Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FreeBSD 9.2, FreeBSD 10.0 Alpha 4 Released

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the onward-and-upward dept.

Operating Systems 133

An anonymous reader writes "The FreeBSD Release Engineering Team has announced the release of FreeBSD 9.2. FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE has ZFS TRIM SSD support, ZFS LZ4 compression support, DTrace hooks and VirtIO drivers as part of the default kernel configuration, unmapped I/O support, and numerous other minor features. FreeBSD also announced FreeBSD 10.0 Alpha 4 on the same day, which is the next major feature release of the open-source BSD operating system."

cancel ×

133 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

OP is slow as fuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010235)

I already updated to 9.2 and recompiled all the jails.

Re:OP is slow as fuck (1)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#45010571)

Which is slow, 9.2 or 10a1?

Re:OP is slow as fuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45011541)

10-ALPHA4 is just a snapshot of the development tree. It's slow because all debugging features are turned on in there.

just disable them and 10-CURRENT speed will be comparable to previous releases.

Re:OP is slow as fuck (1)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#45011665)

Well that's what I thought, but he said he installed 9.2, and was complain it was slow.
I didn't find 9.2 to be slow at all.

Re:OP is slow as fuck (1)

marcovje (205102) | about 9 months ago | (#45011677)

I think he meant to say the news post (on slashdot) was slow in the coming, since he already installed/updated etc.

How many parallel tracks? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 9 months ago | (#45016159)

So we have FBSD 8.3 (or is it 8.4?), now 9.2 and soon to come 10.0. So how many parallel tracks will we have?

Re:How many parallel tracks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45016829)

10 is bleeding edge (it will crash often, lose your data, kill your dog...), 9.2 is considered stable, 8.0 is legacy.

In FreeBSD world (and many other) they use x.y version where change in x is considered a major feature change or change in ABI. The y is increased when new bugfixes and minor features are added.

Typically the higher they y the more stable the version is.

Many places prefer stability over new features so they will stick with 8.x right now, they will switch over to 9.x. When 10.0 will be released those places won't switch to it immediately, since it might still have many bugs, they might do it when 10.2, 10.3 is released.

again??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010247)

Didn't they just have a story recently?

Re:again??? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 9 months ago | (#45011473)

I guess they are busy.

it's dead, Jim (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010261)

Why do they keep beating a dead horse? Jeez, you'd think they'd find something better to do. FreeBSD is about a relevant as Gopher.

Re:it's dead, Jim (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010327)

No, Gopher is more relevant than BSD. BSD is about as relevant as buggy whips.

Re:it's dead, Jim (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010519)

Slashdot is about as relevant as multics

Re:it's dead, Jim (2, Insightful)

smash (1351) | about 9 months ago | (#45010935)

Thanks. The less noobs like yourself that use it, the less of a target the OS will be. I've been happily running internet facing stuff on FreeBSD since 2001, and it's been a pleasant change from the chaos that is Linux development and distribution upgrade.

Re:it's dead, Jim (1, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#45011303)

The less noobs like yourself that use it, the less of a target the OS will be. .

Hmmm, that sounds the the Bill Gates theory of OS vulnerability. Popular OSs get broken into not because they are vulnerable but just because they are popular.

I would have thought someone using FreeBSD would have a more enlightened understanding of security,
and what makes one OS a target and another a brick wall.

Re:it's dead, Jim (2)

smash (1351) | about 9 months ago | (#45011535)

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not relying entirely on security via obscurity. But if the OS is not the most common mainstream noob-used OS, then it is going to see less effort put towards hacking it. All my shit is still firewalled and doesn't even listen to any remote admin port via the internet.

Re:it's dead, Jim (1, Informative)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 9 months ago | (#45012119)

I'm not relying entirely on security via obscurity. But if the OS is not the most common mainstream noob-used OS, then it is going to see less effort put towards hacking it.

That's called "security via obscurity". Such properties will only protect you against the basic automated scan, but then so will simply using good security practices, and if you're using good security practices, there's no point even mentioning the modicum of protection offered by using an uncommon OS.

