×

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 9.0 Released

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the get-it-while-it's-hot dept.

BSD 418

An anonymous reader writes "FreeBSD 9.0 has been released. A few highlights include: A new installer, bsdinstall(8) has been added and is the installer used by the ISO images provided as part of this release, The Fast Filesystem now supports softupdates journaling, and Kernel support for Capsicum Capability Mode, an experimental set of features for sandboxing support."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

418 comments

Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (5, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38678950)

As noted in the release notes, FreeBSD 9.0 includes Clang/LLVM, the goal is to be rid of all GPL dependencies by version 10.0 [freebsd.org]. At the 2011 LLVM Developers' meeting [llvm.org], Brooks Davis covered the effort in bringing in LLVM for 9.0 [llvm.org] and the work remaining for 10.0 to replace GCC. The move was originally intended for 9.0, but there wasn't enough time to get it all done, particularly due to the thousands of pieces of software in the ports tree that still require work [freebsd.org]. GPLv3 is cited as the catalyst for all this, for preventing cooperation between free and proprietary software sectors.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (-1, Flamebait)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38678984)

It's good they're getting rid of all GPL code, especially considering how GPLv3 restricts cooperation. GPL is practically destroying and giving bad name to all open source because of their draconian stance on ANY proprietary code. Companies are already afraid to use any open source code because they associate it with GPL.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679010)

We appreciate your input, Microsoft troll.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (-1, Offtopic)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679070)

I bet you modded him down and then logged out just so you could reply without negating your downmod. Never change, Slashdot.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679130)

Mods are tracked by IP. He'd have to go somewhere else to reply without negating his downmod.

Now, he COULD have posted, then modded. Slashdot allows that as long as you post AC, but again it tracks by IP so it won't let you mod your own AC posts.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679182)

I was actually just joking, but I've had anonymous trolls talk about using open proxies, so it's not as if IP-tracking is some kind of barrier unless Slashdot prohibits open proxies in that case.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679274)

Now, he COULD have posted, then modded.

I think it's the other way round. ;)

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (2, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679296)

How is it a troll to point out that the GPL has caused a lot of problems that would be obviated by using BSD-licensed code (as one example, just look at the deal LG signed with Microsoft for "linux protection").

The GPL is an evolutionary dead end. It's one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time - what could go wrong?" Now we know a few things that DID go wrong. There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (4, Interesting)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679354)

How would the BSD license have saved LG and others for signing patent licenses with Microsoft? Let me rephrase that: The BSD license would not have helped LG at all.

Also, why the fuck should FOSS users care about what Apple does for their own closed-source OS? Before you say Darwin, consider the fact that not a single soul uses Darwin as his main OS. Why? Because it's shit.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (2, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679476)

For one, it would have saved on the file system patents - zfs (as just one example) is not covered by microsoft patents. Now, if you can show a single patent that Microsoft is exerting against LG, Samsung, etc., that they could also stick it to BSD, you're welcome to try.

You won't be able to, because they all signed NDAs as part of the deal, but we know that the file system is one area - memory is another, and BSD doesn't use the same algorithms.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (2, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679738)

Use the ZFS file system on SD-cards for compatibility with Windows? Great idea. Except, of course, Windows can't read ZFS, and neither can any other popular desktop OS. So basically, you suggest using an SD-card file system that's totally unsuitable for SD-cards and compatible only with FreeBSD and Solaris, to save a couple of dollars per phone on patent licensing.

You must be some kind of idiot genius.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679578)

Also, why the fuck should FOSS users care about what Apple does for their own closed-source OS? Before you say Darwin, consider the fact that not a single soul uses Darwin as his main OS. Why? Because it's shit.

Um...millions of OS X and iOS users are using Darwin as their main OS, as it is the foundation for those operating systems.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (2)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679638)

Also, why the fuck should FOSS users care about what Apple does for their own closed-source OS? Before you say Darwin, consider the fact that not a single soul uses Darwin as his main OS. Why? Because it's shit.

Um...millions of OS X and iOS users are using Darwin as their main OS, as it is the foundation for those operating systems.

That depends on what he meant by "[use] Darwin as his main OS". If he meant "use raw Darwin, as built from the source at opensource.apple.com", rather than "use an OS whose core is Darwin", I suspect he's right - you could try building Darwin from source, and get the drivers you need for your hardware, and, if you want a GUI, get X11 running on the bare hardware etc., but that would, I think, be a lot of work.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679430)

You only consider things to have "gone wrong" if your goal is to use other peoples' work in your commercial product, and not give your modified code back.

