Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD 9.0 RC2 Arrives Late, Pushes Back Final

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

  • FreeBSD 9.0 RC2 Arrives Late, Pushes Back Final

    Phoronix: FreeBSD 9.0 RC2 Arrives Late, Pushes Back Final

    The good news: FreeBSD 9.0 RC2 is now available. The bad news with that announcement: FreeBSD 9.0 RC2 is late, which also means the third (and last) release candidate has been pushed back along with the final release. Hopefully FreeBSD 9.0 will arrive in time for Christmas...

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

  • #2
    My GPU doesn't work but they found the time to rewrite grep to avoid the GPL. *yawn*

    Rewrite thousands of lines of code that already existed because we hate the GPL: check

    Version of ZFS that is already stale: check

    NIH some features that have been in Linux since 2007: check

    Working Radeon HD 5000+: Deferred indefinitely

    X.org Server: 4 versions behind

    At least we're unpaid Apple employees that don't give a damn if our software stays freely available or openly licensed: double check

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
      My GPU doesn't work but they found the time to rewrite grep to avoid the GPL. *yawn*

      Rewrite thousands of lines of code that already existed because we hate the GPL: check

      Version of ZFS that is already stale: check

      NIH some features that have been in Linux since 2007: check

      Working Radeon HD 5000+: Deferred indefinitely

      X.org Server: 4 versions behind

      At least we're unpaid Apple employees that don't give a damn if our software stays freely available or openly licensed: double check
      Someone changing the code does not make the code stop being free. The moment a change occurs, it is no longer your code. It is a derivative of your code, but what someone does with it has no effect on the licensing of what you published.

      Unlike the GPL, BSD licensing ensures open standards and consistency. If you want horrible fragmentation (like what happened with XHTML/CSS), feel free to worship the GPL. If you want consistent and open standards, then BSD licensing is the way to go.

      As for graphics, the situation on Linux is equally horrible in situations where the vendors are not involved. Each vendor does things differently. Therefore, the graphics really are only as good as the vendors make it. It is not the FreeBSD developers' fault if the vendors decided to produce drivers for platforms uninterested in promoting free and open standards. i.e. the thing that the GPL doesn't do.

      Lastly, xorg Server 1.7.x was current when the merge window for FreeBSD 9 opened 2 years ago, so they basically did the same thing that Linus Torvalds does everytime he tags a Linux kernel release. The only difference is that their development period is 2 years instead of 2 months. That is necessary for the testing and validation that is typical of most UNIX operating systems. If you don't like that, then you can always fork it and do things your way. BSD licensing gives you the freedom to do that, and you can do it anyway you want. You can even lock down your fork under the GPL and then never contribute anything back to upstream much like what Linux did with the BSD TCP/IP networking stack.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
        Someone changing the code does not make the code stop being free. The moment a change occurs, it is no longer your code. It is a derivative of your code, but what someone does with it has no effect on the licensing of what you published.

        Unlike the GPL, BSD licensing ensures open standards and consistency. If you want horrible fragmentation (like what happened with XHTML/CSS), feel free to worship the GPL. If you want consistent and open standards, then BSD licensing is the way to go.

        As for graphics, the situation on Linux is equally horrible in situations where the vendors are not involved. Each vendor does things differently. Therefore, the graphics really are only as good as the vendors make it. It is not the FreeBSD developers' fault if the vendors decided to produce drivers for platforms uninterested in promoting free and open standards. i.e. the thing that the GPL doesn't do.

        Lastly, xorg Server 1.7.x was current when the merge window for FreeBSD 9 opened 2 years ago, so they basically did the same thing that Linus Torvalds does everytime he tags a Linux kernel release. The only difference is that their development period is 2 years instead of 2 months. That is necessary for the testing and validation that is typical of most UNIX operating systems. If you don't like that, then you can always fork it and do things your way. BSD licensing gives you the freedom to do that, and you can do it anyway you want. You can even lock down your fork under the GPL and then never contribute anything back to upstream much like what Linux did with the BSD TCP/IP networking stack.
        It's NIH'd crap that I was using in Linux years ago.

