Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Mar 2010 16:55 UTC, submitted by Joel Dahl
FreeBSD The FreeBSD team has released FreeBSD 7.3, the fourth release of the 7-STABLE branch. There will be one more release in this branch, but at this point, most developers are already working on the 8-STABLE branch. FreeBSD 7.3 focusses on bug fixes, but has a few new features as well.
Order by: Score:
Must have missed -7
by iaefai on Wed 24th Mar 2010 19:20 UTC
iaefai
Member since:
2009-12-14

When did they release the original 7? Last time I checked 6 was fairly new :-p

Reply Score: 1

RE: Must have missed -7
by anevilyak on Wed 24th Mar 2010 20:42 UTC in reply to "Must have missed -7"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

7.0 was released in February 2008, not really that new at this point: http://www.freebsd.org/releases/index.html

Reply Score: 2

I have always liked FreeBSD
by tylerdurden on Wed 24th Mar 2010 21:12 UTC
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

I have never liked their installer though, last time I installed FreeBSD I used the PC-BSD installer.

Arcane exoteric installations were cool a decade and a half ago. But come on... when I had to do a FreeBSD installation involving ZFS, the process was borderline maddening.

I am actually very excited for the technologies which the FreeBSD team are incorporating: Jails, the trace subsystem from solaris, ZFS. Heck if they had the possibility of supporting OpenCL/CUDA, FreeBSD would be pretty close to my ideal development platform. The instability of linux's programming interfaces among so many variables (not just major kernel revision) makes it such a PITA to deploy software on it.

At one design team, we had 3 different commercial tools, which supported 3 different distro/revision combinations. I honestly feel that if Solaris or FreeBSD had a similar HW support than Linux, either of them would have made a far better x86 unix for large vendors to standardize around (at least as a clear alternative to windows in the x86 market).

Edited 2010-03-24 21:12 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: I have always liked FreeBSD
by Delgarde on Wed 24th Mar 2010 23:09 UTC in reply to "I have always liked FreeBSD"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

I honestly feel that if Solaris or FreeBSD had a similar HW support than Linux, either of them would have made a far better x86 unix for large vendors to standardize around (at least as a clear alternative to windows in the x86 market).


I don't think hardware support has much to do with it - if Linux has better hardware support than Solaris or FreeBSD, it's because people are writing drivers for it. Or more to the point, because it *has* people to write drivers for it.

Linux may have it's flaws, but it's managed to build a much, much, larger development community. Services like HAL are built on Linux, then adapted to other platforms by one or two struggling volunteers. Likewise most of the current work on open video drivers - developed on Linux, and (partially) ported to FreeBSD.

That's what it comes down to, as far as I'm concerned. Linux isn't dominant because it has better hardware support. Linux is dominant because it has all the developers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I have always liked FreeBSD
by rhavenn on Wed 24th Mar 2010 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE: I have always liked FreeBSD"
rhavenn Member since:
2006-05-12

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Same scenario here. Personally, I think the parent is correct. If BSD hadn't had the legal issues it did in the early 90s it had a really good shot at becoming the dominant "free" UNIX. Linux didn't start getting heavy commercial support and recognition until 2004/5 or so and now it's got a decent marketing wave behind where even many PHBs are okay with running Linux, but turn all white and pasty when you suggest something like FreeBSD.

Linux is the kernel and FreeBSD is the kernel plus base userland and a much more unified and integrated "system", plus it hasn't splintered into a bajillion little pieces like the Linux distros have. Many argue this is a good thing, but I counter that in the end it hurts the end user. It was great when it was a relatively unknown OS and no one really cared, but now you've got companies cherry picking distros to "support" and if it isn't one you like or run then you're screwed. I think Linux would have been better served maintaining a concentric core and base system. However, it's freedom of choice and I normally choose FreeBSD.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Linux is the kernel and FreeBSD is the kernel plus base userland and a much more unified and integrated "system", plus it hasn't splintered into a bajillion little pieces like the Linux distros have. Many argue this is a good thing, but I counter that in the end it hurts the end user.


It also works against admins as well. I don't like how Linus & co can send kernel changes downstream that can break working hardware. Contrary to popular belief Linus & co are not trying to design a kernel for server use. It's a general purpose hobby kernel to them. If their changes break your system well then too bad, go fix it. That has been their attitude while the FreeBSD developers have been more focused on providing a stable system. I also trust the port system in FreeBSD over any package manager.