An evolutionary branch isn't a "dead end" unless the branch stops evolving and/or goes extinct. I foresee lots of software going forward in perpetuity as GPLv3, just like proprietary software shall go forward for as long as people want to sell software. The fact that the twain may never again meet inside a linker doesn't matter really in the scheme of things.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679512)

There's plenty of code that's been "given back" into BSD - including by commercial companies. You might want to look at opensource.apple.com for a few hundred examples, many of which are also used in most linux distros.

You wouldn't even be on the net today if it weren't for BSDs networking stack, which both linux and microsoft use.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679570)

Not true for Microsoft anymore. They rewrote the network stack with Vista.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (0)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680212)

It's still based off of BSD code. "Derivative works" and all that. You can't make a compatible stack w/o using it.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (2)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679574)

The GPL is an evolutionary dead end. It's one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time - what could go wrong?" Now we know a few things that DID go wrong. There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.

I have heard this line of reasoning before and there is one thing I think it overlooks. Maybe I'm wrong, so I'll say there is one thing I don't understand about it.

FreeBSD (and NetBSD and OpenBSD) have been around roughly as long as Linux has, since the early 1990s. How do you explain the fact that *BSD is a niche OS most users have never heard of, while usage of Linux skyrocketed and it became something that most Joe Sixpacks have at least heard of if not something they actually use as a Windows alternative?

It would appear that the GPL is superior in terms of attracting developers and establishing a userbase on standard PC hardware in a Windows-dominated world.

Do you believe that's a coincidence and Linux had other factors in its favor that *BSD does not? I don't think so myself but I'm open to the possibility.

Regarding Apple's choice for OSX, it seems evident they had no intention of contributing back to the community anyway. If Linux were under a BSD license and this caused them to base OSX on Linux, what difference would that make? Should Linux users put a notch on their belt if that happened? It still wouldn't cause one single line of Apple code to be contributed back to the original developers (the most I know of is them sponsoring occasional events). It sounds like an empty feel-good concern to be blunt.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (4, Interesting)

preaction (1526109) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680028)

FreeBSD (and NetBSD and OpenBSD) have been around roughly as long as Linux has, since the early 1990s. How do you explain the fact that *BSD is a niche OS most users have never heard of, while usage of Linux skyrocketed and it became something that most Joe Sixpacks have at least heard of if not something they actually use as a Windows alternative?

BSD had patent/copyright concerns from System V that were not fully addressed at the time Linux rose to prominence. This is why you hear "This is the year of the Linux desktop" instead of "This is the year of the BSD desktop". This is basic *nix history here, folks.

It would appear that the GPL is superior in terms of attracting developers and establishing a userbase on standard PC hardware in a Windows-dominated world.

Correlation is not causation.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (2)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680148)

The primary basis of Free/Net/Open BSD existed long before Linux. Not a diss on Linux, just saying. Ref: here [wikipedia.org]

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (4, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680362)

Apple hired several of the FreeBSD devs, and lots of the code was, and continues to be, given back to the FreeBSD project. Also, in case you haven't noticed it, that Apple-sponsored code includes the rewrite to WebKit that all you Chrome users like so much. You might want to check out the other stuff here [apple.com] and here [apple.com]. Also, if you use CUPS to print anything, thank Apple - they bought the source code from the original developer. Use zeroconf for networking? Thank Apple for their open standard (as opposed to Microsoft's closed one, which wasn't adopted by the IETF).

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679012)

What's wrong with GPL? I haven't been paying any attention to news surrounding this and so honestly don't know.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (4, Informative)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679146)

just a case of "different", not wrong. GPL can't be used in some cases where BSD licensed code can, for example one can distribute modified BSD code without providing the source code as long as its done the way the BSD copyright mandates.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679168)

From an end-user prospective? Nothing. From the perspective of a lazy developer or corporation who refuse share their modifications with the devloper community, or allow their clients full control over their software? A lot of things. This is why people always complain that the GPL is too "philosophical".

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679306)

Posts like yours are why GPL gets called "communist."

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (5, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679210)

People with entitlement complexes and inability to understand simple instructions get surprised when someone gets angry after they take code that says "You can use this as long as you make the result GPL" and use it without making the result GPL.

They could have written their own or taken someone else's code with a more permissive license like BSD, but suggesting this causes them to react like the guy who defends his use of TPB for his movie watching by declaring he has some sort of right to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, without having to pay for it.

