FreeBSD 10.0-RC1 now available | Hacker News Reader

FreeBSD 10.0-RC1 now available

lists.freebsd.org

77 pointssamwilliams40 comments

I'll take that as an opportunity to remind you of the FreeBSD Foundation's Year-End-Fundraising campaign (I gave them some money for the first time just last week, to support some of the awesome work they have been doing) https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/

They've published a change summary on the wiki:

https://wiki.freebsd.org/WhatsNew/FreeBSD10

So... no pkgng? I thought that was going to be the default in FreeBSD 10.

Pkgng is indeed the default in FreeBSD 10. That page is a useful collection of notes on changes in the base system, but isn't an official changelog of the release engineering team.

I don't have much experience of FreeBSD, but I'm curious about it: for what purposes is FreeBSD used? Is it common in some work environments?

While I can't hope to do justice to this question, FreeBSD is a fully functional unix system, with a kernel and userland wholly its own (licensed with the BSD license) as well as a well maintained ports tree that brings in most of the unix application universe (x windows, windows managers, databases, programming environments, etc) and can be used anywhere a unix system is desired.

That said, it is very popular in networking applications (Junos the OS for Juniper network switches is based on FreeBSD) and other embedded situations (Mac OS X has a forked version of FreeBSD as its unix layer. Most people won't characterize OS X as having FreeBSD lineage any more, but at its root, there were some parts that were brought over in the early days.) Sony PS3/4 also has some parts based on FreeBSD.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_FreeB... for a partial list of interesting applications based on FreeBSD.

It is especially appealing as a non-linux opensource project with a BSD (non GPL) license that is fairly well maintained. The Non-GPL license means that a company can use FreeBSD in a closed-source project.

Usually the FreeBSD core maintainers care more about correctness and principles more than pure performance, so in a straight performance shootout linux would probably still win, but FreeBSD is close enough that it doesn't matter for the types of applications it's usually used in.

There is probably a ton more specific things that people will call me out on, but http://www.freebsd.org/advocacy/ (the advocacy working group) would be a good place to start digging if you are interested.

> It is especially appealing as a non-linux opensource project with a BSD (non GPL) license that is fairly well maintained. The Non-GPL license means that a company can use FreeBSD in a closed-source project.

How much of a one way street does this turn out to be for FreeBSD? I've always worried about BSD projects being left hung out to dry because companies have less of an obligation to contribute to the parent project compared to something like Linux, but I'd be interested to see how it works out in practice.

I do remember reading some depressing things about contributions to OpenSSH (a quick google search returns "OpenSSH has no wealthy sponsors, nor a business model. In fact, no Commercial Unix or Linux vendor has ever given our project a cent."), but perhaps FreeBSD is different in that aspect.

The FreeBSD Foundation does get some monetary support from both commercial users and end-users; some commercial FreeBSD users (e.g., Netflix, Juniper) have core developers on their payroll, so they indirectly contribute in that way instead.

FreeBSD also benefits when companies release or contribute to other BSD-licensed, open-source projects, since that code can then be used within FreeBSD itself. Apple's (and Intel's) contributions to Clang/LLVM are a prime example; another is Apple's open-sourcing of launchd, the FreeBSD port of which was just relaunched (no pun intended): https://github.com/rtyler/openlaunchd

But yes, as some GPL proponents will point out, there are companies who use FreeBSD for their commercial products without contributing back. In the end, they probably lose out as much as anyone though, due to the cost of paying developers to maintain a completely separate codebase.

I'm not an expert, but based on my experience I can tell you following:

1. it is not a Linux, it is a Unix system; 2. it used mostly on servers, stable as centos/red hat/other solid linux; 3. can be used on desktop too; 4.it has a great support for ZFS

I personally used it for a few years, but when I started to develop using java, had to switch to linux...

I'm sure people with more experience can tell you more... but I personally like some parts more on FreeBSD than on Linux (like directory structure, device naming (no eth1,2...)) it just makes sense. IMHO

". it is not a Linux, it is a Unix system;"

I've (often) wondered - what does this mean for practical purposes?

It's a tool which is used by engineers, computer scientists and researchers. Focusing on your question for the /practical/ meaning of 'it's not linux...' outside what I explained in a previous comment that it's Berkeley UNIX unencumbered, though we do have the "one true awk"; Another diff would be that it's not a pure clean room implementation like the GNU operating system. BSD is over 35 years old and served us all well.