Re:it's dead, Jim (2)

smash (1351) | about 9 months ago | (#45013909)

comprehension fail. i'll take "well secured niche os" over "well secured high value target" any day of the week, thanks.

Re:it's dead, Jim (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 9 months ago | (#45015987)

... and that's the very definition of security through obscurity. If it's well secured, then it's well secured and it doesn't matter what it is. Either way, you're only going to be vulnerable to a targeted attack by someone who actually knows what they're doing. Using a "niche os" only matters against cursory scans trawling the internet for systems with poor passwords or known (and long-since-patched) bugs, and a "well secured niche os" wouldn't worry about such things anyway.

Re:it's dead, Jim (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 9 months ago | (#45016191)

Ahh, the idiot modded up.

All security on computers is security through obscurity.

Encryption is by definition security through obscurity. As is using hashing and other fingerprinting techniques. The obscure nature of the encryption key or input to the has is exactly what makes it all work.

When you repeat that same retarded phrase like its a bad thing all you're doing showing those of us with an actual clue that you're capable of repeating what you heard someone else stay but you utterly fail to understand what it means and why its said.

Following up to one of your replies below and illustrating your failure to comprehend how silly you sound ...

Give me all your encryption keys ... SSH, SSL, passwords, and personal bank account information, date of birth, address, phone numbers and other obscure private information that actually protects your systems and your life.

Stop repeating shit you utterly fail to understand, it just makes you look stupid.

Re:it's dead, Jim (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 9 months ago | (#45016967)

That's not at all what is meant when one refers to obscurity. Security through obscurity is the claim that a black box is inherently more secure than one in which you know the inner workings, or in this case, it's the claim that a black box you've never seen before is inherently more secure than one which you have had time to analyze. All it's going to do is make you a less appetizing target for an attacker looking for anyone to compromise. It makes no difference to your vulnerability when an attacker wants to compromise you specifically.

Re:it's dead, Jim (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about 9 months ago | (#45012847)

i use BSD.. the Mac version. It's super sweet.

Re:it's dead, Jim (1)

smash (1351) | about 9 months ago | (#45013901)

So do i. FreeBSD headless, OS X if i want to actually interact with the thing.

Re:it's dead, Jim (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 9 months ago | (#45018117)

Sorry to break it to you, but there's a Mach kernel working inside your system, not a FreeBSD kernel as many idiots like to believe. There's a bit of FreeBSD userland around, indeed, but it's nowhere near what Apple allows you to use. You don't use 'BSD, the Mac version', you use an Apple-Windows user interface on top of things you neither know, nor understand.

Re:it's dead, Jim (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about 9 months ago | (#45018553)

it's not freebsd.. it's darwin.. it's better than freebsd.. Freebsd is for newbs.

Re:it's dead, Jim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45011627)

If one has never used BSD, is it easy to learn coming from a Windows background?

Re:it's dead, Jim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45012129)

Install it on a spare box and dive right in.

Many people are willing to help with questions, despite the general tone of hostility present today.

To BSD from Windows (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 9 months ago | (#45017039)

If one is coming from a Windows background, a good place to start should be PC-BSD. Their installation has been simplified, and it comes OOTB with KDE, which one can make to look like Windows. Only thing I don't know about here - whether things like Network configuration and other configuration can be done from a control panel, or whether one needs to invoke a terminal and start editing /etc/ files.

Speaking of which, if 9.2 is out for FBSD, is that also the case for PC-BSD? Also, does PC-BSD have as many parallel versions, like 8.3, 9.2 and later 10.0?

Re:To BSD from Windows (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 9 months ago | (#45018147)

If he's leaving Windows, why in the hell would he want to configure his Free^H^H^H^HPC-BSD to look like what he just left?

Re:it's dead, Jim (-1, Troll)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 9 months ago | (#45011905)

Debian called - it wants to know why you have only been running the same install since 2001.

Honestly, I thought FreeBSD was okay in the late '90s, but it's managed by a bunch of puffed-up egotists and nepotists who seem to deliberately refuse to document - or do anything else which would increase the pool of systems developers.

