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!

VirtualBSD 9.0 Released

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the virtualbox-actualbox dept.

Virtualization 65

ReeceTarbert writes "VirtualBSD 9.0 is a desktop-ready FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE built around the XFCE Desktop Environment for good aesthetics and usability, and is distributed as a VMware appliance (that can also be made to work with VirtualBox) so even non techies can be up and running in minutes. The most common applications, plugins and multimedia codecs are ready since the first boot and chances are that you'll find VirtualBSD very functional right out of the box. However, it should be noted that VirtualBSD is more a technology demonstrator than a fully fledged distribution, therefore is squarely aimed at people that heard about FreeBSD but have never tried it, didn't have enough time to build the system from scratch, or have since moved to a different OS but still need their FreeBSD fix from time to time."

cancel ×

65 comments

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

Mac? Is that you? (1)

lennonpaul (2493992) | more than 2 years ago | (#38806395)

Why did they make it look just like the Mac OS?

Re:Mac? Is that you? (2)

0racle (667029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38806511)

They did say 'for good aesthetics.'

Re:Mac? Is that you? (0)

anss123 (985305) | more than 2 years ago | (#38806517)

No no, it looks nothing like Mac OS. It does look a lot like Mac OS X though.

Re:Mac? Is that you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38806533)

Right, Mac OS.

Re:Mac? Is that you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38807645)

No, it wont 'look' like either.

It may accept the same arguments to the ps command, and to that extent it has as much in common with any GNU based system as well.

Re:Mac? Is that you? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38807141)

Remember Mac OSX is BSD, well a bastard offspring of a bastard offspring of it.

Re:Mac? Is that you? (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38808623)

So that makes them two bastard offsprings of two different forks. Sounds like there's a lot of in-breeding in the OS community ;-)

Re:Mac? Is that you? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38808145)

The only OS that resembles MacOS is a Linux distro called PearOS [pear-os-linux.fr] . It's based on Gnome 3.2 but instead of that awful UX, it's been given an OS-X UX. I'm not sure whether Gnome3 works on BSD, or else, a similar BSD distro could have been made. Incidentally, today GhostBSD 2.5 was also released - it seems to be based on Gnome 2.x, which most Gnome fans would like. So right now, you have GhostBSD based on this, and PC-BSD that can be configured to have the Gnome 2.x interface.

Re:Mac? Is that you? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38808601)

Wow, are you seriously implying the OS-X UX isn't awful?

Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38806439)

I've never seen BSD as something that really attracts new users so much as retains existing ones.

Re:Interesting (-1, Troll)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38806627)

I've never seen BSD as something that really attracts new users so much as retains existing ones.

Oh it gains users, they just don't know they're using BSD. BSD license instead of GPL means its an anti-social community, where you don't have to contribute back, which is why its much smaller and weaker than the GPL community. But if legal demands that your embedded whatchamacallit be distributed under the BSD instead of GPL then that's how it goes. Usually the best reason you'd "need" the BSD license if you can't figure out a way to decouple a trade secret from the modified source code. The worst reason would be you're violating software patents, know it, and hope that not releasing the source will keep it quiet. Sometimes there's weird philosophical stuff like hating the idea of helping others.

There is a strange "security thru psuedo-obscurity" thing going on too, since BSD is not overly popular.

Re:Interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38806901)

Maybe it attracts users who are aware of behaviour like this:

http://linux-mm.org/OOM_Killer

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38807337)

What's wrong with having a running system as opposed to a frozen system?

Re:Interesting (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38807453)

That's not the appropriate solution to that problem and it's hardly desirable to have random applications being killed. The appropriate solution is to ensure that the system processes are higher priority by default and that they stay that way. I've never had a FreeBSD desktop end up bogged down like that when it wasn't result of something going wrong in the kernel. And even that's not something that happens very often. Most of the time it politely panics and resets.