If you haven't had an opportunity to explore FreeBSD it's worthy to explore your options and toolsets if for any reason to be a well rounded hacker and also to understand the freedom and choices you have to make your own educated decision on the tools which you find practical for your own purposes.

I'm very familiar with OpenBSD, the BSDs in general, and Linux. I'm really interested in the statement, "It's not a linux, it's Unix" - and I'm wondering if that statement really has any meaning.

I completely agree with you that understanding the licensing, the freedoms you chose, the wonderful documentation and great integration you get from the BSDs are all important - but that's really a question of "What is the practical difference between choosing an OpenBSD versus a Linux System" - which is somewhat different than making the blanket statement, "It's not a Linux, it's Unix."

It means you get a POSIX interface without GNU- and Linux-specific extensions or the GPL.

I understand the theoretical implications - but, reading from, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX, Windows 2000 was Posix-1 compliant, so Posix doesn't really have much in the may of practical implications.

What are the practical implications of being "Unix" - i'm of the belief there really are none.

For the end user this means: different command line parameters for commands; more consistent userland; consistent documentation; less drivers; slightly less applications

> when I started to develop using java, had to switch to linux...

May I ask why?

Sure, at that time(a few years ago) it was a hassle to install jdk(had to download binaries to install openjdk).

Also, I don't think Oracle has BSD version.

PS: Thanks for asking, since this made me want to try it again :)

No FreeBSD JVM here: https://java.com/en/download/manual.jsp

Windows/Mac/Linux/Solaris only.

Been able to run java on FreeBSD as long as I can remember. Maybe this link will help you: http://www.freebsd.org/java/

Be able is one thing, but be up to date is another... Also the lack of Oracle/Sun version may be a show stopper for some.

Well, there's OpenJDK, but to use the standard one from Oracle you need to run it under linux emulation layer.

https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/java

http://www.freshports.org/java/openjdk7/

http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-sun-jdk17/

I thought that Oracle's JDK7 was based on OpenJDK?

OpenJDK is available in the ports tree though, and will work just fine!

Does anyone use OpenJDK? I was never able to get the Atlassian suite running on that, and it was the last time I tried using anything other than the Official Java JDKs.

Yup, used it for years, if not with a particularly large selection of software (Solr, Elasticsearch, JRuby and Subsonic off the top of my head).

Ah - perhaps OpenJDK has a larger presence in the open source community than in the pure-play commercial software community - makes sense, thanks.

I had JIRA running under OpenJDK on OpenIndiana without issues.

I couldn't get it working - just checked, still not supported.

https://confluence.atlassian.com/display/JIRAKB/OpenJDK+Not+...

That's the problem - you KNOW that the Oracle JDK will work, and it's free - but it's a crapshoot with OpenJDK - so why bother?

It's Berkeley UNIX without AT&T encumbered code. It's common in environments that have real hardware and it's used for secure and stable servers. I've used it for upwards to 15 years if you have more questions I can attempt to help you.

It is used by a fair number of large organisations. eg Netflix is a big user, although all you hear about is their use of Linux on AWS, the actual video streaming is all done from FreeBSD, see https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect/software

for what purposes is FreeBSD used?

Unless it has changed recently, hosting HN.

Was curious about this and checked with Netcraft. Looks like HN is using CloudFlare's CDN.

Not sure if the origin server is on FreeBSD.

I use it as my primary server environment because:

- I find it much easier to sysadmin than Linux

- I use jails to isolate development environments

- I use and like ZFS

Looking at the schedule, we can expect the full release to be out the day after New Years.

The published schedules are always "best-case" scenarios, since FreeBSD developers look at these to know how long they have to get work into the tree. There is always the anticipation that schedules will slip as issues arise, so I'd guess January 9th for the announcement rather than the 2nd.

(But that's fine -- we do .0 releases somewhere in the November-February time period, and early January falls right in the middle of the range.)

I'm still waiting for the Nakatomi Socrated BSD release (9.2).

Are we expecting to take the 10.0 series all the way through to .4?

9.2 was already released ... it is the latest production release.

The linux kernel basically already does this, right?

http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.g...

Oops, I somehow commented on the wrong thread.

FreeBSD X?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com