Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FInally, FreeBSD 8.0 Released

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FInally, FreeBSD 8.0 Released

    Phoronix: FInally, FreeBSD 8.0 Released

    The much-anticipated FreeBSD 8.0 release is finally available, albeit it's arriving more than a month late. FreeBSD 8.0 replaces GCC with Clang/LLVM as the default compiler, improvements to the Jails subsystem, a new USB stack, the ULE 3.0 scheduler that's optimized for SMP environments, Sun's D-Trace support for kernel traces, NFSv4 support, network improvements, improved ZFS file-system support, and much more. FreeBSD 8.0 is available from their (FTP server), while we still have been waiting on an official release announcement...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzczNg

  • #2
    They have NOT switched to LLVM/Clang. It's still very experimental and not officially supported in any way, and not included by default (although available in the ports tree).

    Code:
    [root@chaos ~]# cc --version
    cc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070719  [FreeBSD]
    Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
    This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
    warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
    
    [root@chaos ~]# clang
    -su: clang: command not found

    Comment


    • #3
      The usual phoronix "journalism".

      Comment


      • #4
        a new usb stack
        They finally stoped using Linux emulation code or it's just its new emulation stack?

        the ULE 3.0
        It seems not only Gnome is affected by marketing. Good to know it wasn't optimized for SMP systems before.

        Comment


        • #5
          hey guys, what's your problem with this article, and with freebsd ?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bulletxt View Post
            hey guys, what's your problem with this article, and with freebsd ?
            I don't see anyone complaining about FreeBSD at all, just the article.

            Personally don't see much benefit in Phoronix jumping the gun on this one, either. Is it really too much to wait for the official release announcement from FreeBSD?

            Comment


            • #7
              Nice, so I guess PC-BSD 8.0 is not so far away, can't wait to check it out.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                They finally stoped using Linux emulation code or it's just its new emulation stack?
                FreeBSD did not used Linux emulation to provide USB support before this new version ...

                FreeBSD used its own USB stack, but it was outdated, so it was better to create something better with better design the to update the current one.

                Also, FreeBSD DOES NOT EMULATE Linux, it only provides BINARY COMPATIBILITY, an ABI/API of Linux (like WINE for Windows), its even faster then NATIVE LINUX, its the reason why MATRIX [1] movie was rendered on FreeBSD cluster with applications running in Linux Binary Compatibility, it was just faster.

                [1] http://www.freebsd.org/news/press-rel-1.html

                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                It seems not only Gnome is affected by marketing. Good to know it wasn't optimized for SMP systems before.
                Its an improovement, not a new feature, SMP is even better [2] [3] now then before.

                [2] http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/22432.html
                [3] http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/21310.html

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by vermaden View Post
                  FreeBSD did not used Linux emulation to provide USB support before this new version ...

                  FreeBSD used its own USB stack, but it was outdated, so it was better to create something better with better design the to update the current one.
                  They were/are using Linux emulation layer for some reasons.

                  Also, FreeBSD DOES NOT EMULATE Linux, it only provides BINARY COMPATIBILITY, an ABI/API of Linux (like WINE for Windows), its even faster then NATIVE LINUX, its the reason why MATRIX [1] movie was rendered on FreeBSD cluster with applications running in Linux Binary Compatibility, it was just faster.
                  You've got to be kidding. I don't buy their propaganda like some infamous benchmarks. LOTR[2], Shrek and some other films were rendered using Linux. Linux is not mentioned in link you gave, so you base on what saying they chose Freebsd over Linux, because Freebsd was faster? About this emulation (ok, compatibility) being faster it's mentioned in Freebsd documentation and there's something like: some people report Q3 is faster using emulation... Such crap.

                  Another example is the very popular Shrek movie made at the DreamWorks studios, and the renderfarm used has a 1,000+ processors, 80% Linux and 20% IRIX.
                  Disney, DreamWorks, Pixar use Linux over Freebsd, so it must be faster.

