading Linux in the area of security--Linux is more focused on spreading GPL and getting the media wheel on your USB keyboard to work."

From http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/security.html#SECURELEVEL [freebsd.org]
"Securelevel is not a silver bullet; it has many known deficiencies. More often than not, it provides a false sense of security."

Linux supports extended attributes/ACLs, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_file_attributes [wikipedia.org]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Security_Modules [wikipedia.org] for a Linux approximation to TrustedBSD/MAC (admittedly it does not enjoy wide spread support yet).

For pf/ALTQ see iptables/iproute2/ebtables

ZFS improvements (3, Informative)

ulzeraj (1009869) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309558)

Version 15 of ZFS seems to have a better support for quotas and other accounting stuff: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+zfs/15 [opensolaris.org]

Re:ZFS improvements (1)

Freultwah (739055) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309696)

I've been running ZFS v28 on FreeBSD 8.2 prereleases for quite some time now. More or less weekly patches are at http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/v28/ [freebsd.org] . I have not had anything to report to the maintainer and from what I see, he's mostly cleaning up the code to merit further patches, the functionality is all there already.

Re:ZFS improvements (1)

ulzeraj (1009869) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309742)

I would have no reason to use ZFS on anything other than a file or NAS server. I don't think its worth the risk unless maybe for the deduplication feature on a backup server (while maintaining periodic backups on removable media).

Speaking of ZFS I'm very interested on checking those NFSv4 ACL modules for Samba. From what I heard you could have Windows-like acl editing (from the user workstation) on a samba server running shares on zfs.

Re:ZFS improvements (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309786)

I would have no reason to use ZFS on anything other than a file or NAS server. I don't think its worth the risk unless maybe for the deduplication feature on a backup server (while maintaining periodic backups on removable media).

It's sorta sad that FreeBSD makes ZFS, perhaps the most reliable filesystem to date, 'risky'. But there are certainly man corroborating stories.

I've read previously that FreeBSD 9 will have the necessary plumbing to make it run well.

Re:ZFS improvements (1)

ulzeraj (1009869) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309868)

You misunderstood. Its not ZFS, its using a weekly build of the ZFS driver on file servers that parent suggested. The current 13-15ish implementations of ZFS used on Osol and FreeBSD are decently stable.

Re:ZFS improvements (1)

Freultwah (739055) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309956)

I did not exactly suggest it. I just said I was doing it and that I had encountered no issues with it. Your kilometrage may vary, I've only gone as far as mirroring and no heavy activity on the volumes. I basically wanted to communicate the fact that if you need the newer version for some reason, it can be done and where you can find it.

As for the NFSv4 ACL modules for Samba, they work just as you described and it's pretty neat.

Re:ZFS improvements (1)

Shaiku (1045292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310438)

I've been using ZFS for about a year without any data loss. I had a kernel panic once on a 32-bit system with about 1GB of RAM, but no data loss. I don't think it's risky at all. I have a 2TB raidz1 pool that's full and gets pounded daily, as well as ZFS running on single disks in both 32-bit and 64-bit systems. There's some sysctl and kernel option tweaking required for the 32-bit low-memory systems, but all has been well after that.

Re:ZFS improvements (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310536)

Solaris ZFS is not as stable either. I do not administer such systems but from what I read many Solaris admins still run UFS on new server builds for this reason.

Re:ZFS improvements (1)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310740)

I would have no reason to use ZFS on anything other than a file or NAS server. I don't think its worth the risk

You are doing it wrong. I don't think it's worth the risk to use anything else except ZFS on a file or NAS server.

But I just installed 8.1 (2)

kriston (7886) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309572)

But I just installed 8.1.
Sigh.

Re:But I just installed 8.1 (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309600)

Looks like it's another 2-3 hours of compiling packages and the odd several hours of library/package build error resolution for you!

Re:But I just installed 8.1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309728)

Took me ~20 minutes on an Atom N510 to go from from 8.1-RELEASE to 8.2-RELEASE.

Re:But I just installed 8.1 (1)

koinu (472851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309924)

That's exactly what happens with Linux distributions. But it's not applicable to FreeBSD unless you update across a major version boundary. Not one application failed here after the update. If you understand the concept of STABLE branch in a development, you will know why it is like this.