Yes I know about LTS releases but that is a poor solution, especially with all the inter-dependencies that exist in Linux. Too much crap gets written on top of other crap that requires a specific kernel so companies end up staying with old software which is a security compromise.

Edited 2010-03-25 00:09 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Same scenario here. Personally, I think the parent is correct. If BSD hadn't had the legal issues it did in the early 90s it had a really good shot at becoming the dominant "free" UNIX.


The parent ascribed Linux dominance to hardware support, not to legal issues. But I'd agree with you on that - those legal issues were probably decisive at the time, in holding back BSD while Linux grew.

I think Linux would have been better served maintaining a concentric core and base system.


What are you counting as the base system? Linux distros are all pretty consistent about the basic userspace software - it's all the standard GNU packages, glibc, coreutils, etc. The differences between e.g Fedora and Ubuntu are infinitesimal compared to the differences between either of them and any other Unix variant...

The differences are mostly in package management and boot/network configuration - which I'll grant you, can be a pain sometimes, but don't really hold anything back...

Reply Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


What are you counting as the base system? Linux distros are all pretty consistent about the basic userspace software - it's all the standard GNU packages, glibc, coreutils, etc.


No they aren't when it comes to the libraries they have installed. They also don't all use the same kernel version.

But my issue is more that the people working on the kernel are not working with the distros and don't care if their changes cause problems. It would have been better if they provided a stable Unix-like OS and then let the distros fight over the GUI. This way they could standardize things like the audio system and package installation format. The current method just leads to chaos.

Not that I expect them to do anything of the sort. Linus has stated that he enjoys that chaos that often results. He doesn't want to provide a stable base.

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I didn't equate linux dominance to its HW support. I simply stated that BSD and Solaris lack of HW support hurts their adoption.

Two very different things.

Linux, from a commercial SW development standpoint is an absolute nightmare. My point at a very basic level was that had the BSDs or Solaris had a similar level of HW suport (and other HW-coupled technologies like CUDA, OpenCL/GL et al) they would represent far ideal platforms to code and grow with.

From a hacking and single task customization standpoint, sure Linux is great.

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Not being able to run an OS due to lack of support for the HW one has at hand has everything to do with it.

Reply Score: 2

marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

tylerdurden: "Not being able to run an OS due to lack of support for the HW one has at hand has everything to do with it."

Exactly my view ... 15 years ago. Look, if you find FreeBSD appealing then plunge your shuvel and don't look back. It can be done but it's a lot of work. If not, don't worry - life is beautiful and greater than any technology.

Reply Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Huh? Where did I made any of the claims you are addressing in your reply? Me thinks you already had a narrative in mind for your "point" regardless of whether it was remotely related to what I was talking about or not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I have always liked FreeBSD
by marafaka on Fri 26th Mar 2010 12:17 UTC in reply to "RE: I have always liked FreeBSD"
marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

I agree that hardware support is not a major factor, but I can also tell you what it is: it's culture. Yes, there are struggling volunteers porting HAL, ALSA, PulseAudio, V4L, Flash etc., but they're struggling because they came from another world and don't realize that most of us have no need for that technology anyway. What was needed was already implemented by the FreeBSD and other project in superior forms.

And about domination of any operating system there's not much to say. Picture yourself a Gauss curve then meditate on who dominates who again.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I have always liked FreeBSD
by cycoj on Fri 26th Mar 2010 02:38 UTC in reply to "I have always liked FreeBSD"
cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

Although I agree with you that FreeBSD is very interesting and I really like the approach they take with things I don't think it is due to the HW support. Initially both BSD and Linux were on a very similar level with respect to hardware support. I think there's a number of reasons why Linux is more popular than all the BSD. The major factor now is IMO momentum. Linux just has a lot more momentum behind it due sheer numbers. As others pointed out the legal uncertainty in the 90s might have slowed BSD adoption (I personally don't think that is much of a reason, the hackers who would have been interested in it wouldn't care too much about the legal bickering and corporate adoption of Linux really only took of in the late 90s). I think one of the main reasons is simply the licence. Initially I think more developers were attracted to Linux because of the GPL, especially developers not coming from an academic background didn't want a company to profit from their work without giving back (the reason why I think academics are more comfortable with the BSD licence is because they are more used to the fact that other people might profit from their ideas without them profiting except through citation. The BSD licence is very "academic" in that way.). Later big companies like IBM realised that Linux gave them an equal playing field, i.e. they could implement their ideas and another company could not take it make it uncompatible and profit from it. For IBM who use software as a service model this is essential. Because nobody can make closed source derivative they will be able to sell services to everyone using Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I have always liked FreeBSD
by marafaka on Fri 26th Mar 2010 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE: I have always liked FreeBSD"
marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