You want it, you follow the rules to get it buddy. If you don't like the rules, nobody's forcing you to get it.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (2, Informative)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679212)

SharkLaser is Microsoft shill. The GPL is against Microsoft's interests. bonch is an Apple shill.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (-1, Offtopic)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679418)

Basically, everyone that MrHanky doesn't like is a shill of some sort. Perhaps even you, dear reader!

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679514)

No, you're by far the worst on this site. Even SuperKendall has some other interests than advertising for Apple and slandering Apple's competition. You evidently don't.

Having an impact in the discussion (-1, Offtopic)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679776)

I don't know who that is, but I'm happy to have such an impact on you. A Slashdot employee recently told me that my comments generate more moderations than any he's ever seen. If my opinions cause that much discussion, than I'm doing more than the usual "me too" posters, and I'll take nothing but terrible karma if it means my posts are making people think and react. And with the downmods I receive, I often do have terrible karma, and that's fine with me (said Slashdot employee also said he didn't consider me a troll). I'm a subscriber and see articles about half an hour before you do, and I will keep contributing regardless.

As for Apple, this place was much more Apple-friendly before Android came out and turned this community into a Google cheerleading squad. Today, you can't praise Apple for anything. If you mention that the prototypical design for nearly every Android smartphone and tablet came from Jonathan Ive's iPhone design from 2007--even though it's completely obvious to anyone outside of Slashdot--you will get modbombed into oblivion around here. For crying out loud, look at these Toshiba phones and tablets [imgur.com] from CES--it's practically a pile of iPads and iPhones.

There's an emotional attachment to Android around here because it's based on Linux and comes from Google. Since it competes with Apple, that means Apple is now considered one of the bad guys and isn't allowed to be credited for anything. I've never slandered anyone, and my comments are not only based on facts but are also often full of links to various sources. I've always felt that I brought up rational arguments and facts, and people are welcome to respond and disagree. Unfortunately, people are extremely closed-minded and often just mod down instead of replying and explaining why they think I'm wrong. It's reached such a comical degree that I'm regularly accused of being different people or being paid by Microsoft or Apple. I grin every time I see those comments; it motivates me to keep posting.

If you think I'm the worst on the site, than at least I'm standing out and stirring the nest. I actually consider my posts pretty obvious and non-controversial, so the huge reactions often surprise me. In a good way.

Re:Having an impact in the discussion (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680120)

The backlash against Apple came some time before Android, and the cause of it was people like you: shills. Perhaps also the fact that Apple is an enemy of the free web. We got tired of every comment fawning over Apple getting +5, insteresting. Instead of taking the hint and cooling down a bit, you're practically frothing. And you talk about "emotional attachment".

Re:Having an impact in the discussion (2, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680214)

I don't know who that is, but I'm happy to have such an impact on you. A Slashdot employee recently told me that my comments generate more moderations than any he's ever seen. If my opinions cause that much discussion, than I'm doing more than the usual "me too" posters, and I'll take nothing but terrible karma if it means my posts are making people think and react. And with the downmods I receive, I often do have terrible karma, and that's fine with me (said Slashdot employee also said he didn't consider me a troll). I'm a subscriber and see articles about half an hour before you do, and I will keep contributing regardless.

Eh, understand that I have no dog in this fight. It doesn't really matter to me if you're an honest user or a shill. Anything you say about anything important to me will still be subject to all the usual tests of truth so I don't share this concern about your personal disposition or how you personally get your paycheck ...

What follows is my personal opinion and I have no special insider information. Having said that, I wanted to emphasize that a Slashdot employee has quite a different perspective here. You know what generates page views? Controversy. If you did want to troll, you probably have their blessing as long as people respond to it and it generates lots of discussion.

There's an emotional attachment to Android around here

Man, there's an emotional attachment to just about everything that has no inherent relationship to any emotion. This isn't marriage or psychology we're discussing here. It's part of this general trend of emotional childishness that's been developing over the last couple of decades or so. The idea that you can have a personal opinion without feeling threatened by someone who does not subscribe to it is tragically becoming an endangered species. During the mid 1990s Bill Hicks said the USA, collectively, was at around an 8th-grade emotional level. I wonder if he was being generous. It's a real tragedy our society as a whole does not value character the same way we value cleverness and usefulness

It's not just Slashdot, by any means. Idiots get in fistfights over fucking football teams. There are people who will call you a racist (which like all accusations requires hard evidence) merely for disagreeing about a matter of policy with Obama instead of, you know, explaining why they support that policy. If a consenting developer wants to give free code to a consenting user, some will call that Communist (nevermind that real Communists use force...).

