Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD 13.0-RC3 Released With The WireGuard Driver Removed

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

  • #11
    This would be good news if Kyle Evans wasn't basically bullied out of being a maintainer and Netgate wasn't a bunch of sourpusses over the matter.
    https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wi...ch/006499.html
    Last edited by computerquip; 20 March 2021, 07:15 PM.

    Comment


    • #12
      With built-in ZFS v2, FreeBSD is the only OS anyone should consider for NFS/CIFS bulk storage duty. Bhyve has come a long way too, and I'm evaluating whether to replace some CentOS hypervisors with FreeBSD. The combination of bhyve and zfs is pretty tempting, with instantaneous snapshot/rollback capability, and super easy backups with zfs send/receive feature. Running VM's on ZFS is technically superior to anything on the market, at any price.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by rhavenn View Post
        WireGuard is still available in ports as the one provided by WireGuard itself.
        The in-progress experimental kernel code is in ports as "wireguard-kmod", in addition to the stabler userspace "wireguard-go" implementation.

        I think the situation we're in now is very, very good. We have time and latitude to really make this a great, fast, secure implementation, without having to rush things. And hopefully there'll be folks interested enough to help check our work and review it.
        Last edited by zx2c4; 20 March 2021, 09:10 PM.

        Comment


        • #14
          From Michael's article: "AES-NI support" was this not supported by GELI before!! Is that why my ZFS raid 1 on two NVMe drives is so slow when using full disk encryption! If so this will be a great update for me!

          Comment


          • #15
            I'm in the wrong place.

            Took quite a bit of time making the two very valid points--which should concern all who are disturbed by the very rapid and highly visible degradation of Linux, compared to the very fine--no; make that outstanding--offerings of five or so years ago.

            "...Has anyone made the observation, "Nobody goes to this much trouble, particularly after all these years of not ONE SINGLE COMMENT about the absolute need for his user base to upgrade. I wonder what his real motivation is."

            And why has Mint Linux been absolutely silent about the fact that the developer and maintainer of 'Timeshift' quit approximately a year ago. One can still find 'recommendations' from Mint to use 'Timeshift' to 'solve' some problems which they (Mint) have no other answer for...
            [see post #2]

            ...and not one person has demonstrated the desire, familiarity with the subject, or the expertise to address the main thrusts of the post. The only discussion anyone is interested in having is the validity of the phraseology, "Mint Linux" vs. "Linux Mint"? (You'll find it expressed both ways if you've read enough, over the years, on that distribution)

            I'm in the wrong place. Ain't no serious discussion around these parts.
            +++++++++++++++
            Oh...and as far as using BSD--does SVR4 count? Can't get more "UNIX-ey" than that. Does having--and having read--most all of Dru Lavigne's outstanding books and articles on FreeBSD count?

            Talk about 'artificial intelligence'...





            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by zexelon View Post
              danmcgrew Getting BSD working is a lot more like trying to get Gentoo working.
              I disagree, getting a FreeBSD desktop up and running is about as difficult as doing it on Arch Linux. You don't have to compile a custom kernel and set use flags like Gentoo. The base system is already installed you just need to pkg add your desktop of choice and setup your startx file to start that desktop. Getting auto mounting of external media is another thing entirely but getting up and running with a desktop and a web browser like firefox takes maybe 30 min. It is like starting from the Ubuntu LTS server install media and installing a desktop with APT.

              Comment


              • #17
                Without suitable wifi networking driver, freebsd is useless. don't bother installing it on laptops.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
                  Bhyve has come a long way too
                  And it is still nowhere near either the performance, the features or the ecosystem of kvm. It STILL fails to install Debian in UEFI mode, because no one could be arsed for ~7 years to add persistent nvram support.