At least de Raadt, for all his unsupportable fuckwittery, has a goal beyond himself. And NetBSD, in it's time... well, "of course it runs" it. But FreeBSD, like Yahoo, is just inertia.

Re:it's dead, Jim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45012243)

> t least de Raadt, for all his unsupportable fuckwittery, has a goal beyond himself.

??? de Raadt's unsupportable fuckwittery *is* his goal. Have you looked at the useless and unsupportable debris stapled into the firewalls and slathered onto OpenSSH, while entirely ignoring the default storage of private keys unencrypted? Talk about armor plating the open barn door!

Re:it's dead, Jim (1)

epine (68316) | about 9 months ago | (#45012419)

Ah, thanks for that. Without a gratuitous ad distronem attack within the first page of comments, I wouldn't be sure I was reading something about BSD.

As for de Raadt's "unsupportable fuckwittery", the infallably polite are soon back-doored and sent to PRISM. The Philistines didn't send Goliath down to challenge the Israelites in single combat because he was the life of the party. His rawhide posse seems to get a lot done, despite the incessant hail of small stones. If only they'd sent Theo instead. Thirty thousand rueful historical Philistines can't be wrong.

Re:it's dead, Jim (2)

siDDis (961791) | about 9 months ago | (#45014835)

FreeBSD is very well documented (The manual is awesome) and it has a great community. There are a lot of good discussions on the mailing list, and it doesn't require you to be a kernel hacker to participate. I use both Linux and FreeBSD, they both have their strength and weaknesses. I slightly prefer FreeBSD, as I feel its easier to turn it inside out(for hacking).

Btw. Poul-Henning Kamp tweeted this a few days ago.
Between FreeBSD, Varnish and Ngnix, at least 2 out of 3 packets on the net are delivered by #BSD licensed open source software. #EatThatRMS

So I would say, FreeBSD is a lot more interesting today, than 10 years ago.

Re:it's dead, Jim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45011751)

Anyone who runs a serious server runs FreeBSD.

What would you suggest? Windows? Linux? LOL.

FUCK THIS BRING BACK WIDE SLASHDOT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010311)

Dice is really trying to kill Slashdot with this skinny shit, what is this a fucking blogspot blog or some shit? Fuck this.

Re:FUCK THIS BRING BACK WIDE SLASHDOT! (1)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#45010583)

What ever you are using is your problem.
Nothing has changed that I can see.

Re:FUCK THIS BRING BACK WIDE SLASHDOT! (1)

keith_nt4 (612247) | about 10 months ago | (#45010727)

He/she may or may not be referring to the slashdot beta page (which I for one don't like).

Re:FUCK THIS BRING BACK WIDE SLASHDOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45011761)

Did you come here by a mobile device? On my Android tablet's Firefox the slashdot.org looked really bad and was quite unusable. But if you go to bottom of page, there is about 0,1nm sized link to the original (=="classic") version. After clicking that the site becomes usable again.

Too many.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010321)

We get way too many of these incremental updates posted as 'news' here now...

It's not news. And it's not stuff that matters.

Re:Too many.... (0, Flamebait)

iggymanz (596061) | about 10 months ago | (#45010433)

there are noteworthy features in this particular case. BSD being more stable and mature generally have something cool to show for new point releases. Linux kernel point releases, on the other hand.... every random brain fart by Linus gets an article

Re:Too many.... (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 9 months ago | (#45012791)

And until they fix the 3ware / AMCC driver kernel panic they introduced in 9.1, I still won't be upgrading. Can't even use the last "STABLE" release because that label was a lie on my hardware.

Re:Too many.... (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 9 months ago | (#45014593)

never heard of 3ware / AMCC and I work in IT....that might be your problem right there. Here's a quarter kid, get y'self a mainstream raid card.

Re:Too many.... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 9 months ago | (#45016231)

FreeBSD has never been the OS of choice to use for your cheap knock off version of the real thing, FreeBSD is made for servers without cheap desktop versions of server hardware, its not Linux.

Re:Too many.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45011243)

Yeah sorry if it isn't marketing or patent news on smartphones or tablets then it just doesn't appeal to slashdot's current audience. If you cant have a flame war about how Samsung copied Apple and how Microsoft is evil and controlling (oh but also obsolete) then it isn't news.