The art of disliking something without demonizing it and turning it into the next avatar of Satan is nearly lost. It's basically one great big schoolyard. I'm wondering if this will eventually "hit bottom" and start improving, or if the next couple of generations will all be a bunch of overgrown two-year-olds.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679300)

What's wrong with GPL?

It annoys the minority of businesses who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers and don't want to give anything back. You see, some people are childish and the most visible mark of childishness is a sense of entitlement. This causes them to feel somehow cheated if you place a few conditions on code that is otherwise free, that no one is forcing them to use if the conditions don't suit them. I think phrases like "you mean I have to actually HIRE my OWN PROGRAMMERS if I really must insist that everything be done exactly the way I want?!" are often uttered with outrage during their corporate meetings.

I mean hey, launching a commercial product with most of the work already done for you, for free, is a nice racket if you can get it. But if the developers intend to allow this, they wouldn't use GPL, they would use a BSD-type license. For reasonable people, this is not a problem. Reasonable people think either "hey, this code is available for free and we have no problem complying with the license, so we can enjoy all the effort that has already been done for us and build on that", or they think "the terms of that license aren't compatible with our business model, or we're afraid of how a court may interpret them, so we can't use that code, oh well, this has not harmed us in any way so we really have no complaint".

For everyone else, there is a need to demonize whatever it is that doesn't perfectly suit them even though they are under no obligation to use it. Sort of like the Puritannical types who want to shut down "offensive" shows that no one is making them watch and criminalize victimless behaviors among consenting adults that no one is forcing them to participate in. The mentality is never this direct and honest, and always covers itself up with a phony excuse, but if not for that its motto would be "it's not good enough that *I* don't do something I don't like, oh no, I have to make certain no one else can do it either!"

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (0)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679400)

You failed to point out that Microsoft now likes the GPL because they can charge for their "patent protection" racket - something they can't do with the BSDs.

Ask LG, Samsung, HTC, Acer, Compal, etc., if they wish Android had been based on FreeBSD (same as OSX is) instead of Linux.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1)

rb12345 (1170423) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679628)

What difference does using a BSD-like licence in place of the GPL actually make in terms of patents?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1)

bbecker23 (1917560) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680004)

I could definitely be wrong, but my understanding is that the Microsoft patent racket stems from patents on the FAT filesystem. Android formats its storage as FAT (to include compatibility with Windows, methinks) and MS saw dollar signs. Kind of incredible that the manufacturers are being charged for the "privilege" of maintaining compatibility with Windows.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (4, Insightful)

Eivind Eklund (5161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679562)

What's wrong with GPL?

It annoys the minority of businesses who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers and don't want to give anything back.

You misspelled "everything" as "anything".

If they want to give 90% back - which is common behavior for proprietary derivatives of BSD licensed codebases - they can't. They have to give back 100%, or stay out.

I mean hey, launching a commercial product with most of the work already done for you, for free, is a nice racket if you can get it. But if the developers intend to allow this, they wouldn't use GPL, they would use a BSD-type license. For reasonable people, this is not a problem. Reasonable people think either "hey, this code is available for free and we have no problem complying with the license, so we can enjoy all the effort that has already been done for us and build on that", or they think "the terms of that license aren't compatible with our business model, or we're afraid of how a court may interpret them, so we can't use that code, oh well, this has not harmed us in any way so we really have no complaint".

If you can't see how the GPL dominating a market can do harm to groups of people that can't use the GPLed version but needs customisations - then you've not thought hard enough about the problem. Think about monopolies and "embrace, extend, extinguish", just performed with software given away gratis with restrictions.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679782)

You misspelled "everything" as "anything". If they want to give 90% back - which is common behavior for proprietary derivatives of BSD licensed codebases - they can't. They have to give back 100%, or stay out.

Most people who use GPL licensed software give 0% back. How many people really want to distribute there own versions? Very few.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679874)

If they want to give 90% back - which is common behavior for proprietary derivatives of BSD licensed codebases - they can't. They have to give back 100%, or stay out.

And if that's not to their liking, the only thing they miss out on is the gratis skilled labor of strangers. They are still free to write their own code under any license they want. I just don't see the problem, unless of course there is a sense of entitlement to something no one actually owes them. That's the only explanation for why anyone would experience any distress over this.