                  OpenZFS 2.0 is available on Linux, and with that being the version used on FBSD, the opposite is true - there is no reason to bother with FreeBSD anymore, as everything it has, Linux now has, but in a more developed state and with a richer ecosystem, and more eyes looking at it and supporting it

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by kylew77 View Post

                    I disagree, getting a FreeBSD desktop up and running is about as difficult as doing it on Arch Linux. You don't have to compile a custom kernel and set use flags like Gentoo. The base system is already installed you just need to pkg add your desktop of choice and setup your startx file to start that desktop. Getting auto mounting of external media is another thing entirely but getting up and running with a desktop and a web browser like firefox takes maybe 30 min. It is like starting from the Ubuntu LTS server install media and installing a desktop with APT.
                    And remember to add yourself to the wheel group during the install. FreeBSD sucks when all you have is the default minimal install with no root access. That minimal no root suckage applies to most operating systems.

                    BlueCrayon The BSD license, long term, should make FreeBSD the better ZFS OS. There's a lot of bullshit a person has to do and keep up with to run ZFS on Linux as root. There also isn't much major distribution support for ZFS outside of Ubuntu. Unfortunately, Ubuntu is like Google -- They start something cool, neat, and innovative and then say "fuck it, let's do something else" a few years later -- so we'll need to wait and see if they actually stick with Zsys or abandon it down the line.

                    Better Zsys documentation to implement it on other distributions would be welcome. It would be really be cool if Manjaro, Ubuntu, and SUSE all knew Zsys enough to run the same GRUB so we could multiboot and/or VM with zpools on Linux.

                    It doesn't help things that Red Hat is working on a direct competitor to ZFS and that Red Hat and their devs tend to be hostile towards ZFS because they're uppity about the CDDL. The Red Hat part is worth mentioning because they push GNOME, systemd, PulseAudio, its replacement Pipewire, and more. How many distributions use Not-GNOME, Not-systemd, or not-PulseAudio+Pipewire? Exactly.

                    Do you think Stratis will be any different than those other Red Hat technologies?

                    For some background: I'm a 6 year going on 7 year ZFS and ZoL user. I'm just being realistic and pessimistic with how I see things happening. As much as I'd love Linux to embrace ZFS, the more likely scenario is Bhyve gets better PCIe/hardware pass-through and us ZoL folks move over to some form of BSD using ZFS.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by danmcgrew View Post
                      I'm in the wrong place.

                      Took quite a bit of time making the two very valid points--which should concern all who are disturbed by the very rapid and highly visible degradation of Linux, compared to the very fine--no; make that outstanding--offerings of five or so years ago.

                      "...Has anyone made the observation, "Nobody goes to this much trouble, particularly after all these years of not ONE SINGLE COMMENT about the absolute need for his user base to upgrade. I wonder what his real motivation is."

                      And why has Mint Linux been absolutely silent about the fact that the developer and maintainer of 'Timeshift' quit approximately a year ago. One can still find 'recommendations' from Mint to use 'Timeshift' to 'solve' some problems which they (Mint) have no other answer for...
                      [see post #2]

                      ...and not one person has demonstrated the desire, familiarity with the subject, or the expertise to address the main thrusts of the post. The only discussion anyone is interested in having is the validity of the phraseology, "Mint Linux" vs. "Linux Mint"? (You'll find it expressed both ways if you've read enough, over the years, on that distribution)

                      I'm in the wrong place. Ain't no serious discussion around these parts.
                      +++++++++++++++
                      Oh...and as far as using BSD--does SVR4 count? Can't get more "UNIX-ey" than that. Does having--and having read--most all of Dru Lavigne's outstanding books and articles on FreeBSD count?

                      Talk about 'artificial intelligence'...
                      To wager a guess: He has forums full of dumbass motherfuckers whining about how they can't do anything with their Polaris and better GPUs when they're running something with Linux 4.15 and Xorg 16.3 with assloads of backports to get the graphics running and none of the Mint devs want to keep backporting shit to unsupported software so the dumbasses can keep on keepin on. I can't imagine the Mint 17 software is much newer than that and I can't be bothered to check.

                      Am I close?

                      But that's why there's no serious discussion. We're all assuming that it's idiots not updating because of idiot reasons. Why discuss that? Frankly, people like that are like the people I know who won't update their used PC bought from eBay because "six months is plenty new enough and it shouldn't need upgrades and updates yet". It runs Windows 7 and a Chrome so old it has a permanent "upgrade me, you're in danger" banner. Why, yes, they're Trump Loving Republicans and were in the Tea Party before that.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X