Planning a system where random processes can be terminated without any particular obvious pattern to the end users isn't particularly helpful.

Re:Interesting (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38807511)

That's not the appropriate solution to that problem and it's hardly desirable to have random applications being killed

They say it's a random application. In my experience, it's the application with the most unsaved data...

Re:Interesting (1)

AndroSyn (89960) | more than 2 years ago | (#38808563)

You can disable the oom killer on Linux and just panic on oom, if you want it to act more like FreeBSD. There is a sysctl setting called vm.panic_on_oom. Setting sysctl vm.panic_on_oom=2, will cause the kernel to panic on OOM regardless. That will give you a well defined behavior and not have to deal with the random process...errr..OOM killer.

Re:Interesting (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38809835)

That tends to be a pretty unusual occurrence as FreeBSD rarely runs out of RAM. In fact in all the years I've run it I don't think I've had it happen even once. Keep a decent sized swap and you shouldn't ever have it happen.

Re:Interesting (1)

AndroSyn (89960) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810727)

Same on a properly configured Linux system, really. If you get to the point where you are running into the Linux out of memory killer, you probably need more memory for what you are trying to do anyways. For a desktop I think the default Linux out of memory killer is okay, but for servers...disable that crap.

Re:Interesting (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38806995)

Oh it gains users, they just don't know they're using BSD. BSD license instead of GPL means its an anti-social community, where you don't have to contribute back, which is why its much smaller and weaker than the GPL community.

Depends on who you ask.

To some, the BSD people are giving you more freedom with their software than the GPL does ... I'm free to build a commercial application using BSD software and not have to release my proprietary changes. In much the same way, Apache has provided a vast library of code which can be used in the same way -- you don't need to give your changes back.

There is arguments for both licenses ... but having worked on commercial software which used the Berkeley DB, it is sometimes nice to have things which are less restrictive. It allows you to build something

Sometimes there's weird philosophical stuff like hating the idea of helping others.

BSD isn't about hating the idea of helping others ... it just doesn't confer on your benefactors the need to do the same thing.

I think GPL has its place, and I think the permissive licenses like Apache and BSD have their place ... because the permissive ones provide the ability to snag some high quality, open implementations without needing to sign up for the entire philosophical treatise that GPL advocates insist on. Not everybody wants that ... and if people want to, they should be able to release code which has no such strings attached.

Thankfully, they do.

Re:Interesting (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38807125)

Doh! Incomplete sentences are annoying ...

It allows you to build something

... without writing everything from scratch, and without needing to give away your source code.

Re:Interesting (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38807031)

It seems that your entire post is based on the fact you've confused the *BSD operating systems with the BSD license. The FreeBSD community isn't antisocial (not sure how the licensing of a kernel causes its users to be antisocial). It's not very large, but it's active and actually seems to be more supportive then a large chunk of the Linux community I've experienced.

The glaring exception to all of this is the OpenBSD guys... they're borderline fascist about their licensing, and they run you out of town if you ask for help without kernel dumps and detailed debugging information.

Re:Interesting (-1, Troll)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38807035)

The fact that BSD is released under the BSD license is of no interest to anybody except BSD developers. Real users don't use BSD for an entirely different reason: it's stuck in the 70s. To make a usable system you have to install all that modern day software written for Linux, gmake, gcc, bash, fileutils, unix-utils, xfce or whatever desktop you're using, because the BSD equivalents are too primitive. Once you install all of those, you may as well just use Linux in the first place. Yes, most of those new things are GPL-licensed, but that's not why they are not on BSD. They are not on BSD because BSD developers want to keep the system exactly the way it was 30 years ago. They worship stability and will not make a single incompatible change, no matter how much it would improve usability. Well, they can keep their stability; instead of installing Linux over BSD, I'll just use Linux. And no, ZFS is not a sufficient reason to go through all that pain.