FreeBSD? (-1, Troll)

Boawk (525582) | about 10 months ago | (#45010323)

What's that? Some new fangled waana-be OS that's going to topple Linux?

Re:FreeBSD? (5, Informative)

iggymanz (596061) | about 10 months ago | (#45010403)

heh, well the userland part of FreeBSD has more desktop installs than Linux distros. and likely most slashdotters have devices in their home and workplace running either Free, Net or Open BSD and not even know it.

Re:FreeBSD? (1)

Moridineas (213502) | about 10 months ago | (#45010413)

I run a FreeBSD server and still have an old OpenBSD soekris router in service, but I would not have said that there are more FreeBSD userland installs than Linux. What are you considering FreeBSD userland--OSX?

Re:FreeBSD? (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 10 months ago | (#45010769)

I have OSX installed, and use the terminal wall the time. They're the same thing!

Re:FreeBSD? (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 9 months ago | (#45018309)

I was going to reply "You're an idiot", but then i reconsidered.
Then i saw your sig, and i reconsidered again.

You're an idiot.

but Linux even more so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010553)

Most smartphones are Android, which is Linux.

Most cable modems, DSL modems, and home wireless routers run Linux.

Re:but Linux even more so (2)

toejam13 (958243) | about 10 months ago | (#45010637)

I agree with the smartphones. I disagree with cable and DSL modems, many of which use VxWorks or another commercial embedded OS.

Re:but Linux even more so (-1, Troll)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 10 months ago | (#45010657)

Billions of flies like to eat it, but does that mean that you also want to eat it?

Re:but Linux even more so (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 10 months ago | (#45010831)

None of which are desktops. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?

Re:but Linux even more so (2)

smash (1351) | about 9 months ago | (#45010957)

And all netapps array, junipers, iphones, ipads, ipods and macs run a variety of FreeBSD components.

Re:but Linux even more so (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 9 months ago | (#45012013)

You might want to scan the Android stack for FreeBSD copyrights sometime. Most of the Android libc is a slimmed-down version of the FreeBSD one, and there are quite a few other bits of FreeBSD code in there too. In terms of lines of code, I think there is about as much FreeBSD code in Android as there is Linux code.

Re:but Linux even more so (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 9 months ago | (#45012037)

Most of the Android libc is a slimmed-down version of the FreeBSD

This is one of the weird and crap things about andriod. They seem to be on a perverse "anti bloat" crusade and focussing that on all the least bloated components of their system: libc, gcc and the kernel. All the while leaving the substantially bloatier main bit of android.

This is one of the reasons android seems persistently a bit crap really. They remove useful features from the slim underlying system "because of bloat" and pile the crap into the rest of it.

Eventually the removed features make it back, years late and worse than the original (e.g. bluetooth 4).

Re:but Linux even more so (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 9 months ago | (#45012065)

I never understood this either. For example, they ripped all of the locale support out of libc to remove bloat. Which then means that everyone who uses the NDK reimplements it in another library, which is not shared...

Re:but Linux even more so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45016787)

.... because it's all REALLY about pushing your client code into dalvik so you can't easily port it to another smartphone platform

Re:but Linux even more so (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45015307)

One big chunk of bloated, slow, buggy code they removed is X11. You're a hardcore X11 fanboy, troll, and asshole. It must really piss you off that Android isn't using your beloved X11.

Re:but Linux even more so (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 9 months ago | (#45012135)

So, there is about as much FreeBSD code in Android as there is GNU code? Linux is just a kernel, GNU is the operating system. FreeBSD is both.

Re:but Linux even more so (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 9 months ago | (#45016377)

No, there is no GNU code in Android. No glibc, no GNU userland utilities. There is some GNU code in the NDK (gcc, binutils), although it's gradually being replaced.

Re:FreeBSD? (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about 9 months ago | (#45011395)

And a lot more with the coming PS4, which has moved to BSD derivative IIRC.