        BSD is a colossal yawn-a-thon that's totally unfit for a modern desktop. I should also mention that a lot of modern software has trouble running on BSD due to all the obsolete components in it. It's not just video drivers, but what's the point of using something when your brand new video card is a framebuffer device?
        Last edited by DaemonFC; 11-17-2011, 05:56 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          GPL is evil so I support FreeBSDs desire to free themselves from that license.

          Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
          My GPU doesn't work but they found the time to rewrite grep to avoid the GPL. *yawn*
          Well FreeBSD could use some more developers. They have a disadvantage in that e mindset is with Linux these days.
          Rewrite thousands of lines of code that already existed because we hate the GPL: check
          Don't be ignorant, people don't hate GPL, rather they find the restrictions with in GPL to be unacceptable. Especially version 3 of GPL which is down right disgusting.
          Version of ZFS that is already stale: check

          NIH some features that have been in Linux since 2007: check

          Working Radeon HD 5000+: Deferred indefinitely

          X.org Server: 4 versions behind

          At least we're unpaid Apple employees that don't give a damn if our software stays freely available or openly licensed: double check
          On the other hand Apple releases much in the way of open source that works its way back into FreeBSD.

          Your position on FreeBSD is strange to say the least. Do you really expect every open project to be managed like Linux?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
            Well FreeBSD could use some more developers. They have a disadvantage in that e mindset is with Linux these days.

            Don't be ignorant, people don't hate GPL, rather they find the restrictions with in GPL to be unacceptable. Especially version 3 of GPL which is down right disgusting.


            On the other hand Apple releases much in the way of open source that works its way back into FreeBSD.

            Your position on FreeBSD is strange to say the least. Do you really expect every open project to be managed like Linux?
            It would be nice if you'd have more luck getting FreeBSD to run on a modern desktop than Windows 2000. So many pieces of FreeBSD are falling apart from neglect and old age that it's completely impossible to install on any of my modern hardware. It is essentially a warehouse full of deprecated crap that barely works. If all you want is a server where sound and video aren't important, you can get away with it, it's just not a desktop system.

            Telling people they have to use Nvidia proprietary drivers and Windows XP networking drivers through NDIS (and let's just stick some wire coat hangers into a light socket while we're plugging binary Windows drivers into our FreeBSD kernel, for the hell of it), and at the same time telling them you offer them freely licensed and open source software is just stupid. Maybe if they get a minute from rewriting existing GPL'd code, they can make some common hardware work. At the moment, they can't even get any kind of attention from Intel or AMD at all. No GPL'd grep though, mission accomplished. Gee I'm glad we can enjoy our ZOMGBSD licensed grep with framebuffer video. I'm also glad their sound system has barely improved since the 1990s. You know, while they were busy rewriting grep to avoid the GPL. You know, srs business and all that. No GPL'd grep or AMD Radeon support on their watch.
            Last edited by DaemonFC; 11-18-2011, 12:48 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
              My GPU doesn't work but they found the time to rewrite grep to avoid the GPL. *yawn*
              I do not think it is the same person that would want to write a grep utility as would like to write a graphics card driver. Those things are not mutually exclusive and blaming one for the other is just braindead.

              some NIH, in this case on ideological grounds, can be well-founded. I for one would find it very sad if the only free OSes we could play with would be GNU/Linux, GNU/k*BSD and GNU/Solaris variants.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by staalmannen View Post
                I do not think it is the same person that would want to write a grep utility as would like to write a graphics card driver. Those things are not mutually exclusive and blaming one for the other is just braindead.

                some NIH, in this case on ideological grounds, can be well-founded. I for one would find it very sad if the only free OSes we could play with would be GNU/Linux, GNU/k*BSD and GNU/Solaris variants.
                Why? They work, BSD doesn't. Lennart Poettering was spot on when he called BSD a toy and said that we shouldn't let them hold back the progress of Linux. That's all it is good for, creating a support nightmare for things that try to support both. BSDs are just a lowest common denominator these days. If you make an init system that runs on BSD, it will run poorly on Linux because BSD doesn't have the features Linux does. If you make a sound server that runs on BSD, it will be crippled because they use OSS, and it's always 1998 in OSS land. If you try to get away from HAL, you're screwed if you want it to work on BSD. It's my understanding that FreeBSD simply ships XFCE broken because it ditched HAL in favor of udev, upower, and udisks, and all FreeBSD has is HAL (which has been unmaintained for years.) If your video driver uses DRI 2 or Translation Table Maps, it won't support any BSD because they don't exist there.

