Search results

Just to report that I succesfully installed FreeBSD 16.0-CURRENT, NetBSD 11.0 & OpenBSD 7.9 on one drive, and DragonflyBSD 6.5.0 on the other. The RTL8125BG works on all of them.

The dirty comes from git and means changes that are not commited. Seems like someone or the build script just applied the patch against the git revision for 15.1 and then compiles, without doing a git commit. It's harmless but feels... dirty...

I'm happy that I could finally install OpenIndiana on the G3 Plus. Dual-booting with FreeBSD. Next step: NetBSD & OpenBSD in the same drive as FreeBSD.

Because of capitalism!1!

All I can say is: - Don't take anything for granted. Things are a lot more unpredictable now. - Always strive to have an open mind. This is hard to do because our natural tendency is to have an opinion before getting all the facts, which is also not easy because there are many unknown...

Nothing is being done at the expense of anything. In open-source, most stuff gets done because someone wants to scratch an itch, and we're not in a position to tell developers what to do or don't. This stuff is optional and is not being pushed by anyone on anyone. And life goes on.

Can't wait for it to finally land on -CURRENT. I'll be a proud early adopter & tester.

I suggest replicating the infrastructure in virtual machines as much as possible.

I think most of us agree that pkgbase & rcd don't fit that criteria.

Faster boot time has nothing to do with Systemd. OpenRC is faster. rcd in FreeBSD is a welcome development. Sometimes I feel like I'm in listening to third-worldist fake environmentalists preaching degrowth. There's nothing wrong with improving FreeBSD.

pkgng doesn't replace freebsd-update, though the latter is redundant with pkgbase now with pkg-upgrade. The only missing piece is ZFS boot environments like Solaris/Illumos's pkg-update.

No because they serve different needs. But with a bit of effort pkgng + pkgbase can make freebsd-update redundant. pkgbase allows you to define minimal systems in bare-metal, jails & OCI containers. Getting rid of stuff with setuid binaries like the lp commands and ppp is as easy as...

This UFS setup is convoluted and wastes disk space. This seems like an A/B partition scheme with a /C added? Why not take advantage of UFS snapshots? They're not real Boot Environments like ZFS provides and that he masterfully describes here...

freebsd-update is a bit redundant with pkgbase now. I find that blog post by Vermaden a bit difficult to read because it contains lots of graphics that are distracting and the sensationalism. I use only -STABLE & -CURRENT with -latest now. So far the only issues I've encountered with pkgng...

First-class ZFS support is the best selling point of FreeBSD. ZFS is also portable across multiple operating systems: Solaris/Illumos, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux, MacOS X, etc. ZFS doesn't need that much memory if you don't enable online deduplication. Just don't use it on devices without wear...

This is a subjective perception. That ZFS snapshots are not backups is an objective fact.

ZFS snapshots are not backups. ZFS boot environments are the single most important thing to avoid shooting yourself in the foot, and the steps are arguably more complicated, so I don't see the added value.

In the README you state that pkgbase has many drawbacks and you only mention "the complexity of the commands to type to upgrade". I think this is way over-engineered because you're trying to support every upgrade scenario like RC, STABLE, CURRENT, etc. With ZFS boot environments all the fears...

Where is pkgb-update? I can't find it in ports.

/usr/local being used for packages is a nice isolation.