Closed TrueOS plans on getting serious

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trihexagonal

Daemon

Reaction score: 1,818
Messages: 2,389

I've been using PC-BSD/TrueOS since Isotope 9.

Then you saw my postings at their discourse forum last summer or thereabouts when I gave TrueOS a test drive. If not, it would be far more effective to read it yourself than for me to blab on about it. They speak for themselves.

However, there's still one burning question in my mind....

Can you now Copy to/Move to transfer files using the Lumina desktop file manager menu? Because if you can't, we have little left to discuss as far as functional desktops with TrueOS and mine in the same sentence. Pix or it didn't happen.

You also need to look at the team members: I believe one of the Moore brothers is a current Core Team member, and Dru Lavigne is legendary.

Dru Lavigne has all my respect. She was around then but I do not know her personally.

She responded to a post of mine once and was very polite. It was a very important post about how their implementation of a firewall GUI broke pf syntax. Thus, nobody using it had a working firewall.

Except me, far as I know. I showed them nmap scans as proof it was broken and how to fix it. Nobody seemed to know frijoles about firewalls, or care, but I am sure beyond any shadow of doubt Ms. Lavigne understands them fully. Problem was, it took a month to get any response.

One of the Moore brothers was active in the PC-BSD forums in the beginning and a pretty nice guy. I spoke to him on a few occasions it seems, but can't remember which one it was. I believe it was him who asked why I was using ports instead of the .pbi installer. I finally got a response to my pf issue from one of them too, after Ms. Lavigne's IIRC, but that was far past the point of reason, and by that time so was I. Oko remembers my rants.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Oko

ILUXA

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 571
Messages: 743

I wonder why OpenRC is categoricaly rejected as an option; OpenRC was created by Roy Maples, a NetBSD and FreeBSD developer, and is BSD2-clause licensed,so in agreement with the plan of eliminsting GPL from base. If the problem is with security I would be happy to learn more (links appreciated).
Probably, because it is much more interesting to develop a part of macOS —
for Apple employees?
Of course they're not interested in helping to develop something that is widely used in GNU/Linux,
even if it will be much better for FreeBSD, in terms of software compatibility, usage, etc.
They need to work out their salary as much as they can… And it is disgusting IMO.
So probably conclusions that in FreeBSD will never be such thing like systemd were premature…
But we'll see. If it'll happen, I believe it will be very bad for FreeBSD project, personally I'll stop
using this OS for sure.
 

ralphbsz

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,097
Messages: 3,061

Do what? DRM, geli, ZFS. Who needs any of that. KISS. Maybe I need some more of that koolaide your drinking.
ZFS is vital to some people. It is the single most important reason I started using FreeBSD (and at this point, it is technically the only technical reason that prevents me from going back to OpenBSD, which otherwise would fulfill all my requirements). ZFS is a very very good file system, nearly comparable with the best commercial (expensive) options, and way better than other options in *BSD. The important features of ZFS are checksums, built-in RAID, and scrubbing.

I commend iXsystems for helping to keep ZFS on FreeBSD in good shape.

Now for those folks who are not interested in reliably storing data on their FreeBSD machine, ZFS might be considered unnecessary complexity. They don't have to use it. I have the same attitude towards graphics hardware, GPUs, GUIs and desktops, which are completely irrelevant to me.
 

Oko

Daemon

Reaction score: 793
Messages: 1,620

ZFS is vital to some people. It is the single most important reason I started using FreeBSD (and at this point, it is technically the only technical reason that prevents me from going back to OpenBSD, which otherwise would fulfill all my requirements). ZFS is a very very good file system, nearly comparable with the best commercial (expensive) options, and way better than other options in *BSD. The important features of ZFS are checksums, built-in RAID, and scrubbing.
+1 with a caveat. I do use FreeBSD only to store the data at work. OpenBSD for everything else although I do have a file server at home running DF. I would wage $100 that over 50% of FreeBSD users (not counting JunoOS and similar) have the same reasons like you and me. Makes you wonder what would have happened with vulnerable FreeBSD if Open Solaris and later OmniOS didn't falter? There is not a single interesting technology coming out of FreeBSD in more than 10 years. It is all Solaris technology.
 

dinsdale

Member

Reaction score: 7
Messages: 61

What? Like changing the projects identity multiple times; further confusing your user base?



Here's a better idea; why not make a compelling graphical backup/restore solution that actually works.



So, to my understanding, the goal of "TrueOS" (What is now Trident?) is to provide a graphical solution onto of FreeBSD; yet you encourage the use of the command line for tasks like this? Isn't that counter-intuitive?

