Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Jan 2012 22:54 UTC
FreeBSD Some people already submitted this news last week, but it wasn't until today that it became official: the FreeBSD team has announced the release of FreeBSD version 9.0. As you may expect from the major version number change, this is releas eis packed with new stuff.
Thread beginning with comment 503137
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Just my two cents
by tails92 on Fri 13th Jan 2012 07:05 UTC
tails92
Member since:
2007-10-07

While it is undeniable that here the most important part of this release is a GPL/BSD argument because this is an internet sport by people who have nothing to do with their time, I think that placing too much priority on making BSD-replacements for the base system when there is no good third-party replacement already is misguided at best, if not outright myopic. I care about having a well maintainable and stable system, which BSD is known for, not an operating system which will be able to used by companies as they wish without giving anything back, and making them being able to do so a *priority*. gcc >=4.3 is still very used by companies, and license requirements aren't really as important to companies as people make them to be. Think of it most companies infringe the GPL and nobody ever goes legally after them.
I used to like FreeBSD once, but nowadays I can't help but wonder if the FreeBSD and the OpenBSD projects really care the usability of their operating systems or not. One is stuck about this "let's BSD-everything" and "let's change everything"... FreeBSD used to have a very good installer but the one in 9.0 is a real step backwards despite them saying it is a sort of advancement while actually it is not for someone not new to FreeBSD. The other one, OpenBSD, is stuck on making you upgrade every six months (which even for an home user is not viable - I do not live for computers or on my computer, thanks), the same BSD-ization craze and on an unreasonably ancient userland.
I do, however, appreciate the reluctancy OpenBSD devs have for signing NDAs, at least they're being more consistent than the FreeBSD devs which will happily sign NDAs "as long as it is BSD licensed!"

If you want BSD, the best stuff is NetBSD and DragonFly. If FreeBSD and OpenBSD are stuck at gcc 4.2 for "problems", then why I'm happily using NetBSD-current on the very machine I'm writing this on which ships with gcc 4.5 with no problems at all.
Despite what it might NetBSD-current is what you must try, much more updated than the stable version. It can even run Opera 11 correctly under the new linux emulation (guess what browser I am using?).

As it often goes, what people use the least (NetBSD and DragonFly) are better than what people use the most.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Just my two cents
by foregam on Fri 13th Jan 2012 10:02 in reply to "Just my two cents"
foregam Member since:
2010-11-17

Are you sure you're running GCC from base? The CVS log for src/gnu/dist/gcc4 says it's GCC 4.1, maybe you have 4.5 from pkgsrc.

Edited 2012-01-13 10:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Just my two cents
by Soulbender on Fri 13th Jan 2012 11:37 in reply to "Just my two cents"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I used to like FreeBSD once, but nowadays I can't help but wonder if the FreeBSD and the OpenBSD projects really care the usability of their operating systems or not.


I find OpenBSD more usable for some things (BGP, Firewall etc) than Linux. So obviously it has usability. Maybe not for you but that's not a universal measurement.

The other one, OpenBSD, is stuck on making you upgrade every six months


You don't have to upgrade every 6 months but it's recommended. If you have an issue with this then OpenBSD is obviously not for you but please understand that not everything in this world is designed to cater to your tastes.

the same BSD-ization craze


Unsubstantiated flattery will get you nowhere.

and on an unreasonably ancient userland.


What ancient userland?

Edited 2012-01-13 11:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Just my two cents
by sbergman27 on Fri 13th Jan 2012 17:32 in reply to "RE: Just my two cents"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

You don't have to upgrade every 6 months but it's recommended.

You're talking about OpenBSD, of course. But this prompted me to look over FreeBSD's release history. It looks like they target about 2 yr release cycles for major versions. And maybe 8-12 months for minor versions. I've always felt that the Linux world could benefit from longer cycles. This makes FreeBSD look more interesting to me.

And each major release looks to have an impressive ~5yr support cycle. It looks like you do have to upgrade through the minor releases to get that. But I assume their idea of a minor release is similar to RHEL's. i.e. very conservative, no big deal, just set it to go automatically with confidence that nothing will break.

It certainly appears to have some attractive features for business use. After supporting Linux for 16 years, I've become tired of the constant, often pointless churn, and have moved back to CentOS pretty much everywhere. (That is to say in those places that I ever decided to diverge from it at all.) I do have a couple of upgrades to do in the next month, since CentOS 4's 7 year life cycle is up at the end of February. And I must say, I'm going to miss that release. It's had a fantastic, and virtually flawless run.

Edited 2012-01-13 17:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Just my two cents
by phoenix on Sat 14th Jan 2012 19:01 in reply to "Just my two cents"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

FreeBSD used to have a very good installer but the one in 9.0 is a real step backwards despite them saying it is a sort of advancement while actually it is not for someone not new to FreeBSD.


sysinstall only supports MBR partitioning with BSD labels. Meaning you cannot use disks over 2 TB. There's also no support for any of the nice GEOM classes (gstripe, gmirror, graid3, graid5, ggate, hast, etc). There's no support for ZFS. There's not even any support for labelling filesystems, partitions, or disks.

bsdinstall supports all of the above.

sysinstall had a bunch of crappy post-install configuration features that were half-assed at best, and cause more issues long-term than they fix in the sort-term.

bsdinstall has none of that.

sysinstall is built using a very ancient, highly customised version of libdialog that nothing else in the base OS supports.

bsdinstall is built using a modern, maintained version of libdialog that is also used by other software in the base OS, and is the basis of the OPTIONS framework of the ports tree.

You have to download a specific version of the sysinstall-based installation CD in order to get a LiveCD where you can do troubleshooting or customise the install.

Every bsdinstall CD is a LiveCD, and you can drop to a full-functioning shell at various parts of the install process so that you can manually do things that aren't (yet) supported by the TUI.

sysinstall is dead. It's been on life-support for about 15 years longer than it should have. It's time to let it go.

bsdinstall is not perfect. But it's a hell of a lot better than sysinstall ever was.

The other one, OpenBSD, is stuck on making you upgrade every six months


And ... that's different from Ubuntu how? Or Fedora? Or any of the other Linux distros with a 6-month release cycle?

Reply Parent Score: 1