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 503156
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
r_a_trip
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have yet to have a single one pass my "is it safe?" test which simulates what my customer would go through with just 3 years of ownership. I take a distro from 3 years ago, install it, make sure ALL the hardware works, then using whatever GUI the system has update it to current. I have YET to have a Linux that didn't puke on its own drivers and end up with a broken mess that can ONLY be fixed with CLI that is above the skillset of my customers, thus making Linux useless.

What I'm going to write is probably not what you want to hear, but your "is it safe" test is pure balderdash. You are expecting a Linux or BSD distribution from 3 years ago, which is ancient, to update to current without a glitch. You are asking for a level of backward compatibility that even MS isn't offering. Try to update an adequately powerful machine with XP to Windows 7 without the appropriate third party software and driver disks handy and see the spectacular ways in which an update from ancient software to current can blow up.

What people seem to forget is that Windows XP is a fluke in the history of consumer Operating Systems. Microsoft never meant for XP to be the defacto OS for over 10 years. This lull in OS upgrades was beneficial for users, but it never was the general rule. The upgrade cycle was supposed to be "Buy a new machine every 3 years". After Vista we have entered that cycle again. So your "Suzy the checkout girl and Brian the backhoe operator" will have to buy new equipment every 3 years with MS OSes. (Assuming that MS will keep upping the system requirements.)

If you care enough about selling FOSS systems to "Suzy and Brian", why don't you treat a Linux or BSD system the way they are meant to be treated? No endless updating to current if that can't be done by a clueless end user (and they can't). I'm a Linux user, so don't ask me about the intricacies of BSD. BSD users are infinitely more qualified to talk about that. What I can offer as advice is a simple one about Linux and it might even give you some auxiliary repeat business.

Set up your machines with an easy to use (NOTE! USE not UPDATE to current) distribution. Disable the dist-upgrade option of that distro, so that the major version is frozen. Put the /home directory on a separate partition. Offer your customers a "refresh package" every couple of years for an appropriate fee and update the machines yourself to the latest and greatest. LTS versions should be a great target for this. Your customers don't get headaches, you get a bit more business, everybody wins.

Then again, you could also continue your (futile?) quest for the perfect software which never breaks. Your choice.

Reply Parent Score: 10

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

They aren't upping the system requirements.

Windows 8 will use less resources than Windows 7. BTW I actually have the platform preview and it does seem to take up less resources than Windows 7.

Windows 7 used less resources than Windows Vista (Vista used 600mb for dwm.exe (aero), 7 doesn't use anywhere near that much. Also 7 works far better on Dual and Quad Core systems than Vista or XP ever did).

Windows 7 works well on machines from 2005. XP RTM running well on machines from 1995? I don't think so.

Edited 2012-01-14 23:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

They aren't upping the system requirements.

Windows 8 will use less resources than Windows 7. BTW I actually have the platform preview and it does seem to take up less resources than Windows 7.

Windows 7 used less resources than Windows Vista (Vista used 600mb for dwm.exe (aero), 7 doesn't use anywhere near that much. Also 7 works far better on Dual and Quad Core systems than Vista or XP ever did).

Windows 7 works well on machines from 2005. XP RTM running well on machines from 1995? I don't think so.


Lucas, I have registered to your site but I can't create a new topic, neither I can reply to some other topic.

All other guys, please forgive me, but we don't have a personal message system on osnews.

Reply Parent Score: 2

bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

You comment I'm afraid is balderdash friend. you see I DON'T HAVE TO do that with Windows because it has this little thing called SUPPORT which apparently is an alien word to Linux users. Xp? 14 years? Minimum average lifespan of Windows OSes? 7 years. Win 7? MSFT's roadmap has it supported until Apr 2020. Show me ONE distro, just one mind you, that will give a solid 7 years of updates with NO need to upgrade and i'll happily toss my "Is it safe" test because otherwise you HAVE NO CHOICE but to jump on the upgrade deathmarch.

Even what Linux foolishly calls an "LTS" is a lousy 3 years and I've found other than a few core packages after about a year updates for anything other than the core files is pretty much gone. Also Linux in another brain dead move often has software that demands kernel y when you have kernel x which means unless you have the skillz to compile from source you can give it up.

I have XP boxes in the field that have been there since 2002 with NO bugs and NO intervention from me other than hardware upgrades. It is THAT I need, not some fiddly PITB where my users are gonna be expected to become bash programmers and do forum dances just to get the stupid thing to run more than 6 months. if you can't give the common man that you have NO business saying "Linux is ready for the desktop" because that is a LIE. That is why Walmart, MSI, ASUS (who actually started the whole netbook thing with a Linux distro and no longer sells a single Linux unit) has abandoned Linux. Its simple, the QA isn't there and after sales support will eat through any savings on licenses and make Linux a money LOSER. Dell has to pay an entire dev team to keep their own personal repo which means they lose money on every ubuntu machine sold. i can't afford to lose money on every sale or hire a dev team friend, so i need something that not only works today but will STILL be working 4 years from now. kinda sad that I can't even find a single distro that gives even half the support time of a Windows edition, isn't it?

Oh and I hate to break the news to you but homes users DON'T BUY SUPPORT CONTRACTS so your entire plan is a giant fail. Nobody is gonna want a Linux computer that costs MORE than Windows which is exactly what your "plan" would entail. Windows 7 HP is $87, my time is $35 an hour, do the math. Just paying for a single "refresh' would put the cost of Linux over the cost of Windows. A wise man on this site I believe said "Linux is free if your time is worthless" but I don't give away my time so I need a product that when it walks out the door it remains functional with minimal work and skill required of the user. Windows with any non IE browser and a good free AV like Comodo fits that requirement, and the average length of desktop ownership in this area is 6 to 7 years as they get handed down to family. Can you show me a SINGLE distro that will give me that length without having to wipe and reinstall? Which is why I asked about BSD because I can already tell you the answers with regard to linux, and its "not a chance".

Reply Parent Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Show me ONE distro, just one mind you, that will give a solid 7 years of updates with NO need to upgrade and i'll happily toss my "Is it safe" test...

RHEL, CentOS, and Scientific Linux. 7 years of support without the need to upgrade. CentOS and SL require no support contract. And both of those have demonstrated a real 7 years of free support for two or three release cycles of RHEL.

CentOS and SL both supported RHEL 2.1 through RHEL 2.1 EOL. But RHEL was new, and they had some ramping up time. They didn't release for 18 months or so after the RHEL 2.1 debut.

CentOS and SL 3 was supported the full 7 years. And it saddens me to say that CentOS 4 reaches EOL at the end of next month, after 7 years of reliable service to me, and to the rest of its user-base. (I'll miss that one!)

RHEL 5 was released on 3/14/2007. CentOS and SL will support their versions for another 2+ years.

RHEL 6 was released 11/10/2010 and will be supported by them until very late 2017.

Your checkout clerk customers don't even keep their cars that long.

Reply Parent Score: 2