If you can't see how the GPL dominating a market can do harm to groups of people that can't use the GPLed version but needs customisations - then you've not thought hard enough about the problem. Think about monopolies and "embrace, extend, extinguish", just performed with software given away gratis with restrictions.

How does GPL "dominate" a market? By that I mean: what's stopping these hypothetical groups from hiring their own programmers to write their own software that is licensed any way they like? A patent could definitely do that, but the GNU Public License is not a patent. If I am a developer who uses the GPL, how am I "doing harm" to you by not giving you my work for free? Again, only a false belief that you are entitled to my labor would make you feel "harmed" in any way.

What non-patented feature can you name for me in a GPL'ed project that an independent commercial project could not also implement? They would have to write their own code, sure, but if you really believe that constitutes "embrace, extend, extinguish" then you don't really understand what that term means. "Embrace, extend, extinguish" is not possible without closed source and/or patents.

That's too bad (for them only) some people feel offended that they can't just copy-and-paste someone else's code into their project, but nothing is stopping them from using their own original code to match every feature found in any non-patented GPL'ed project.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679906)

No, actually.

It annoys and horrifies the thousands of developers that develop for platforms where the GPL is incompatible with libraries they must use or is not allowed by the platform rights holder.

There are many projects that used to be GPL/LGPL that are heavily used in the game developer community that are now BSD/MIT/zlib licensed, and they see even more contributions than they did before because more developers are able to use them for projects. (See Ogre3D, SDL for just of many two well-known examples.)

The GPL may be an appropriate license for some developer communities, but in others, it actually *reduces* the number of contributions and users of a project.

Like most things, one size does not fit all.

How ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679940)

It annoys the minority of businesses who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers and don't want to give anything back. You see, some people are childish and the most visible mark of childishness is a sense of entitlement.

How ironic a statement on a site that constantly advertises The Pirate Bay and promotes piracy as a form of copyright rebellion.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (-1, Flamebait)

s-whs (959229) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680252)

It annoys the minority of businesses who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers and don't want to give anything back. You see, some people are childish and the most visible mark of childishness is a sense of entitlement. This causes them to feel somehow cheated if you place a few conditions on code that is otherwise free, that no one is forcing them to use if the conditions don't suit them. I think phrases like "you mean I have to actually HIRE my OWN PROGRAMMERS if I really must insist that everything be done exactly the way I want?!" are often uttered with outrage during their corporate meetings.

I mean hey, launching a commercial product with most of the work already done for you, for free, is a nice racket if you can get it. But if the developers intend to allow this, they wouldn't use GPL, they would use a BSD-type license. For reasonable people, this is not a problem. Reasonable people think either "hey, this code is available for free and we have no problem complying with the license, so we can enjoy all the effort that has already been done for us and build on that", or they think "the terms of that license aren't compatible with our business model, or we're afraid of how a court may interpret them, so we can't use that code, oh well, this has not harmed us in any way so we really have no complaint".

For everyone else, there is a need to demonize whatever it is that doesn't perfectly suit them even though they are under no obligation to use it. Sort of like the Puritannical types who want to shut down "offensive" shows that no one is making them watch and criminalize victimless behaviors among consenting adults that no one is forcing them to participate in. The mentality is never this direct and honest, and always covers itself up with a phony excuse, but if not for that its motto would be "it's not good enough that *I* don't do something I don't like, oh no, I have to make certain no one else can do it either!"

You are not +5 insightful but more -1 moron. (or Linux/GPL zealot)

There are reasons not to use GPL not having to do with modifying code, but simply running the code. E.g. GPL'd libraries. I haven't followed what the issue is with GPL v3 as I simply avoid any GPL code due to the zealotry of most of those who advocate it.

In the late 1990s I thought about a 'what if' scenario: Say most people run Linux with a lot of GPL'ed libraries, then I am sure some provisions in the GPL would have to be altered as it would force people to do things in a certain way for which there is no reason. So suppose GPL'd libraries are required because they are used in the system and rewriting it all would be pointless, a waste of time, but especially means having to follow all changes and reimplement them too.

A commercial company is about selling a product for a given system, not reimplementing that system.

I am sure that legal action would take place and rule some parts of the GPL invalid, IN THAT CASE.

For me, I don't care much about interaction issues, because after the late 1990s I had enough of the inane whining about GPL misuse and zealotry of Linux users. I use FreeBSD and am free of all that rubbish, and of all the different versions of lInux with their idiosyncrasies.