Re:FreeBSD? (1)

aiadot (3055455) | about 9 months ago | (#45012171)

The PSP (and probably PS3) firmware is also BSD based. At least that is what I remember from the good old DarkAlex custom firmware days...

Re:FreeBSD? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 9 months ago | (#45014563)

And a lot more with the coming PS4, which has moved to BSD derivative IIRC.

For the kernel at least - the devkits may have a full BSD install for debugging and development, but the "userland" of the PS4 probably won't - being it's completely self contained and exists within Sony's APIs.

Other things using a BSD kernel would be the PS3, Vita and PSP. It's easy to tell because a lot of BSD code is still running the regular BSD license (3 clause - GPL incompatible) and not the modified-BSD license (2-clause, GPL compatible).

Re:FreeBSD? (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about 9 months ago | (#45011427)

heh, well the userland part of FreeBSD has more desktop installs than Linux distros.

Or, at least, part of the userland part of FreeBSD, combined with part of the userland part of NetBSD, combined with a bunch of vendor-written code, has more desktop installs that Linux distros (most of those "installs" being what was shipped with the machine; BTW, the auto-correct feature of the latest non-beta version of that vendor's OS tries to convert "distros" into "distress").

Re:FreeBSD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45012033)

Way to segment. On that note, did you know that Linux has a 100% install rate on all laptops currently owned by me? Linux clearly beats FreeBSD in this critical (to me) market.

Re: More Than You Might Think (1)

tomxor (2379126) | about 9 months ago | (#45012145)

This is getting slightly off topic, but it is interesting how FreeBSD code finds it's way into so many other systems, but not too surprising when you consider the fairly widespread opinion of it's high code quality and statistically proven fewest bugs per lines. Darwin has already been mentioned and probably has the closest resemblance. You can also include the AT&T UNIX systems and their many derivatives which have all pulled code from the BSDs into their source tree's at various points, important to note that the literal code inheritance for the 386 derived BSDs of today is BSD -> UNIX and not the other way around, I know i make that point a lot :P A partial view of the history can be seen in the diagram at this site: http://www.levenez.com/unix/ [levenez.com]

If you include not only the systems that maintain a fuller closer resemblance to the original FreeBSD userland then smaller components of FreeBSD are likely to have been included in many systems that we aren't aware of... probably the most unlikely that most people would think of is windows, it's TCP/IP stack is derived from FreeBSD. But the same is probably true for GNU, so it's not really useful to try to compare how widely used they are, it's just good that both of them have liberal enough licensing to be so useful in so many different things.

Windows TCP/IP not BSD derived (1)

Sits (117492) | about 9 months ago | (#45016711)

I would argue that the Windows TCP/IP stack is the bit that processes the packets in the kernel and this was originally licensed from Spider and then rewritten for Windows 3.5 NT and neither was BSD derived [slashdot.org] . The current Windows networking bits that are BSD derived are userland legacy utilities like ftp, nslookup and telnet [lwn.net] and aren't necessary to have a useful TCP/IP stack.

This myth needs to be allowed to rest - BSD has plenty of real wins that are more recent.

Re:FreeBSD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45013697)

And yet the main projects languish in relative obscurity because the big boys don't contribute back.

Re:FreeBSD? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010447)

No, I heard it's the next OS for the PS4, which is replacing GCC with clang for the system compiler.

Re:FreeBSD? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010625)

Shaddup. Your embarrassing the rest of us linux users. Time to grow up sonny.

Re:FreeBSD? (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 9 months ago | (#45018443)

Who cares about you linux users?

Curiously,
a {Free,Net}BSD user

Phoronix being strangely useful (0)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 10 months ago | (#45010515)

They're not posting meaningless, scale-less graphs showing sub-percent increases in compile times of various linux kernels... they're actually providing value for once. Phoronix is the OSNews of the new millenium.

Re:Phoronix being strangely useful (2)

pathological liar (659969) | about 10 months ago | (#45010669)

They're not providing any value, they're summarizing a release announcement -- and the only things they left out are three bullet points that are just version number bumps for major apps/libraries in base.

Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC (4, Informative)

toejam13 (958243) | about 10 months ago | (#45010655)

The interesting thing I noticed in the release notes was that the Firewire driver was pulled from the 9.2 GENERIC kernel. Meanwhile, Thunderbolt isn't expected until 10.x.

I think the days of Firewire are nearly over.

Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC (2)

smash (1351) | about 9 months ago | (#45010965)

*shrug*. I just resurrected an EFI loader SNAFU on my mac mini with a firewire cable. Target disk mode rocks.

Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC (0)

fisted (2295862) | about 9 months ago | (#45018519)

How does Target Disk Mode even remotely rock? It turns the device into an external HD the (physical) size of the whole device in question.

What a nice piece of Apple-Fanboyism.

Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45012219)

I think the days of Firewire are nearly over.

While it had a lot of promise, it ended up being very niche.

Personally I've always used it to connect external hard drives to my Macs, and I know a lot of people who use it for audio processing. I'll probably have to get a Thunderbolt-to-FW adapter at some point.

Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45012615)

It has been pulled out of GENERIC kernel configuration, it'll still be built and available as loadable kernel module.

Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 9 months ago | (#45012901)

Are you saying Firewire is dead? Does Netcraft confirm it?

Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC (2)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 9 months ago | (#45012961)

Firewire was dead from the beginning. Apple held onto the Firewire trademark and there was a per device charge of twenty five cents (!394 cards, cameras, cable boxes, PC's or motherboards etc.). USB was inferior in many ways but was royalty free, almost as fast and available on every motherboard. After USB 2.0 came out, it was over for 1394.

I just hope Thunderbolt doesn't make the same mistake as it is a good replacement for 1394 and has plenty of bandwidth, even for video cards.

Re:Firewire is being pulled from GENERIC (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 9 months ago | (#45018205)

With the bandwidth that USB has - particularly 'super'-speed USB, why would Firewire or any successor technology be needed? Just use standard, off the shelf technology

Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD (4, Interesting)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 10 months ago | (#45010737)

Found this tidbit here [wikipedia.org] : when developing OS X v10.3, the "BSD layer was synchronized with FreeBSD 5".

Will new FreeBSD features eventually show up in Darwin/OS X, or have the two projects been sufficiently forked to prevent that from happening?

Re:Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD (4, Informative)

smash (1351) | about 9 months ago | (#45010967)

The relevant bits of the FreeBSD userland are periodically (every major release) imported into OS X. The two systems are fairly different, so kernel changes in FreeBSD probably won't show up, but tweaks to command line tools and other stuff probably will.

Re:Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about 9 months ago | (#45011407)

The relevant bits of the FreeBSD userland are periodically (every major release) imported into OS X. The two systems are fairly different, so kernel changes in FreeBSD probably won't show up, but tweaks to command line tools and other stuff probably will.

Darwin is not a BSD kernel, so the kernel changes will never show up, no probably about it.

Re:Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about 9 months ago | (#45011433)

The relevant bits of the FreeBSD userland are periodically (every major release) imported into OS X. The two systems are fairly different, so kernel changes in FreeBSD probably won't show up, but tweaks to command line tools and other stuff probably will.

Darwin is not a BSD kernel

Yeah, it's a kernel that's a combination of Mach and BSD.

so the kernel changes will never show up

Not necessarily.

Re:Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD (2)

smash (1351) | about 9 months ago | (#45011545)

True, however various bits of the BSD kernel have been ported to it. This is why I said "probably won't show up", because stuff like the firewalling code has been ported.

Re:Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD (4, Informative)

Guy Harris (3803) | about 9 months ago | (#45011437)

The relevant bits of the FreeBSD userland are periodically (every major release) imported into OS X. The two systems are fairly different, so kernel changes in FreeBSD probably won't show up, but tweaks to command line tools and other stuff probably will.

The best way to think about it is that Darwin is "the kinda sorta fifth BSD", separate from {Free,Net,Open,DragonFly}BSD, but willing to pick stuff up from the *BSDs, just as the *BSDs are willing to pick up stuff from other *BSDs to various degrees.