                  Oh, are you sure about Matrix:

                  http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9951
                  http://news.softpedia.com/news/Holly...ux-45571.shtml

                  s an improovement, not a new feature, SMP is even better [2] [3] now then before.
                  Marketing bull - version.
                  Last edited by kraftman; 11-24-2009, 04:39 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by vermaden View Post
                    Also, FreeBSD DOES NOT EMULATE Linux, it only provides BINARY COMPATIBILITY, an ABI/API of Linux (like WINE for Windows), its even faster then NATIVE LINUX, its the reason why MATRIX [1] movie was rendered on FreeBSD cluster with applications running in Linux Binary Compatibility, it was just faster.
                    HAHAHAHA tell this to the Hollywood guys who prefer over 95% of their systems (both desktops and servers) to run Linux. If there was better sound support and sound software in Linux they would replace the few mac and windows boxes with Linux as well.
                    Now about the link you posted, it just said the Silicon Graphics infrastructure was slow and thus they replaced it with x86 that run FreeBSD. They don't say why they made this decision. Probably Dell's offering was the most economical and fastest to be delivered and thus they just used them. After all they were just 32 machines. Nothing exceptional. They rendered some effects and that was all. They didn't made the whole movie with these ones and ofcourse they don't say that they prefered FreeBSD instead of Linux, especially beacuse the binary compatibilit was faster...
                    But ofcourse they know nothing, someone should tell them how fast FreeBSD is. It has been proven after all during all these years and benchmarks...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      They were/are using Linux emulation layer for some reasons.

                      You've got to be kidding. I don't buy their propaganda like some infamous benchmarks. LOTR[2], Shrek and some other films were rendered using Linux. Linux is not mentioned in link you gave, so you base on what saying they chose Freebsd over Linux, because Freebsd was faster? About this emulation (ok, compatibility) being faster it's mentioned in Freebsd documentation and there's something like: some people report Q3 is faster using emulation... Such crap.



                      Disney, DreamWorks, Pixar use Linux over Freebsd, so it must be faster.

                      Oh, are you sure about Matrix:

                      http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9951
                      http://news.softpedia.com/news/Holly...ux-45571.shtml

                      Marketing bull - version.
                      The story is better with Shrek3, where they used 1,000 Linux desktops and more than 3,000 server CPUs.
                      http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9653

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                        ... blah blah skipped ...
                        But ofcourse they know nothing, someone should tell the how fast FreeBSD is. It has been proven after all during all these years and benchmarks...
                        Who really cares that much about performance these days. Of course it does matter, but differences are so small almost nobody will notice. I have Linux and FreeBSD servers and I'm talking about 100+ and I will always perfer FreeBSD over linux. A LOT better structured system. lot easier to manage, everything is in it's place. Base system is separated from the software that user installs. And You actually know where to find config and files (libs, data etc.) of the program You just installed. In linux it's a total mess. Every package have it's own mind where to put files, every distro have it's own structure. 10+ sites with packages and no single repository You spend sometimes hours to find where exactly that package that You need is and how to import the N-th package site You happen to find that package on. Compared to freebsd ports and package systems which contains 20 000+ programs and You find & install what You need in matter of seconds. Not to mention tuning every port to You exact requirement and not installing 100+ Xorg (or whatever) packages just to have some sound manipulation library.
                        IMO, linux is easier to work with if You don't need to much personalization (without breaking 'distros way' of doing things) and You stick with what's provided. FreeBSD in the other hand robust and easier to manipulate system and You can do It without breaking the way it's originaly ment to work and be upgraded. It feels like a glove or even extension of your own hand opposed to linux which feels like a wrench - it works, but not much more ...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I do not fully understand your config problem. Usually when you install the most common server apps under linux the config files are in /etc. There might be a /etc/default/packagename override with some small settings, but why do you see different configs when the apps are basically the same. I do not talk about manually compiled apps but installed via default package manager. Things that you could really annoy are security features like selinux which break some things (like quake live) on Fedora.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kano View Post
                            Things that you could really annoy are security features like selinux which break some things (like quake live) on Fedora.
                            If you use a bleeding edge testing ground like Fedora, you've got to expect lots of niggling frustrations.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I only use that live to test r600/intel drivers. I have got my own debian stable + u kernel + backports based distro.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X