Re:Interesting (1)

Ded Bob (67043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38807485)

What pain? Installing a few applications is painful? What do you lack with FreeBSD's utilities? tcsh is pretty decent for a shell. cp even has the same '-a' option as cp in fileutils, or is fileutils too primitive? gmake and make are different, yet make is not primitive. Anything related to the desktop has to be installed by both Linux and FreeBSD, so that is not a valid argument. gcc is almost 25 years old. Chemisor, please answer why you are using something so old when Clang is available.

They worship stability and will not make a single incompatible change, no matter how much it would improve usability.

It is bad to be compatible?!? Are you saying different systems need to be incompatible else you would not use them?

I like how you said, "Well, they can keep their stability; instead of installing Linux over BSD". You seem to be implying that Linux is unstable.

Personally, I always install zsh on any system I use even if the system has bash.

Re:Interesting (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38807811)

tcsh is pretty decent for a shell

I'm glad somebody likes it. The rest of the world uses bash.

gmake and make are different, yet make is not primitive.

If you've tried to make a complex makefile, you'd see that gmake has many features that make make a lot easier. Once you've used it, going back to bsd make is a real pain.

gcc is almost 25 years old. please answer why you are using something so old when Clang is available.

Because gcc generates better code than clang does. My projects compile ~10% larger with clang. Clang is also still lagging in C++11 support. While I do not rule out switching in the future, at this time gcc is still the better choice.

It is bad to be compatible?!? Are you saying different systems need to be incompatible else you would not use them?

I'm saying that software has changed since the 70s, and, in my opinion, for the better. If you like your old "compatible" systems, by all means, run BSD. It will likely stay just the way it is forever. I prefer progress, even if it you can't work on it exactly the same way your grandpa did.

Re:Interesting (2)

Ded Bob (67043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38809759)

tcsh is pretty decent for a shell

I'm glad somebody likes it. The rest of the world uses bash.

As I noted at the bottom, I use zsh. You really should try it.

If you've tried to make a complex makefile, you'd see that gmake has many features that make make a lot easier. Once you've used it, going back to bsd make is a real pain.

I have used both a lot. gmake can be a pain in differences between versions when the Makefiles become complex, especially prior to 3.81. With BSD make, I can do 'make -V VARIABLE' to print what the calculated value. That is not to say it is blissful. They are different advantages and disadvantages. However, you should be using something like cmake where you do not have to care about the underlying make. They thing that really annoys me between the two is they are the opposite with regards to $.

gcc is almost 25 years old. please answer why you are using something so old when Clang is available.

Because gcc generates better code than clang does. My projects compile ~10% larger with clang. Clang is also still lagging in C++11 support. While I do not rule out switching in the future, at this time gcc is still the better choice.

You had implied that using older, stable tools was worse than using newer tools.

Regarding file size, I guess it depends upon a few factors since there are examples where MacOS binaries produced by Clang are smaller than gcc but not for Linux.

It is bad to be compatible?!? Are you saying different systems need to be incompatible else you would not use them?

I'm saying that software has changed since the 70s, and, in my opinion, for the better. If you like your old "compatible" systems, by all means, run BSD. It will likely stay just the way it is forever. I prefer progress, even if it you can't work on it exactly the same way your grandpa did.

That still confuses me. Is the KDE version that far behind on FreeBSD as compared to Linux? I can only install v4.7.3 on FreeBSD. Is that old? If you talk about shells and other command-line tools, then you are talking about the way our grandparents used systems.

Re:Interesting (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38807633)

Sigh, you do realize that the Linux camp played some awfully dirty tricks during the USL v. BSDi period of *BSD development, right. And that Linus is on record as suggesting that he probably wouldn't have bothered with it had he had access to *BSD at that point.

Also, you do realize that frequently Linux ends up being unusable do the the radical course changes that some of the major distributions put into place. The OS itself is run so that changes aren't made just to make changes. People tend to bitch about sysinstall, but the fact is that until recently there was little reason to replace it. It could accomplish everything that was needed. Then GPT, ZFS and a couple other things came along and sysinstall was replaced.