For those wanting a bit more MEAT (2)

tomxor (2379126) | about 9 months ago | (#45013543)

I had a look through this timeline [levenez.com] tracing from the origin at NeXTSTEP 0.8, and now my brain is slightly melted O_o... but I managed to find all of the inheritance from other systems (excluding integrations between derivatives of itself like Darwin, OS X Server, OS X and iOS etcetera):

  • 1988, NeXTSTEP 0.8, inherited from: 4.3 BSD, Mach 2.0
  • 1989, NeXTSTEP 1.0, inherited from: Mach 2.5
  • 1996 - 1997, OPENSTEP, inherited from: None
  • 1997, Rhapsody DR1, inherited from: 4.4 BSD lite 2
  • 1998, Rhapsody DR2, inherited from: NetBSD 1.3
  • 1999, Mac OS X DR1, inherited from: Mach 3, FreeBSD 3.1
  • 1999, Mac OS X DR2, inherited from: FreeBSD 3.2
  • 2002, Mac OS X 10.1.5, inherited from: FreeBSD 4.5
  • 2003, Mac OS X 10.3 beta, inherited from: FreeBSD 4.8, FreeBSD 5.1
  • 2004, Mac OS X 10.4 beta, inherited from: FreeBSD 5.2.1

So it looks like mostly FreeBSD and a little of the old Mach, I think NetBSD was used as a means for porting between architectures more than a literal inheritance. interesting how the last bit of FreeBSD was way back in 2004 from FreeBSD 5 (The timeline goes all the way up to present with OS X Mavericks). of course there are probably newer bits of FreeBSD used that are only known internally to Apple.

Not having looked this closely at the OS X part of this timeline before i found the transition between OPENSTEP and OS X quite confusing... according to the timeline Rhapsody (what OPENSTEP turned into after Apple started working on it) directly became Mac OS X Server and Darwin, but OS X was not derived from any of them itself and seems to be directly linked to Mach 3.

Then the timeline proceeds with Mac OS X as what appears to be where all of the development is taking place (including inheriting from FreeBSD), with Darwin and OS X Server only ever taking from OS X like mirrors. Then suddenly in 2006 this model changes and the OS X 10.5 beta inherits from Darwin 9.0 beta, when OS X 10.5 and Darwin 9 mature the model goes Darwin -> Mac OS X -> Mac OS X Server... Then in 2007 during the OS X 10.7 beta the model changes again when the server branch is eradicated all together and gets integrated into OS X and OS X gets integrated into Darwin so the model goes OS X -> Darwin again but without the server.

This suggests OS X didn't inherit from Rhapsody at all until the period between 2006 and 2007, not sure if this is true or not, but interesting none the less. Also makes you wonder how much of the original OPENSTEP was inherited, perhaps it's more that it was not publicly disclosed how much of the technologies became proprietary Apple technologies at the beginning of OS X rather than a lack of direct inheritance at the beginning.

Re:For those wanting a bit more MEAT (1)

smash (1351) | about 9 months ago | (#45013955)

Heaps of open/next step is inherited. Most of the core libaries of objective-c for instance.

Re:For those wanting a bit more MEAT (1)

tomxor (2379126) | about 9 months ago | (#45014041)

That's what i thought, but i don't know much about the early OS X before 10.4 ... did it have everything you define as inherited from rhapsody in 10.3? if so perhaps i should ask the author to add a link between the two offending nodes.

Re:For those wanting a bit more MEAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45016843)

OSX is NextStep is Rhapsody - it's all NextStep/OpenStep/Apple branding.

Darwin is the 'core' portion of OSX, but was only ever released as essentially a 'source drop' from apple -
and so there was never really any 'true' fork - just think of it as a 'branch' in the same source tree.

Re:For those wanting a bit more MEAT (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about 9 months ago | (#45017813)

So it looks like mostly FreeBSD and a little of the old Mach

Well, if you call the osfmk directory of the XNU source [apple.com] a little, I guess it's "a little of the old Mach", although a fair bit of that code comes from NeXT and Apple as well.

I think NetBSD was used as a means for porting between architectures more than a literal inheritance.

