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.
Thread beginning with comment 564024
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Well no trolling here
by vitae on Fri 7th Jun 2013 22:05 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Well no trolling here
by Doc Pain on Fri 7th Jun 2013 22:19 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 Parent Score: 4