Worshiping stability is what competent OS developers do. I don't think the instability that comes from including half-baked features like Ubuntu does is really a point in your favor.

Also, Linux is a kernel, if you're going to bother to make outlandish stories up, you should at least make them plausible.

Re:Interesting (1)

Jonathan (5011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38808025)

USL vs. BSDi had absolutely nothing to do with Linux. That was a battle between USL (former Bell Labs people) and Berkeley over who owned UNIX. Linux wasn't based on any of that code (despite what SCO would later claim), so it wasn't involved. Yes, Linux wouldn't have existed if BSD was open and available at the time. Hell, it wouldn't have existed if Tannenbaum had been more open about MINIX. But that's like arguing that the USA wouldn't exist if (like Ben Franklin wanted), the British would have just allowed the colonies to have their own MPs.

Re:Interesting (5, Insightful)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#38807719)

OK, Its true I have been using BSD for over 30 years ... but name any other OS you would actually WANT to use for 30 years?

Or are you a Unity lover?

"If it ain't broke don't fix it" sounds like a very good reason to me. Sure, you can have UnityBuntu - I am not stopping you (although the usability issues might). The reality is that with *BSD, you have to install the software you want. Isnt that just a million time better than having your system bloated with stuff you don't want, and cant even find out what it does (how do you know it isn't written by hackers.ru?). No one is forcing YOU to use *BSD, and I agree OpenBSD is not very user friendly), but some of us what a reliable system that we can use to exploit the benefits of 30 years of learning.

NOW get of my lawn.

Re:Interesting (5, Informative)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#38807991)

I've been scouring the internet for info on FreeBSD as I am interested in making a ZFS file server. I have never come across anything negative about it, other than "not bleeding edge". The words I have found most often are "Secure", "Stable", "Scalable" and "Friendly". Benchmarks show it close enough to Linux for average cases and better than Linux for "holy crap the server is getting hammered!" cases.

"And no, ZFS is not a sufficient reason to go through all that pain.": Depends on what you're trying to do. As a server, I hear it's much easier to manage. Everything is well documented and you don't get a "distro", you get a full system. Based on my readings, ZFS is f'n awesome. Not to mention my cousin swears by it for this 10,000+ HDs in his datacenter.

The only real issue BSD has is a limited supported hardware list. What it does support, it does every well, except a few corner cases. Since ATI has an MIT licensed open source driver and they've hired on a lot of Linux devels/engineers, I expect ATI support to get increasingly better over the next 5 years with BSD gaining from the Linux work.

"BSD developers want to keep the system exactly the way it was 30 years ago": They just have a stricter standard for what get's included. From what I've read, "beta" for BSD is like "stable" for Linux. It seems like nothing makes it into the system unless it's ready for the real-world, and it's not marked "stable" until it's been hardened. It even puts Debian stable to shame. When a new hardware feature comes out, they seem to jump on board for Rev3 instead of Rev1. This means they're constantly behind bleeding edge, but that's becoming less and less an issue with current computing power and abstract designs/frameworks.

It's a different product for a different audience, but the audiences are starting to converge because of how technology is moving. Linux and BSD is apples and oranges. Both are great in their own way.

Re:Interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38808989)

For what it's worth I have had wireless cards that only work (well/at all) on *BSDs. Firefox in FreeBSD ports is consistently newer than the latest gentoo ebuild, and I don't have a 23-page line of use flags in make.conf.

GEOM (FreeBSD's awesome disk subsystem), ZFS (Solaris' awesome file system) and PF (OpenBSD's awesome firewall) are so awesome I have to have at least one FreeBSD box.

Re:Interesting (1)

synthespian (563437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815033)

How about a capabilities-based security framework? ZFS? LLVM (soon)? What's so 70's about that?

