 CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX
 ·Suddenlink
| FreeBSD 9.0 released quote:
The FreeBSD Project dedicates the FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE to the memory of Dennis M. Ritchie, one of the founding fathers of the UNIX[tm] operating system. It is on the foundation laid by the work of visionaries like Dennis that software like the FreeBSD operating system came to be. The fact that his work of so many years ago continues to influence new design decisions to this very day speaks for the brilliant engineer that he was.
May he rest in peace.
»www.freebsd.org/releases/9.0R/announce.html
--
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Islamic religion? |
|
|
|
 rexbinaryMod KingPremium
join:2005-01-26
Plano, TX | What a great dedication for an excellent operating system. |
|
 reub2000Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | reply to Cabal
I heard that FreeBSD is trying to get rid of GPL software. Is this true?
--
My pbase gallery |
|
 GILXA1226Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
London, OH | said by reub2000:I heard that FreeBSD is trying to get rid of GPL software. Is this true?
Yes, I forget where I saw it but by V10 they plan to have all GPL gone. 9.0 introduces LLVM as the compiler. Though I just checked and cc --version still shows gcc....
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O! |
|
reub2000Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Okay, aside from license compatibility and philosophical issues, are there any technical reasons for this?
--
My pbase gallery |
|
GILXA1226Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
London, OH | said by reub2000:Okay, aside from license compatibility and philosophical issues, are there any technical reasons for this?
The article I read said it was purely because of moves to GPLv3.
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O! |
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | said by GILXA1226:The article I read said it was purely because of moves to GPLv3. It's not just Microsoft who thinks that the GPL is a virus. |
|
| No, it was due to changes in version 3 of the GPL. Microsoft always has issues with open source anything. |
|
 koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14 | reply to GILXA1226
said by GILXA1226:said by reub2000:I heard that FreeBSD is trying to get rid of GPL software. Is this true?
Yes, I forget where I saw it but by V10 they plan to have all GPL gone. 9.0 introduces LLVM as the compiler. Though I just checked and cc --version still shows gcc.... Right now both clang/LLVM and gcc are provided in the base system. The reason for this is that there are bits of kernel and world which do not properly build with clang/LLVM (some are compiler bugs, others are "code quirks" that gcc deals with more appropriately/decently -- remember, base system gcc on FreeBSD has many custom patches applied to it, it's mostly "stock gcc" but not entirely).
There have been many people on the mailing lists who have tried to remove gcc from the system (thus making a "full clang/LLVM system") and none have been successful; the aftermath is quite a large mess, so please don't do it.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. |
|
koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14
2 edits | reply to Cabal
Some things that need to be blatantly stated up front about FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE:
* Snapshots on SU+J (Soft Updates + Journalling) can result in a full filesystem hang. This bug is major/important because by default the new installer (called bsdinstaller) defaults to SU+J being used on all filesystems (including root). There is no fix at this time. The only advice/workaround is to not use UFS filesystem snapshots.
* Equally as major: some motherboards won't boot at all with the introduction of new ACPI/PCI code that breaks on some motherboards (those which return flat out wrong ACPI tables, e.g. BIOS bugs). This code was committed to RELENG_8 (that's 8.2-STABLE as of this writing) and thus pulled into HEAD (which made it into 9.0-RELEASE). John Baldwin (author/committer) explains the reason/issue in detail.
The workaround is to rebuild your kernel with nooption NEW_PCIB defined in the config file. If you can't get a working system up and going to rebuild the kernel, you can disable ACPI entirely by entering set hint.acpi.0.disabled=1 at the loader prompt and then issuing boot, until you get a kernel installed that disables NEW_PCIB.
This issue is spread over many separate links/posts on the mailing lists so I have to provide them all -- sorry, there's nothing I can do about this (blame users not using decent mail clients):
»lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/free···217.html
»lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/free···219.html
»lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/free···221.html
* Booting 9.0-RELEASE (and earlier, such as 9.0-RC3) doesn't work at all on sparc64. Apparently the CDROM bits are completely broken. A second confirmation came in the following day.
* Ports reliant on libutemper appears to break badly, since libutemper is now part of the base system, and all the ports still require the port version (thus, these ports refuse to build). Further reading.
* Folks who use base system BIND and DNSSEC should read this thread (it's 3 posts, with root cause not found, but the user going to ISC mailing lists to try and figure out what is going on). User beware.
(Some of) These problems, and some other minor issues, are why in my case I won't be moving any of our systems to 9.0-RELEASE or RELENG_9 any time soon (in fact, recently I've spent some of my spare time with Debian 6). That's just my own opinion/stance, others should decide on their own.
(Edit: Added entry about sparc64 CDROM issues)
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. |
|
SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | reply to howardfine
said by howardfine:No, it was due to changes in version 3 of the GPL. GPL v3 is evil. Microsoft always has issues with open source anything. |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T Southwest
·Charter
1 edit | Microsoft's sole purpose in contributing to Linux is to allow Linux to run on some of its Hyper-V product because it is losing market share in this arena and they contribute in areas that only help Microsoft product integration as part of their usual "embrace and extinguish" crusade.
Microsoft called Linux a cancer and that it is something it wants to crush as stated by Ballmer and others. They used to routinely sue Linux vendors and forced others to buy licenses for unknown patent violations. Microsoft just came off 10 years of US Federal oversight last April. Their new hardware requirements lock Linux out of hardware manufactured by Dell, HP and all the others.
And now people think Microsoft is an open source friend? You can not and should not ever trust Microsoft. |
|
reub2000Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | reply to Steve
If you think the GPL is too restrictive, then you're free to use BSD/MIT/Apache or whatever licensed software.
--
My pbase gallery |
|