Re:But I just installed 8.1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35311240)

But in Ubuntu there's no STABLE that anyone cares about. They're all running NEWCOOLSHIT.

Re:But I just installed 8.1 (2)

cdp0 (1979036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310692)

Looks like it's another 2-3 hours of compiling packages and the odd several hours of library/package build error resolution for you!

You can use freebsd-update [freebsd.org] to do a binary update. Also, recompilation of ports is not usually necessary in between minor upgrades (ie. 8.1 to 8.2). Of course, you may have chosen to build a custom kernel and then you need to build it manually. On my dual core CPU with 4GB RAM it takes about 10-12 minutes to build the kernel and 30-40 minutes for world. To deal with etc scripts you can use etcupdate [freshports.org] .

Also, if you don't like this way of doing things and you are a more desktop oriented user, you can look at PC-BSD [pcbsd.org] which comes with its own package system for binary packages [pbidir.com] , while still offering access to the ports system. And PC-BSD 8.2 (which is obviously based on FreeBSD 8.2) was just released, too.

Xen? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309592)

Does this mean full headcrab support?

Re:Xen? (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309616)

Yes, but it's experimental headcrab support. That means it's full featured, you've just got to read the source to figure out how to use it.

Re:Xen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35309722)

Experimental for BSD means don't run on production systems, cause it might blow up .
 
  BSD have ridiculously good documents in general, generally better than the program they describe. (see sysupgrade)
 
  So:
 

Yes, but it's experimental headcrab support. That means it's full featured, you've just got to read the source to figure out how to use it.

 
should read
 
 

Yes, but it's experimental headcrab support. That means it's full featured, but the resulting zombie may spontaneously combust.

Re:Xen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35310408)

Note: to make it work you need to read it aloud while standing inside magic circle.

Either or.. (3, Insightful)

libcrypto (599315) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309614)

Even if FreeBSD just manages to keep up with Linux I for one am glad its around. Remember Open Source is about choice. BSDs provide one more. One that is far better than Hurd, Haiku etc. at the moment.

Re:Either or.. (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309814)

Even if FreeBSD just manages to keep up with Linux I for one am glad its around. Remember Open Source is about choice. BSDs provide one more. One that is far better than Hurd, Haiku etc. at the moment.

Reality is that the user probably doesn't want FreeBSD or OpenBSD or NetBSD, there's choice but not in a good sense. What the user wants is probably one system where everything works. I've been there doing the distro rounds where yes, my problem is fixed on $new_distro but it turns out that instead $other_feature is broken. That kind of thing is just a lot of effort and wasted time for little or no gain. That Linus has managed to keep the kernel from fragmenting I think has only been a strength for Linux over the BSD kernel. Too bad the user space isn't nearly that united. That said it's better with fragmentation than stagnation...

Re:Either or.. (2)

koinu (472851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35309936)

You know that by comparing different BSDs you are comparing totally different products? Developers are exchanging/porting code, of course, but it's hell difficult. Point is... a FreeBSD system, for example, is exactly one single distribution. You cannot say it about Linux. It does not even have a default configuration that everyone would pick (see: "GENERIC kernel" in FreeBSD).

And btw, desktop user would rather use a preconfigured FreeBSD environment like PCBSD or DesktopBSD.

Re:Either or.. (1)

thejoyoflex (2003558) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310052)

Sorry, but i can hardly imagine a happy no tech-savvy desktop user of *BSD w/o a need for someone to come and make "all this stuff up and running".

Re:Either or.. (2)

koinu (472851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310794)

When you want to have everything served for you (not everyone likes to have the computer set up by someone else), you should search for a distribution and service that you expect. Take a look at PCBSD [pcbsd.org] .

Re:Either or.. (1)

KozmoStevnNaut (630146) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310592)

I've been there doing the distro rounds where yes, my problem is fixed on $new_distro but it turns out that instead $other_feature is broken.

I've done this as well. SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo for varying periods of time. I've dabbled a bit with FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD for various reasons as well, but ran into software incompatibilities that may be fixed by now.

I've found Arch Linux to be absolutely right for my needs and wants, it's like a best of breed between Debian and Gentoo, but better. Things just work when installed, all the packages are completely vanilla with no weird tweaks or configs (I'm looking at you, Gentoo), there are no obtuse config tools apart from vi and whatever you install yourself, it has a sane init system, the community is extremely helpful and both installation and configuration is a breeze with a simple installer that does what it's told and well-commented config files.