Licensing issues (4, Insightful)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38808397)

I've never seen BSD as something that really attracts new users so much as retains existing ones.

Oh it gains users, they just don't know they're using BSD. BSD license instead of GPL means its an anti-social community, where you don't have to contribute back, which is why its much smaller and weaker than the GPL community. But if legal demands that your embedded whatchamacallit be distributed under the BSD instead of GPL then that's how it goes. Usually the best reason you'd "need" the BSD license if you can't figure out a way to decouple a trade secret from the modified source code. The worst reason would be you're violating software patents, know it, and hope that not releasing the source will keep it quiet. Sometimes there's weird philosophical stuff like hating the idea of helping others.

There is a strange "security thru psuedo-obscurity" thing going on too, since BSD is not overly popular.

Well, until now, BSD never had problems offering GPLed software, like GCC & so on. However, after the software on most GNU packages had been changed to GPLv3, we've seen them react. In FreeBSD 9, they've replaced GCC w/ LLVM due to this license issue, aside from the extra features that LLVM offers. People who previously did not have problems w/ GPLv1 & v2 are having problems now. In fact, since Linux is not going to go GPLv3, don't be surprised if @ some point, Linux too decides to replace GNU userland w/ something else.

There is a good argument for open source, but that involves companies and organizations having the freedom to pick a license of their choice, and fine tune it to how open they want to make it for it to have all the advantages of open source vs how closed they want to make it to protect the income of those who worked to make that software in the first place. B'cos ultimately what makes or breaks a software package is not the 'community', but people who earn their livelihood by working on that package.

Re:Interesting (2)

synthespian (563437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815001)

Oh it gains users, they just don't know they're using BSD. BSD license instead of GPL means its an anti-social community, where you don't have to contribute back, which is why its much smaller and weaker than the GPL community. r.

First of all, you don't get to call the BSD community "anti-social". It is a thriving community (last year's donation to FreeBSD was record, for example), as they continue to put out top-quality software - in fact, stuff more secure and advanced than Linux, we could argue. It's a very cooperative community, it being an open source community. When you slander the BSD community like that, you do a disservice to yourself, because you come across as an idiot who does not understand the inherent logical contradiction in something being open source and "anti-social." Your logic machinery is completely broken.

Besides, just STFU. The Linux community relies - rather - depends on business such as Canonical and IBM who roll out proprietary software. IBM supports Linux because it used it against Sun Microsystems. Are you really going to argue that IBM`s product portfolio is open source? If you do, you're a complete ignoramus...A bunch of companies rallied behind the GPL because supporting Linux meant eroding Sun Microsystems.., I'm sure Stallman enjoyed that, almost as much as Oracle's owner, Larry Ellison. Red Hat sells per-seat licenses, just like Microsoft. MySQL plays dual-game GPL/proprietary licenses. Why aren't you revolting? And what about Real Time Linux-based OSes? It ain`t easy finding the source code, you know. When did Stallman write about that? What about Google. What's so open source about Google? Their core business is an industry secret - rightly so. So, clearly, the Linux community is one of double standards. I'm cool with businesses, but I really think your high-and-mighty attitude (problem) problem is despicable.

Re:Interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38806647)

Which is probably a good thing, unlike Linux which seem to be obsessed with doing whatever ill conceived thing MS is doing, *BSDs tend to be more concerned with things like stability, reliability and not constantly reinventing the wheel.

Also, it's probably going to be year of the *BSD desktop long before Linux for that very reason.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38808033)

Except that between OS X and Interix, BSD is the fasted growing Unix variant there is.

Too bad ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38806451)

However, it should be noted that VirtualBSD is more a technology demonstrator than a fully fledged distribution, therefore is squarely aimed at people that heard about FreeBSD but have never tried it

That's too bad .. the aging FreeBSD VM that I've had for a few years now won't cleanly upgrade from the old and creaky FreeBSD 7.1 I have on it now.