FreeBSD has flaws, but I'm not going back to linux...

And about the GPL licence, what annoys me a lot is the lie in the preamble, which btw. should be removed from the licence itself as it is propaganda:

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it.

What was not present cannot be taken away. Most commercial software is designed to do something specific, and the license is for that. When you don't get source, you don't get the ability to modify that source and modifying binaries is a lot of work. So, you never really had the freedom to change it, therefore it cannot be taken away. I guess it was meant as 'most licences are not intended to give the freedom to alter the program', but then it should be written in that way. But no, it's written in this adversarial way, and from what I read by Moglun, at least the licence section. Well, he should have objected to this and if it was not changed, not allowed use of the licence text that he used by the FSF. But perhaps he's just happy to go along with this nonsense by the FSF...

I like the idea of the GPL, but not the propaganda in the licence, nor the attitude of the proponents...

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679502)

Nothing's wrong with the GPL. The only problem is that the GPLv3 closed "loopholes" that previously allowed appliance manufacturers to ship FreeBSD-based boxes as-is under the GPLv2. I'll assume FreeBSD don't want to kick their userbase in the nuts (Unix enthusiasts as well as professionals relying on the OS for their business), they're sticking to the GPLv2 for every software in the base system (think kernel plus the bare minimum to have a running box).

While alternatives exist, FreeBSD is mostly a "compile everything yourself" system and for the reasons mentioned above they're stuck with GCC 4.2 which has been EOL'd upstream for quite some time. LLVM/Clang provides a modern compiler suite, actively maintained, that could be used in place of GCC to build a stock FreeBSD box. Other replacements are being worked on : binutils, gdb, groff, readline.

As a user and if I were to complain, I'd say that it's regrettable that some developers are required to do some NIH work instead of improving or adding features just because of license wars. But hey, that's just me.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679024)

we can all see that you are desperately trying to direct this into an argument about Linux vs BSD instead of the features in this new release.. nobody will post a comment that will get modded up.. (and mods; please mod this post and all above and below down MERCILESSLY).

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679028)

Replying to yourself, bonch/SharkLaser. Keep on trolling...

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679128)

keep on being an anonymous pussy, anonymous pussy.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (4, Funny)

halfaperson (1885704) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679030)

Yeah, that's why large IT companies like IBM, Intel and even Microsoft are contributing to the BSD:s and not to Linux. Oh, wait..

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679056)

IBM and Intel do it to sell hardware and support. God knows why Microsoft does.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679096)

Because their customers ask them to do it. I know its shocking but MS actually acts on customer requests. Especially if you are flinging around some real money...

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (3, Interesting)

halfaperson (1885704) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679148)

Oh, you mean sell hardware and support to companies that wants to use Linux on their hardware? But I was just told that's companies didn't want that due to the GPL?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679218)

Companies with proprietary software don't want to deal with the GPL, no. Hardware companies don't care because Linux is a free-as-in-beer operating system for their products that they can contribute as much or as little to as they want.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679176)

Since many of you are meeting people through online dating sites, there are a few basic things everyone should know. Lots of people on these sites exaggerate and are dishonest about who and what they are. This can waste lots of time making you reject people only after meeting them in person when you could have screened them out before actually investing the time to date them. So, here is a quick but incomplete guide.

Guys, this is a little cheat-sheet for you. The format is "the term they use" : "what they actually mean".


Plus-size : fatass
Full figured : lardass
SWF seeking SBM : elephant sized
More to love : can't put the fork down
Great cook : can hardly fit through the door
Proportioned : has her own escape velocity
Wiccan : puts the "morbid" in "morbidly obese"
Spiritual : fundamental religious zealot
Intelligent : air-head, dumb as a fucking rock
Fun-loving : bat-shit insane
Home-maker : wants to sit on her ass getting fat while you make all the money, then complains you won't do all the housework
Confident : insecure and would love to make it your problem
Loves good conversation : never shuts the fuck up, can ramble for hours about the most trivial shit (like almost all women)
Seeking long-term commitment : will poke holes in condoms or "forget" her pill so she can nail you for child support
Natural blonde : not black
Looking for romance : has been rejected by men who found out her body is her only asset
Just wants to have fun : will ruthlessly manipulate and toy with you
Family oriented : burdened with bastard children from previous failed relationships
Not materialistic : gold digger and/or welfare recipient
Educated : went to college to get her M-R-S degree, and failed

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679458)

So...you're marrying a guy?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (-1, Flamebait)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679200)

Even if you hate clang/llvm like Michelle Obama hates whitey, you should be glad that they're doing this. Passing your code through multiple compilers (and multiple OSs) helps to find bugs.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD (1)

tautog (46259) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680260)

I guess that it shouldn't be surprising that the first post is more interesting and informative than the summary it comments on...