With a proper desktop; a user should be able to do anything graphically.



I think you guys are putting the cart before the horse here. It doesn't make much sense to market something that is terribly incomplete.

Even then, I barely see "TrueOS" marketed much on iXsystems actual website.



I don't think riding -CURRENT makes for a stable experience; why not focus on providing a stable release out of -CURRENT instead?

Here's what you can do;

1. Go back to tracking -RELEASE; back port drivers, etc. There's way too many posts on your forums with broken installation and/or broken upgrades.

2. Put more effort into improving the look of Lumina. People like shiny things.

3. Start contributing to areas where FreeBSD lacks for the desktop; i.e. Bluetooth? WiFi management? What about printing? USB 3.x support? Thunderbolt support? etc, etc. RedHat does this for Linux all the time.

4. Move the trueos-utils-qt5 package into Lumina. Release that, TrueOS, and Lumina together, as a consistent package.

5. Drop Linux support for Lumina, focus on the BSDs. Who cares about Linux. :)

IMO your biggest hurdle is convincing the greater FreeBSD community to dog-food your OS, and provide enough
incentive to switch away from existing solutions. This project started in 2006, how many FreeBSD devs gave up their macs? Personally, I see very little why I should give up my mac for "TrueOS".

And when you roll your own distribution you can run it any way you like. In the mean time we have vanilla FreeBSD, TrueOS and GhostBSD. I use and support all three where I can. :)
 

dinsdale

Member

Reaction score: 7
Messages: 61

Then you saw my postings at their discourse forum last summer or thereabouts when I gave TrueOS a test drive. If not, it would be far more effective to read it yourself than for me to blab on about it. They speak for themselves.

However, there's still one burning question in my mind....

Can you now Copy to/Move to transfer files using the Lumina desktop file manager menu? Because if you can't, we have little left to discuss as far as functional desktops with TrueOS and mine in the same sentence. Pix or it didn't happen.



Dru Lavigne has all my respect. She was around then but I do not know her personally.

She responded to a post of mine once and was very polite. It was a very important post about how their implementation of a firewall GUI broke pf syntax. Thus, nobody using it had a working firewall.

Except me, far as I know. I showed them nmap scans as proof it was broken and how to fix it. Nobody seemed to know frijoles about firewalls, or care, but I am sure beyond any shadow of doubt Ms. Lavigne understands them fully. Problem was, it took a month to get any response.

One of the Moore brothers was active in the PC-BSD forums in the beginning and a pretty nice guy. I spoke to him on a few occasions it seems, but can't remember which one it was. I believe it was him who asked why I was using ports instead of the .pbi installer. I finally got a response to my pf issue from one of them too, after Ms. Lavigne's IIRC, but that was far past the point of reason, and by that time so was I. Oko remembers my rants.

There are lots of people that drop in and rant. I see many such things on the TrueOS forums. You seem to be unaware that massive numbers of patches go dead in FreeBSD bugzilla. I've watched people try and fix the kqueues implementation in mono repeatedly for years with no success.

Anyway, I think they are going a great job. In fact, nobody else is even bothering to try it.
 

Trihexagonal

Daemon

Reaction score: 1,818
Messages: 2,389

There are lots of people that drop in and rant. I see many such things on the TrueOS forums.

You seem not to have read my posts. They were not rants. I tried it out as a personal favor and presented the facts and the facts only in their forum, which was the proper place to do it. You best read them before addressing me on the subject so you know what you're talking about. Or read them again more closely if it's a reading comprehension deficit issue.

Now how about that Move to and Copy to file transfer from the file manager menu? Can you or not? You seem to have avoided that question twice, as I have posted it thus. Pix, please.


You seem to be unaware that massive numbers of patches go dead in FreeBSD bugzilla.

You seem to be unaware I was around member #62 or so in the original PC-BSD forums as a beta tester beginning in v.0.73 to be precise. I have all my old PC-BSD disks. I'm Weixiong in the old PC-BSD forums.

I used it from 2005 to 2012, moved to FreeBSD, and have remained active and aware of current events in the BSD community since. How long did you say you've been using it? Isotope? That came out in 2012.

I have been privileged to first-hand PC-BSD history you have not and see things from a wider perspective than a fanboy.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Oko

Phishfry

Beastie's Twin

Reaction score: 2,434
Messages: 5,347

There is not a single interesting technology coming out of FreeBSD in more than 10 years.
I don't really see this as an issue. I like when my OS stays the same.
Many times when "perfecting" an artwork (my work) I go too far and find myself ruining the artwork trying to make it better.
It is a common ailment for perfectionists.
When is it good enough.