I was hoping for something that was all ready to go.

Guess I'll have to dedicate some time to slog through either an upgrade or a reinstall. Or, just stop using it altogether.

Re:Too bad ... (1)

ReeceTarbert (893612) | more than 2 years ago | (#38807329)

However, it should be noted that VirtualBSD is more a technology demonstrator than a fully fledged distribution, therefore is squarely aimed at people that heard about FreeBSD but have never tried it

That's too bad .. the aging FreeBSD VM that I've had for a few years now won't cleanly upgrade from the old and creaky FreeBSD 7.1 I have on it now.

I was hoping for something that was all ready to go.

Guess I'll have to dedicate some time to slog through either an upgrade or a reinstall. Or, just stop using it altogether.

In all fairness, upgrading from 7.1 to 9.0 would be a big jump for any OS. I am not saying that it can't be done, but I usually prefer a clean install while moving from major release to major release.

Out of curiosity, what have you been doing with the FreeBSD 7.1 VM that getting the new one and move from there is not a viable solution? Honest question, mind.

RT.

Re:Too bad ... (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#38808053)

There were some huge changes in 8.x to stabilize upgrades/etc. Moving forward, upgrades sound to be quite easy.

Re:Too bad ... (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38842505)

What stops you from tarring up your ~ (and maybe a few files from /etc), installing the new version, and extracting the tar back?

Slashdotted! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38806501)

Already (sigh ...)

Slashdotted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38806779)

Site's slashdotted quickly
I wonder what pos operating system it's running.

Re:Slashdotted (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38806975)

According to Netcraft, is running Fedora with Apache 2.0.

Re:Slashdotted (1)

ReeceTarbert (893612) | more than 2 years ago | (#38807381)

According to Netcraft, is running Fedora with Apache 2.0.

Slow, but definitely not dead... make a brew while you wait! ;-)

RT.

Re:Slashdotted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38811805)

They should use FreeBSD with nginx

Slight logical miscalculation... (0)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38806993)

therefore is squarely aimed at people that heard about FreeBSD but have never tried it

(minor) pedant rant:
Everyone who has ever loaded a web page has tried FreeBSD.
Everyone who has ever heard about FreeBSD has loaded a web page.

ergo
This distribution is squarely aimed at ... an empty set.

Re:Slight logical miscalculation... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38807509)

So you are responsible for child labor because you buy stuff that is made in China?

Re:Slight logical miscalculation... (1)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811081)

Not responsible for, but you've probably tried it.

Re:Slight logical miscalculation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38808285)

Everyone who has ever loaded a web page has tried FreeBSD.

That's really not the meaning of "to try FreeBSD."

Netcraft confirms : *BSD virtually dying (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38807025)

< copy-pasta goes here, manga! >

ATI on FreeBSD? (1)

Aggrajag (716041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38807063)

What kind of support do recent ATI cards have on FreeBSD as it seems AMD does not provide any kind of driver.

Re:ATI on FreeBSD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38807635)

What kind of support do recent ATI cards have on FreeBSD as it seems AMD does not provide any kind of driver.

AMD doesn't give a shit about FreeBSD. Guess nothing has changed from the ATI days.
Buy Nvidia it is the lesser of the two evils and it works.

Re:ATI on FreeBSD? (1, Funny)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#38807741)

You want graphics on your Unix?

Get off my lawn!

xf86-video-ati (1)

avgapon (1851536) | more than 2 years ago | (#38808023)

Same as many people use on Linux.

Re:ATI on FreeBSD? (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810513)

It's crap in short. I run MidnightBSD. AMD doesn't care about *BSD at all. I love their CPUs, but I had to switch to nvidia cards in recent systems because the X driver is easier to get working and FreeBSD even has binary blobs for recent cards if you're into that.

It's usually easier to get an intel or nvidia card to work in FreeBSD. As far as sandy bridge or newer intel stuff, there is a very slow project to get KMS working and some other things to natively support them with acceleration. However, there are no plans to support AMD GPUs.