                Please tell me what would compel someone to ruin their sanity with a BSD on a desktop.

                Every once in a while, someone gets the bright idea to blow the dust off BSD and make software that is only mediocre on Linux because of the BSD limitations.
                Last edited by DaemonFC; 11-18-2011, 12:58 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blo...linux-systems/

                  This article dives into a lot of the problems FreeBSD poses for KDE now, and many more that will possibly cause KDE to become Linux-only in the future.

                  non-Linux users make less than one percent of our user base. If we now think about the global market share for non-Linux KDE Plasma systems we come to a number very close to 0. Our resources are spare and we should make the best out of it. Spending time on hardly used systems which are lacking behind in the technology we want to use and cannot provide the minimum requirements for our workspaces, does not sound like a sane idea to me.

                  GNOME has made similar statements.
                  Last edited by DaemonFC; 11-18-2011, 01:11 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
                    This article dives into a lot of the problems FreeBSD poses for KDE now, and many more that will possibly cause KDE to become Linux-only in the future.
                    KDE Workspace might no work out of the box but rest of KDE SC will work just fine. Most of KDE runs where Qt runs (Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, Haiku, *BSD etc).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I love how you imply systemd is good because it doesn't run on BSD.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
                        BSD is a colossal yawn-a-thon that's totally unfit for a modern desktop.
                        DaemonFC, you seem to think FreeBSD is a distribution with a strong focus on desktops. This is, however, not true. FreeBSD like the other BSDs is primarily a server operating system, with a strong focus on internet service providers and hosting providers. Features like Jails, ZFS, strong SMP performance, GEOM I/O framework and the portstree are quite popular for server operators. FreeBSD generally has the best I/O framework and appears to lead the development in TCP/IP stacks as well as SMP performance enhancements, where FreeBSD innovations are migrated to projects like the Linux kernel, MySQL and I believe Firefox as well.

                        I do agree FreeBSD is not the best choice for the desktop; it may lack proprietary drivers for many closed hardware. But the proprietary video drivers are quite on-par in terms of performance with the Linux equivalents. Still, saying FreeBSD sucks because it isn't the best choice for the desktop is kind of strange. Comparing server features would be much more logical. Though you can also see what is possible with FreeBSD by looking at Max OSX, which basically is a fork of FreeBSD with a new graphical shell built on top.

                        Server operators probably look at FreeBSD with different eyes. In particular, FreeBSD has arguably the best ZFS implementation, with unique features that integrate ZFS with jails, allow booting from RAID-Z pools, automatic SWAP volumes and other enhancements. Linux userscan compile ZFS kernel module themselves or use FUSE module, but basically they are restricted to their own project called Btrfs. And last time I checked, Btrfs could not even correct filesystem damage making it an alpha-quality filesystem at the moment. ZFS is fully usable and the most sexy filesystem to date.

                        FreeBSD developers may not hate the GPL, but rather the GPL v3 poses a real threat to FreeBSD. Currently they still use the latest GCC compiler collection still released with GPL v2; the newer versions with GPL v3 will not be used, although they can be installed using the portstree. Instead, FreeBSD goes its own path by not being dependent on very restrictive licenses such as the GPL v3. The LCC/Clang compiler collection is being leaded by Mac OSX will make sure FreeBSD does not keep behind with an outdated compiler suite, an important infrastructure development needed to allow FreeBSD to keep alive.

                        Perhaps you could state your opinions with a little bit more nuance, DaemonFC, then you may even get some positive replies instead. There surely is some truth in what you're saying, but due to your extremely negative attitude it currently looks more like a troll post.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Teho View Post
                          KDE Workspace might no work out of the box but rest of KDE SC will work just fine. Most of KDE runs where Qt runs (Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, Haiku, *BSD etc).
                          That's an unfortunate problem of KDE. They pretend that there are lots of people out there using the rest of the SC outside of their Plasma workspaces, which is stupid. I'm pretty sure the main reason for the rest of the SC working on other systems, is because it's not that hard to do and someone somewhere might be trapped on Windows and want some decent applications to use.