The part is in tolerance, why would I risk polishing it more and risk under-sizing the part?
Perfection. It's hard for an artist to determine when you have reached it.
And by then it is too late. Start over.

ZFS is a great filesystem for people that need it.
I realize it attracts users. That is a good thing.
Maybe coming from the networking side of the world(pfSense) I don't see the big hoopla.

I can see where its great for people that need data integrity.
It is a high performance file system.
My view is that base UFS2 is not unreliable. I am using GEOM for several gmirrors.
I have no need yet for a specialized filesystem.
 

Beastie7

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 471
Messages: 615

+1 with a caveat. I do use FreeBSD only to store the data at work. OpenBSD for everything else although I do have a file server at home running DF. I would wage $100 that over 50% of FreeBSD users (not counting JunoOS and similar) have the same reasons like you and me. Makes you wonder what would have happened with vulnerable FreeBSD if Open Solaris and later OmniOS didn't falter? There is not a single interesting technology coming out of FreeBSD in more than 10 years. It is all Solaris technology.

I consider Solaris and FreeBSD as cousins in the Unix world. Namely because the founder(?) of BSD UNIX (Bill Joy), was also a co-founder of SUN Microsystems. Don't forget, SunOS (and subsequently Solaris) also sat on the shoulders of BSD, and it's innovations. Jails greatly inspired Zones, they imported kqueue, they rode on UFS for years, for example. We're like one big family. :)
 
OP
S

Sensucht94

Guest


+1 with a caveat. I do use FreeBSD only to store the data at work. OpenBSD for everything else although I do have a file server at home running DF. I would wage $100 that over 50% of FreeBSD users (not counting JunoOS and similar) have the same reasons like you and me.

For server usage, since that's what we're speaking about, I'll add the fastest TCP/IP stack in the World, bhyve/VBox, DTrace, CentOS compat layer, jails, Capsicum, geli, blacklistd, poudriere, GEOM and an overall performance which outclasses OpenBSD's. We could obviously argue that OpenBSD doesn't purposely make use of many amd64 features but fact is de Raadt never made any effort towards better SMP, scalability...and benchs speak clearly. Disabling SMT/Hyper-Threading is just the final shot in the foot of OpenBSD's performance

Then to me there are also other good reasons to choose FreeBSD on desktop, embedded and workstation, starting from software availability, to the snapshots, SU+J and TRIM support on FreeBSD's UFS...

There is not a single interesting technology coming out of FreeBSD in more than 10 years

What are the interesting technologies which came out of OpenBSD in the last 10 years?

It is all Solaris technology

Solaris was indeed superior engineering, to the point it still represent very modern and advanced system nowadays after 8 years of Oracle bad managment, and still carries its own pros (starting from SMF, IPS, Zones, dladm....); however if Sun open sourced the code in 2008 what's the problem in porting it? That's the whole point in open source:boost progress. The problem with a open technology is that you have to port it: why hasn't OpenBSD ported ZFS yet? Don't tell me its just CDDL license and OBSD's kernel not allowing modularity any longer, because the HAMMER OpenBSD port has been there stagnating for years and I'd bet it's now dead, considering H2 is almost ready for production.

Side Note: with the 05/18 update NetBSD's ZFS port is close to being ready to deploy and AFAIK you can boot ZFS root already in HEAD
 

Oko

Daemon

Reaction score: 793
Messages: 1,620

I consider Solaris and FreeBSD as cousins in the Unix world. Namely because the founder(?) of BSD UNIX (Bill Joy), was also a co-founder of SUN Microsystems. Don't forget, SunOS (and subsequently Solaris) also sat on the shoulders of BSD, and it's innovations. Jails greatly inspired Zones, they imported kqueue, they rode on UFS for years, for example. We're like one big family. :)
I beg to differ. The last SumOS based on common code with BSD was version 4. Starting from Solaris 2 (aka. SunOS 5) is System V UNIX based of proprietary AT&T code just like AIX and HP UNIX.

The difference between Solaris and FreeBSD/Linux is mainly scalability. At this time the only interesting technology present in FreeBSD is ZFS.

On the another hand Linux scales well on clusters such as SGI UV3000 scale-out servers, or top500 supercomputers. These scale-out clusters serve one scientist starting HPC number crunching workloads 24-48h. Scale-out workloads are easy to parallelize doing a calculation on the same set of grid points, over and over again. All this fits into a cpu cache and can run on each separate compute node. All SGI UV2000/UV3000 use cases are HPC number crunching, analytics, etc. OTOH, enterprise business workloads (SAP, OLTP databases, etc) typically serve thousands of users simultaneously. They do pay roll, accounting, etc etc. Such workloads can not be cached in the cpu cache, so you need to go out to RAM all the time. RAM is typically 100ns, which corresponds to 10 MHz cpu. Do you remember 10 MHz cpus? This means business workloads have huge scalability problems because you need to place all cpus on the same bus, in one single large scale-up server. If you try to run business workloads on a scale-out server, performance will drop drastically as data is shuffled among nodes on a network, instead on a fast bus.