You might be stuck with VESA mode if you buy a newer AMD GPU. I've had that problem with my laptop running an AMD A6.

BSD users are excited. All five of them. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38807443)

I can type more than that for my comment.

For the non-techies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38807505)

>and is distributed as a VMware appliance (that can also be made to work with VirtualBox) so even non techies can be up and running in minutes.

For the non-techies who know how to launch a VMware appliance...

Re:For the non-techies (1)

ReeceTarbert (893612) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810277)

>and is distributed as a VMware appliance (that can also be made to work with VirtualBox) so even non techies can be up and running in minutes.

For the non-techies who know how to launch a VMware appliance...

Unzipping an archive, reading a file called README.txt (if you are feeling so inclined) and basically double-clicking an icon doesn't strike me as rocket science.

If, on the other hand, you wanted to imply that if you are used to running VMs you're not really a "non techie", that's a different matter altogether! ;-)

RT.

Re:For the non-techies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38816357)

A lot of Mac owners buy VMWare Fusion to run Windows for certain applications that don't run on a Mac. From there, other VMWare appliance isn't such a big leap.

Having said that, a Mac is already a PC unix variant to begin with (albeit a somewhat nonstandard one), so Mac users may find the exercise rather pointless. I certainly can't think of any reason to run a FreeBSD VM unless I were a Unix developer or a network admin.

word to the wise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38807531)

If you are really concerned about the slashdot effect on your servers, you probably shouldn't publish the virtualbox instructions as a series of images!

Virtual machines w/ IPv6 (2)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38808019)

One thing that such a product would be pretty good for is that while creating virtual machines & providing IPs to their virtual network connections, they will be able to make use of IPv6 addresses, which are plenty, as opposed to IPv4 addresses, that are scarce enough as it is w/o having to assign separate ones to each virtual machine. This way, each virtual machine can have a virtual network connection that is separate from the one belonging to the host machine.

Only thing I wonder - what are the hosts on which this runs as a VMware appliance? What would be the benefit here, as opposed to running Windows VMs on FreeBSD? Is VirtualBSD something that can be installed on its own on a computer, like ESX, or is it something that can be installed only as a virtual machine?

Re:Virtual machines w/ IPv6 (2)

ReeceTarbert (893612) | more than 2 years ago | (#38808281)

Only thing I wonder - what are the hosts on which this runs as a VMware appliance?

Anywhere you can run any of the products in the VMware family, or VirtualBox, but they're clearly saying:

If nothing else, we like to think of VirtualBSD as a technology demonstrator -- and a good looking one at that!

and:

We think that FreeBSD really deserves a bigger following, so if we can motivate even a single person to upgrade from this virtual installation to a real one we'll feel that our mission has been accomplished

And while there's nothing really unique about this offer, the goal seems somewhat "noble" (for lack of a better word) to me.

RT.

No direct download? No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38809647)

There's no way to download this without installing a BitTorrent client.. so, no thanks. I like the look of it, would love to try it, but there's no BT (of any kind) allowed on my networks.

PCBSD (4, Informative)

cyberthanasis12 (926691) | more than 2 years ago | (#38809707)

I downloaded PCBSD (a FreeBSD distribution) last weekend. I installed it in an old PC. Everything went fine and it did detect the wireless NIC. I downloaded gcc, g++, gfortran, python and compiled all my programs (console based and graphics based). No surprises. I was either lucky, or FreeBSD/PCBSD is mature enough to be used as desktop OS.
It was a nice experience to use something else than Linux, and be productive as well :)

FreeBSD (1)

Hyperhaplo (575219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38817365)

I was using FreeBSD as my primary OS back in 2000 at work. Was actually quite good for a work OS as the basis for my server admin / php coder role. All Windows req's handled via Citrix metaframe session.

Now I feel old. Thanks.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?