Netcraft confirms! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38678962)

BSD is officially dead!

Re:Netcraft confirms! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679008)

Your butt confirms your head is suffocating.

Re:Netcraft confirms! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679084)

Yes, keep on repeating that for ANOTHER 20 years it might be funny in 2030. For the last 20 years it was not.

Fact is : Through OS X, which is at least partly based on BSD (the Darwin Kernel is part of the huge BSD family), BSD has a much higher marketshare and install base than Linux will ever have.

BSD FTW! (yes, I was a pillock just right now. And no, I am not embarrassed. At least once I want to behave more like an average Linux freak and less than a sensible, adult BSD happy camper)

Re:Netcraft confirms! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679330)

Fact is : Through OS X, which is at least partly based on BSD (the Darwin Kernel is part of the huge BSD family), BSD has a much higher marketshare and install base than Linux will ever have.

LOL!

Re:Netcraft confirms! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679448)

LOL all you want, but it's true.

omg yay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679026)

a shitty OS without a simple installer

Re:omg yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679258)

Oh noes - now morons can't install it!

Dennis Ritchie (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679032)

The FreeBSD Project dedicates the FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE to the memory of Dennis M. Ritchie, one of the founding fathers of the UNIX operating system. It is on the foundation laid by the work of visionaries like Dennis that software like the FreeBSD operating system came to be. The fact that his work of so many years ago continues to influence new design decisions to this very day speaks for the brilliant engineer that he was.

May he rest in peace.

Gnome version 2.32.1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679034)

Looks like they decided to stick with sanity for a bit longer.

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1 (2)

Narishma (822073) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679342)

Does Gnome 3 even work on BSD? Doesn't it depend on some kind of Linux-only functionality or library? Or am I thinking of some other project?

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1 (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679558)

I seem to remember the GNOME team saying they were dropping support for everything but Linux.

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1 (4, Informative)

geek (5680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679744)

In the future Gnome3 will require SystemD which is Linux only.

woohoo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679048)

When is FreeBSD going to stop being managed by a clique of core developers with contributing mentored sycophants and going to follow the Linux model of documenting so that everyone can contribute then accepting code on merit?

Re:woohoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679216)

Hopefully : never ever in the next trillion years.

Do I trust the BSD core devs to know what they are doing without breaking the system? Oh yes, very very much indeed.
Do I trust some basement troll who thinks of himself as the greatest genius of all time, cobbling some Linux spaghetti code together with no comments or documentation while eating pizza paid by his mom? Not a second.

Re:woohoo (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679344)

I used NetBSD and/or FreeBSD between 1995 and 2005 and Linux between 1996 and today. By around 2000 Linux was far from a basement project of amateur code, being built primarily by full time developers. The stability of the more mature distributions (go Debian!) matched or exceeded the BSDs, the latter fast losing any remaining technical advantages.

As to "no comments or documentation", you've just revealed that you haven't tried writing in kernel space for either. Linux has been superbly documented for those who, say, wish to write a device driver, while last I gave up on the BSDs it was still a matter of "copy existing code". This works excellently as long as you've decided to throw all engineering principles out of the window and don't understand the difference between stable interface and implementation dependence. Like I said, the BSDs have remained deliberately cliquish, like some stupid nerdish club: to contribute effectively you have to catch the eye of and be guided by existing team members, who will fill in the details for you.

Whenever Stallman irritates me, I remind myself of what freedom's really about: the particular license wording is only an implementation detail, and what is really required in principle is people who are prepared to be open and to share. The BSDs simply don't have this.

Re:woohoo (4, Interesting)

Brian Feldman (350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679720)

You had problems developing BSD kernel code and not Linux? That's amazing. What kind of driver or system call did you work on? I've never heard of anyone saying the Linux kernel APIs are more coherent. Ever.

Re:woohoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679854)

Well, I started with network card drivers around '98. I recall getting a copy of Rubini's book for Linux, reading through some relevant chapters while delayed at an airport and getting to work without even glancing at the kernel. Then a few weeks later I moved onto FreeBSD and received the glorious "start with an existing driver, copy the code and change it". While there's no question that some of the Linux APIs were messy (and I'm not sure it's got any better), the implication from the start was that BSD didn't really need a well-defined API at all because only the core team and those under its wing would be responsible for anything interesting anyway.

