Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 7th Jun 2013 15:16 UTC
FreeBSD FreeBSD 8.4 has been released. "The FreeBSD Release Engineering Team is pleased to announce the availability of FreeBSD 8.4-RELEASE. This is the fifth release from the 8-STABLE branch which improves on the functionality of FreeBSD 8.3 and introduces some new features. Some of the highlights: Gnome version 2.32.1, KDE version 4.10.1; feature flags 5000 version of the ZFS filesystem; support for all shipping LSI storage controllers." The full release notes detail all the changes since 8.3.
Order by: Score:
Rituals
by dnebdal on Fri 7th Jun 2013 15:42 UTC
dnebdal
Member since:
2008-08-27

Ah, time to go over to phoronix and watch the trolls come out from under their bridges again.

I run -CURRENT, so this doesn't really affect me, though I appreciate the time spent on polishing the ports tree before the release.

Edited 2013-06-07 15:49 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Rituals
by toast88 on Sat 8th Jun 2013 09:28 UTC in reply to "Rituals"
toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

Ah, time to go over to phoronix and watch the trolls come out from under their bridges again.


Too bad for you that there isn't even a news entry on Phoronix ;) .

Adrian

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Rituals
by dnebdal on Sat 8th Jun 2013 17:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Rituals"
dnebdal Member since:
2008-08-27

"Ah, time to go over to phoronix and watch the trolls come out from under their bridges again.


Too bad for you that there isn't even a news entry on Phoronix ;) .

Adrian
"

Mmh, you're right - I expect one soonish; he tends to post them. We'll see.

Reply Score: 2

Well no trolling here
by vitae on Fri 7th Jun 2013 19:43 UTC
vitae
Member since:
2006-02-20

But it sure would be nice if one of these days the BSDs just merge back into one already. Alicia had the right idea, though probably wrong motivation:

http://www.anonymous-insider.net/linux/research/1998/1125.html

Of course if somebody from BSDland was going to counter there's too many Linux distros (as they did), I'd agree with that too.

Edited 2013-06-07 19:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Well no trolling here
by Doc Pain on Fri 7th Jun 2013 19:53 UTC in reply to "Well no trolling here"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

But it sure would be nice if one of these days the BSDs just merge back into one already.


Different goals, different purposes, different ways, and different project philosophies. It would be similarly complicated to expect "the Linux" to be established. There are three (major) BSD operating systems, but many more different Linux distributions (with the pro of choice vs. the contra of partial incompatibility). It's not really comparable, though.

On the other hand, FreeBSD could directly benefit from development on other BSDs which "offer more" (e. g., wireless drivers in OpenBSD or "mobility features" in NetBSD). It's still good to have the ability of choice, especially if features are similarly developed in different BSDs, so one doesn't have to sacrifice efficiency or cleanness of one system for the one feature of another...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Well no trolling here
by vitae on Fri 7th Jun 2013 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Well no trolling here"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Is that really true anymore? Once upon a time it was "OpenBSD security, NetBSD portability, FreeBSD..." But did NetBSD or FreeBSD ever not care about security? Do these differences in philosophy really exist anymore? Or have they simply got used to doing it their individual ways, and old habits die hard?

This may or may not be the place for this kind of discussion (though in my mind it beats debating the OSes for phones), but I really think this question is long overdue for the various factions.

It just seems to me when they talk about things like the "elegance" while perpetually struggling to keep up with hardware support and more practical matters, they've divided and conquered themselves. Can anybody honestly say there's enough difference between the 4 branches to warrant the dilution of manpower?

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Well no trolling here
by Doc Pain on Fri 7th Jun 2013 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Well no trolling here"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Is that really true anymore? Once upon a time it was "OpenBSD security, NetBSD portability, FreeBSD..." But did NetBSD or FreeBSD ever not care about security? Do these differences in philosophy really exist anymore? Or have they simply got used to doing it their individual ways, and old habits die hard?


Please to not understand my statement in this way. I did not imply that there is a "functional dedication" of the different BSDs in this way. From my individual experience, I'd say there's not such "separation". However, with "philosophies" I was refering to things like the differences in general opinions about what makes a good OS, and for sure, de Raadt has opinions that would not easily match with the way NetBSD or FreeBSD go, but make sense and work in OpenBSD. This is just one example. "Philosophies" include how the basic security concepts should be dealt with, what software should be part of the OS, what licensing terms should apply, and so on, and much more. (Note that English is not my native language, so the mistake could have been on my side for improperly expressing and writing.)

It just seems to me when they talk about things like the "elegance" while perpetually struggling to keep up with hardware support and more practical matters, they've divided and conquered themselves.


That is a valid consideration. Especially because software development in Linux has become more and more Linux-centric (with less attention to interoperability so porting thigs that work on Linux to work on a BSD can become really problematic). On the other hand, a BSD is a different operating system, so simply assuming that things that work on Linux will also work on BSD is, in my opinion, an irrational assumption.

Those problems can especially be seen if you look at support for wireless chipsets, laptops (power saving, integrated peripherials, docking stations etc.) and specific brands of server hardware that do not use existing standards, but instead require a proprietary driver supplied by the manufacturer.

Can anybody honestly say there's enough difference between the 4 branches to warrant the dilution of manpower?


Of course many BSD users would say: "I'd like to see one BSD that combines all the best aspects of the different branches!", but who can decide "what's best" when the question "best for what?" matters so much? Being a long-term BSD "heavy user" myself, I definitely know what I'm talking about, it's a very biased point of view sometimes. ;-)

I still have to admit: Combined powers would make BSD stronger and draw more attention to it. The chain "mind share -> usage share -> market share" would have more impact on manufacturers, and businesses would also have the change to benefit from using "the BSD".

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Well no trolling here
by vitae on Fri 7th Jun 2013 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Well no trolling here"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Hmmm. That was well put, and I assure you there's nothing wrong with your English. If only my Spanish were so good, I could think harder on retiring to Mexico.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Well no trolling here
by Soulbender on Sat 8th Jun 2013 07:35 UTC in reply to "Well no trolling here"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But it sure would be nice if one of these days the BSDs just merge back into one already.


I really see no reason for that at all. They all have different focus,ideals and priorities so smashing them together will not improve things, quite the opposite.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Well no trolling here
by jessesmith on Sat 8th Jun 2013 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Well no trolling here"
jessesmith Member since:
2010-03-11

Considering the merging of the major BSD projects is like considering merging a sports car with a pick-up truck. They have different functions, different goals, different usage styles. Merging is not only not going to create a better product, it would make a much worse product.

Now I could see merging DragonflyBSD and FreeBSD back together. In fact, I believe FreeBSD is actively trying to import some features from Draongfly, like HammerFS. Those projects are likely to get closer over time, but NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD are quite different both practically and philosophically.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Well no trolling here
by vitae on Sat 8th Jun 2013 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Well no trolling here"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

But in reality, how much different are they, and are they different enough to warrant completely separate types of BSD, as opposed to having different "flavors" of the same basic system? What does OpenBSD or NetBSD have anymore that so special it couldn't be merged into FreeBSD, for example?

Reply Score: 2