Well, let's look at the libc source [apple.com] (the libc part of libSystem):

$ fs . | xargs egrep -h '\$NetBSD:' | wc -l
49
$ fs . | xargs egrep -h '\$FreeBSD:' | wc -l
482

("fs" is a script that finds source files and prints their names to the standard output). The files it found with "NetBSD" in them were ./gen/FreeBSD/fmtcheck.c, ./gen/FreeBSD/lockf.c, ./gen/FreeBSD/stringlist.c, ./gen/NetBSD/utmpx.c, ./include/arpa/tftp.h, ./include/FreeBSD/nl_types.h, ./include/getopt.h, ./include/limits.h, ./include/NetBSD/utmpx.h, ./include/paths.h, ./include/search.h, ./include/stddef.h, ./include/stringlist.h, ./include/util.h, ./include/wchar.h, ./include/wctype.h, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/getopt.c, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/getopt_long.c, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/hcreate.c, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/tdelete.c, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/tfind.c, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/tsearch.c, ./stdlib/FreeBSD/twalk.c, ./stdlib/NetBSD/strfmon.c, ./string/FreeBSD/strndup.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcscat.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcscmp.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcscpy.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcscspn.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcslcat.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcslcpy.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcslen.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcsncat.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcsncmp.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcspbrk.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wcsspn.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wmemchr.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wmemcmp.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wmemcpy.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wmemmove.c, ./string/FreeBSD/wmemset.c, and ./util/fparseln.c.

The "NetBSD" and "FreeBSD" directory names are somewhat historical - for example, the 10.8.4 version of getopt_long() comes from NetBSD.

of course there are probably newer bits of FreeBSD used that are only known internally to Apple.

And other bits only known to people who download the open source bits and look at them. :-)

Then the timeline proceeds with Mac OS X as what appears to be where all of the development is taking place (including inheriting from FreeBSD), with Darwin and OS X Server only ever taking from OS X like mirrors. Then suddenly in 2006 this model changes and the OS X 10.5 beta inherits from Darwin 9.0 beta, when OS X 10.5 and Darwin 9 mature the model goes Darwin -> Mac OS X -> Mac OS X Server...

That's the timeline, not reality. Darwin was always produced by taking parts of OS X and making them available in source form; the model didn't change with Leopard.

Then in 2007 during the OS X 10.7 beta the model changes again when the server branch is eradicated all together and gets integrated into OS X and OS X gets integrated into Darwin so the model goes OS X -> Darwin again but without the server.

Yup - with Lion, Apple stopped shipping separate server and client versions of the OS, and, instead, shipped an add-on package containing the applications that were formerly bundled with the server version but not with the client version.

Re:Relationship between Apple Darwin and FreeBSD (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 9 months ago | (#45012027)

Some bits of the FreeBSD kernel make it into the BSD server in the XNU kernel. One of the big ones is the MAC framework (SEBSD), which is shared between FreeBSD and XNU and supports pluggable access control policies. This is used to implement the code signing logic on Juniper routers and the application sandboxing on iOS and OS X. There are some pretty big differences to the VM subsystems on both (they're both derived from Mach 2.5, but they've diverged hugely since then).

Still comes with proprietary firmware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45011459)

Re:Still comes with proprietary firmware? (3, Informative)

smash (1351) | about 9 months ago | (#45011555)

no. they enable use of proprietary blobs, but do not ship with proprietary blobs in the kernel.

Re:Still comes with proprietary firmware? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 9 months ago | (#45018279)

Can someone explain the differences in the meaning of 'blob' b/w BSD and Linux?

Thanks BSD, just installed 9.1 (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 9 months ago | (#45013071)

It's always the way - I do a new install and they release a brand new version.

Re:Thanks BSD, just installed 9.1 (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 9 months ago | (#45013475)

You can upgrade quite easily with the freebsd-update utility.

Re:Thanks BSD, just installed 9.1 (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 9 months ago | (#45016345)

And having done this, I've yet to run into a library compatibility issue that wasn't fixable with symlinks, though my test suite is still running.

Re:Thanks BSD, just installed 9.1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45013569)

Updating is quite simple. I prefer doing it from source. Checkout /usr/src/UPDATING for instructions.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>