You're making a problem when there is none, then analyze how that problem came to be. Let me paraphraze:

FreeBSD is not like a big fat hamster. This is a problem, I declare. What can we do about it? Maybe his mother was a small furry drinking bitcch so this poor FreeBSD had bad furnes and greatnes genes? Let's come together and waste our brainwaves on how can we avoid this tragic problem when history repeats itself. Yea, then we'll make FreeBSD into a hamster.

If you need a prepackaged and polished version of FreeBSD why don't you take OsX? Now what's the problem again?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I have always liked FreeBSD
by cycoj on Sat 27th Mar 2010 02:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I have always liked FreeBSD"
cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

Did you mean to reply to me?? I'm not making a problem out of anything. I actually think popularity is way overrated and I could care less if the system I'm using (Linux) is suitable for the masses, because it's definitely is for me. I was simply replying to the OP about the reasons why FreeBSD is not as popular as Linux IMO.

Reply Score: 1

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Do not worry, the previous poster's reading and comprehension skills seem very minimal.

Honestly, I have no clue what he is talking about in a few of his responses to my comments. It is like we are talking about orange juice, and he goes off on rants about apple orchards or something.

Entertaining none the less...

Reply Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I agree with a lot of your points.

I still believe that the whole momentum is a bit of a chicken and egg issue. Linux gained momentum because lots of vendors decided to offer HW support for that OS.

From my perspective, I do like both Linux and the BSDs (each have their strengths). It is just that linux ever changing interfaces are a total pain in the a**. How many time do they need to reinvent the wheel exactly.

As much of an authoritarian ass Torvalds is portrayed as being sometimes, he has been rather focused on the kernel and completely ignored the user land. Which has been both a blessing: lots of choice for OSS developers. And a curse: too "many mediocre choices" for the end users.

Linux is a developers' system, not an users' system. That is the main issue why it will never gain traction in the Desktop. As I said, from my personal perspective... Linux has been a nightmare when it comes to use commercial tools, but it is a dream for custom solutions.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Oliver
by Oliver on Thu 25th Mar 2010 14:02 UTC
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

FUD kills *BSD, hype drives Linux.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Oliver
by marcp on Thu 25th Mar 2010 17:18 UTC in reply to "Comment by Oliver"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

D'oh! just don't respond to this FUD.
My *BSD boxes are perfectly OK and it keeps going like that since uhm, I don't know - 5 years?
I think most of the *BSD users don't care about the FUDs, flame wars and other timewasters. It's good for kids though

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Oliver
by Johann Chua on Fri 26th Mar 2010 22:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by Oliver"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Says the FUD-monger.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Oliver
by Oliver on Sat 27th Mar 2010 17:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Oliver"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

A FUD-monger? Vice versa, what should I call you? A Linux zealot? Unable to understand what's going on, wha't you're talking about? It's a possession for most Linux users to bad-mouth anything different than Linux. And if the don't have some topic ready, they virtually kill each other in some distro-war. BSD is dying. Do you know this saying? It's a mockery on those zealots (especially on Slashdot). Try to turn your childish hate into something useful. I don't have a problem with Windows, Mac OS or Linux. Be happy ... I'm a happy Slacker since the 90s, I'm using MacOS X once in a while and I'm proud to use FreeBSD :-)

Reply Score: 2

Worse is better?
by Hypnos on Sat 27th Mar 2010 05:22 UTC
Hypnos
Member since:
2008-11-19

Is Linux a triumph of worse is better in the realm of developer relations? Because it's fragmented and anything-goes, it attracts developers who wants to try their pet ideas -- even if they're not always well thought-out.

Companies trying to make money on the Linux platform are just trying to ride the bucking brontosaurus ... those setting the agenda, like IBM and Red Hat, seem to be doing well.

Reply Score: 1