It's probably the most FreeBSD-like Linux distro I've found, perhaps that's why I like it so much.

the one true user (2)

epine (68316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310678)

What the user wants is probably one system where everything works.

I agree with you. It's very important I can fix anything that breaks. That's the only way you can achieve a system that works. If the component doesn't come with source code, my efforts to address brokenness are stymied.

Glad we've all agreed to jettison binary blobs in favour of a platform where everything works. How nice to live in a world where you never reach a fork in the road, such as a stable 2D video card with source code vs a faster 3D video card with no source code. When confronted with a fork in the road, all travellers choose the same path: whichever works. Now I have no insight into the one true user, so I'm rarely able to guess which of these paths is the one that works for everyone. I have to pull up my horse and wait for someone such as yourself to come along and explain which path is which.

It's the same spectrum with relationships. Many users define a good marriage as mind-blowing sex on the honeymoon. Others are in for the long haul, and put a higher priority on constructive conflict.

Some of the same people value engineering principles over straw polls, even when its difficult and obscure.

Re:Either or.. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#35311122)

Yeah. Because so much more doesn't work in FreeBSD than whatever Linuxdistribution (say Arch just for fun ..) just because there's only one Linux kernel (as if there was plenty of FreeBSD ones ..)

Fail?

Re:Either or.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35311432)

Earch BSD kernel is a derived from directly or indirectly from the 386BSD kernel, and each one has its purpose: Performance for FreeBSD, Security for OpenBSD and Portability for NetBSD, also concurrency and embedded systems for DragonFly. That is hardly kernel fragmentation I view it more as kernel specialization.

Re:Either or.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35311008)

FreeBSD isn't here to "beat" linux, or "keep up" with linux. It has distinct advantages and disadvantages compared to linux, and the people who use FreeBSD are aware of those differences. It's also just as old as linux, but has evolved seperately on a different path. Clearly, there will always be a place for alternative unix-like systems. OpenBSD and NetBSD each have a niche too.

Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35310108)

Who used Necromancy skill again?

The ISOs have been up for a couple of days... (1)

rainer_d (115765) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310388)

ah - does anyone remember the days when Slashdot, in need for a "scoop", would make a release-announcement the moment the ISOs were hitting the main FTP site?
A couple of comments down the original story, JKH would make an angry comment and insist that slashdot stop that practice....

Those were the days ....
;-)

KDE 4.5.5? (3, Interesting)

tyrione (134248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310430)

Now how sad is it that FreeBSD 8.2 has KDE 4.5.5 before Debian Sid? Great news for FreeBSD but truly pathetic for Debian, who keeps punting on any exact dates for KDE 4.6 builds, let alone 4.5.5.

Re:KDE 4.5.5? (2)

koinu (472851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35311302)

It's a tradition that FreeBSD has recent desktop environments earlier than Debian. When I moved from Debian to FreeBSD almost a decade ago, FreeBSD already had KDE3 since over 6 months and Debian could not get it into the package manager somehow. I've been fed up with this slowness and was impressed how great the FreeBSD portage system is being managed. I sticked to FreeBSD since then with occasional excursions to different Linux distributions, but I always ended up on FreeBSD.

Re:KDE 4.5.5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35311408)

FreeBSD + KDE = biggest piece of crap - I left FreeBSD about 3-4 years ago (after 10 years using it on desktop) when I realized the FreeBSD KDE people were unable to make CDROM mounting work out of the box ... and when I went on IRC to talk to them, they were the worst kind of programmers: "just edit the files required to get it working" kind of replies. I switched to Ubuntu and then to ... MacOS-X (Hackintosh I admit).

Re:KDE 4.5.5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35311612)

MacOS-X + MacPorts.org I should have said ... making it a pure BSD system, with fine tuned GUI ...

Java support (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310562)

I use Eclipse and the lack of Java support is the reason I no longer run FreeBSD

Re:Java support (2)

avgapon (1851536) | more than 3 years ago | (#35310588)

I use Eclipse 3.6 on FreeBSD without issues. Installing Java (openjdk) from ports was trivial.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?