                          Back to FreeBSD, their problem is that their core system is usually good if you only want some system with no sound or video concerns to use as a server. It can be a desktop, it's just not a very good one. GNOME, KDE, and XFCE are all throwing the BSDs under the bus because the BSDs don't have a good enough sound system or video card driver architecture to enable a modern desktop experience, unless you use Nvidia video cards with their nonfree driver or something. Which in my case is not an option because I personally hate Nvidia and their attitude toward freely licensed and open source software is disgusting. They're like a spoiled child who breaks all of their toys to make sure that nobody else gets to play with them. The nv driver was so obfuscated that they ended up introducing a complex formula just to represent a constant. By the time Nouveau (which only works on modern systems, not BSD but bear with me) finished de-obfuscating nv, they found it was so unoptimized (on purpose, by Nvidia), that it was basically unusable and ended up having to rewrite the 2d acceleration code and a lot of basic low level stuff they had hoped to pull from nv themselves.

                          Nvidia now recommends VESA (an unaccelerated fallback framebuffer driver) as a broken stepping stone to nvidia proprietary, when Nouveau works well on almost any Geforce sold.


                          Since the BSD people don't have any concern over freely licensed open source software, they encourage support through nonfree binary drivers, and if Nvidia ever decides not to support FreeBSD, there won't be ANY video cards that do much at all on a BSD. They're hanging by a thread. They could port over KMS and DRI 2 but they're too busy whining that Linux improves itself where they do not bother, and pointing people to nvidia cards with proprietary drivers that can be dropped whenever. Then it's only a matter of time until nothing works with FreeBSD at all, or they have to freeze a "stable" ABI for old Nvidia drivers (which don't support new cards) which can't have bug fixes or security problems resolved. A lot of the reason Linux isn't such a mess can be read in "stable_api_nonsense.txt in the Linux kernel tree documentation.

                          So I only covered so far that the FreeBSD sound system is representative of hardware from the 90s. Lennart Poettering actually pointed that out. And the video driver situation is a mess. There have been multiple Phoronix posts which have said that in those words but didn't expand into WHY it is a mess. (The FreeBSD developers *are* a disease and their system is totally backwards), and networking cards usually leave them pointing you towards a binary driver, if any exists, for Windows XP (since nothing open source supports NDIS 6.x), and since Windows XP only ever caught on on x86-32, you better hope you aren't using anything else or your wifi will probably be totally nonfunctional.

                          FreeBSD and Linux do share one major problem, they allow binary device firmware with no source code (Linux-Libre scrubs this out and OpenBSD should be commended for never allowing it in the first place). Binary firmware is just another way the device maker gets to hide incompetence and bugs and security problems, and make all kinds of crazy licenses to satisfy, and to declare hardware broken forever when they want to sell you something else.

                          Out of every possible driver architecture fuck up, I think FreeBSD has at least several, and Linux has the one. I'll use Linux. I won't havet o make all kinds of crazy compromises to make sure I can use a limited subset of hardware and applications so that I can go "rabble rabble rabble, $&%$Y&#* GPL, hah, losers! Apple steals OUR code because it's FREE! Herpa Derp Derp, broken compiler and BSD Grep!!!" (Too bad you can't really use the FreeBSD system as it is, fopr a desktop, unless you want some kind of novel freak show) *shrug*
                          Last edited by DaemonFC; 11-18-2011, 02:55 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by curaga View Post
                            I love how you imply systemd is good because it doesn't run on BSD.
                            That's not what I'm saying. The entire point of systemd is to use all the abilities of Linux without making throwbacks to obsolete systems. So, it does not work on FreeBSD.

                            Edit: I should point out when I say obsolete that in some ways their base system is actually nice. But they wash their hands of all the problems in about 90% of user space that a desktop user will interact with by claiming "It's not part of the base system, don't blame us for anything it does". The driver system for video and sound and wifi is an unholy mess.
                            Last edited by DaemonFC; 11-18-2011, 02:50 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              As for Apple.




                              There's their view of your BSD licensed code.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X