The facts as I see them notwithstanding, if you're implying ("coherent"?) that you've never heard anyone express that it's easier to write kernel-level code under Linux than BSD then you have some serious echo chamber issues.

+5 New stuff (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679078)

CCF for those of us that like flow based firewalls is a very nice addition. Cling and Clang are definitely nice to have. I'll have to read up on Capsicum. I can't tell if it is an enhancement to jails or a replacement.

Memory Requirements (3, Interesting)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679102)

Last week, I downloaded Fedora Core 16 and found that, for the first time, I was not able to update Linux on my Inspiron 8200. Because it has 512 megs of RAM and that install required more. Not sure why an installer requires 768 megabytes. So anyway, maybe that's a sign I should look at BSD.

Re:Memory Requirements (5, Funny)

halfaperson (1885704) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679202)

Maybe it's a sign that you should consider a new computer?

Re:Memory Requirements (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680016)

Well, I have a newer one but that one's running Windows. I've always thought of Linux as a way to install a modern operating system on older computers that couldn't handle the bloat of Windows.

Re:Memory Requirements (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679222)

Fedora doesn't let you upgrade with a couple clicks or a quick shell command?

Re:Memory Requirements (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680038)

Not that I know of. It listed Fedora 14 as an available update. Not 16. And I've always been leery about upgrades rather than completely new installs anyway.

Re:Memory Requirements (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679560)

Yep. FreeBSD is not actually getting that much more bloated. (None of the BSD's are really I suppose). 486 with 24MB ram

Re:Memory Requirements (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679666)

It's because Fedora 16 (the 'Core' was dropped a while back, btw) has a massive initial ramdisk system that simply doesn't work on older machines.

Re:Memory Requirements (2)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679760)

How about another linux distro arch, debian and openSUSE still run on 512 or less.

Re:Memory Requirements (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680060)

I might give that a go. My first Linux distribution was Suse. But I still want to see what the big deal is about BSD sometime.

FreeBSD & ZFS (5, Informative)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679732)

What? A new FreeBSD release and no body talks about the ZFS features in the release? I don't memorize version numbers, but I know the ZFS system has updated significantly between 8.2 and 9.0. Deduplication is in there, now, for instance.

Granted, the new installer is one of the bigger changes. sysinstall...I'm happy to see you go!

ZFS v28 (5, Interesting)

Maglos (667167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679752)

ZFS v28 not a highlight? I just finished testing a 5tb Freebsd 9.0rc2 Supermicro server. ZFS v28 adds de-duplication and a removes rather nasty failure when an intent log device is removed. It also had built in support for the LSI HBA controller card I used, which made installation much easier. We'll save at least %40 with compression and de-dup but it does half write speeds with our xeon 5600(200MB/s down to 80MB/s) .

Re:ZFS v28 (4, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680036)

For many scenarios, ZFS v28 is the minimal 'usable' version number, which has previously limited FreeBSD's ZFS adoption. Now it's a real contender, and I congratulate the team.

Re: deduplication. Be sure you have enough RAM or you're going to be in for a heck of a surprise. 2GB of dedicated RAM per TB of disk usage is recommended as a rule of thumb. I found this out the hard way when it was new.

Re:ZFS v28 (1)

Maglos (667167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680112)

I put 48gb in it. Ram is cheap. I have yet to see it "wire" more then half that, but I am slowly deploying it.

FreeBSD torrents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38679796)

Torrents for all the ISOs are available officially (?) at:

http://torrents.freebsd.org.:8080/

But, what can I do with it? (1)

Jozza The Wick (1805012) | more than 2 years ago | (#38679844)

Can I listen to stuff on Youtube... log into Facebook & Gmail, run Java based applications or run virtual machines from a GUI-based player? I'm kind of a nerd, but once I get my computer how I like it, I stop playing with it and start using it... :D

Re:But, what can I do with it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38680030)

IMO bsd makes a better server os than a desktop one. Mainly due to X11 being in great need of a death sentence.

PC-BSD 9 (4, Informative)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#38680322)

http://www.pcbsd.org/ [pcbsd.org] will be announced today hopefully. Looking forward to giving it a spin and hopefully might change my mind about Linux Mint and become my main OS. Didn't have hardware luck with it in the early days.

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...