Thus, business workloads use one single large scale-up servers, with max 16 or 32-sockets. This domain belongs to Unix/RISC and Mainframes. HPC number crunching use large clusters such as SGI UV3000 which has 10.000s
of cores.

The largest Linux scale-up server is the new HP Kraken. It is a redesigned old Integrity Unix server with 64-sockets. The x86 version of the Integrity maxes out at 16-sockets only. Other than that, the largest x86 server is vanilla 8-socket servers by IBM, HP, Oracle, etc.

Linux devs only have access to 1-2 socket PCs so Linux can not be optimized nor tested on large 8-16 socket servers. Which Linux dev have access to anything larger than 4-sockets? No one. Linus Torvalds? No, he does not work on scalability on 16-socket servers. There is no Linux dev working on scalability on 16-socket servers. Why? Because, until last year, 16-socket x86 servers hardly even existed! Google this if you want, try to find a 16-socket x86 server other than the brand new HP Kraken and SGI UV300H. OTOH, Unix/RISC and Mainframes have scaled to 64 sockets for decades.

Look at the SAP benchmarks. The top scores all belong to 32-socket UNIX/RISC doing large SAP workloads. Linux on x86 has the bottom part, doing small SAP workloads. The HP Kraken has bad SAP scores, considering it has 16-sockets. It is almost the same as the 8-socket x86 SAP scores. Bad scalability.

Thus, if you want to run workloads larger than 2-4 sockets, you need to go to Unix/RISC. Linux maxes out at 2-4 sockets or so. The new Oracle Exadata server sporting SPARC T7 (same as the M7 cpu) runs Linux and it maxes out at 2-sockets. If you want 16-socket workloads, you must go to Solaris and SPARC. All large business servers, use Unix or Mainframes.
No Linux nowhere.

Now I am going to add an insult to the injury. FreeBSD jails are inspired by Solaris zones, not the other way around. FreeBSD jails with non-functional VNET which was supposed to be Crossbow knock off are of limited practical use. I do use Jails to insulate multiple servers on the same subnet Gogs, Jankins, HUGO, DokuWiki. Without any user friendly provisional tool in the base I do relay on iocell abandonware to do things. I hope Michal Lucas finally writes that book about Jails as I will probably need to fork iocell.

Sorry that this turned out into FreeBSD bashing as it was supposed to be commentary on TrueOS vaporware (brought to you by Moore brothers since 2005). Oh by the way Trident happens to be the only "English" (I didn't make a mistake even that is based in Scotland) nuclear missile for which we Americans have launching codes :) That is a bad name for a desktop project!
 

hrenznaet

Member

Reaction score: 2
Messages: 54

TL;DR: Old TrueOS is now known as 'Project Trident'.
Now there's a new project, which occupied the name 'TrueOS' (which is absolutely not the same with what you know as TrueOS) and which will be FreeBSD with everything-on-ZFS + OpenRC + LibreSSL + poudrierre (and without DE).
 
OP
S

Sensucht94

Guest


Rember it's 2008-2018 we're speaking about, so:

KARL, pledge, W^X, arc4rand, ASLR, pF, OpenSSH, LibreSSL, OpenIKED, OpenNTPD, OpenSMTP, mandoc to name a few.

  • KARL was indeed added in 2017; no counterpart available in FreeBSD
  • pledge was added in 2015 with OpenBSD 5.9, but, similarly, Capsicum was added to FreeBSD 9.0 in 2012
  • PF was released in 2001 with OpenBSD 3.0 and FreeBSD has 3 firewalls, including IPFW, which is native, and PF.
  • W^X was introduced in 2003 with OpenBSD3.3 and FreeBSD has kern.elf64.nxstack kernel param to handle non-executable stack, albeit it's as powerful and complex as W^X
  • ASLR in OpenBSD was added in 2003 and IIRC on FreeBSD it's WIP in CURRENT, correction by any dev appreciated
  • arc4random was released in 1997 with OpenBSD 2.1, and was ported to FreeBSD the same year, see arc4random(3)
  • OpenSSH was released in 1999, ported to FreeBSD the same year
  • OpenNTPD was released in 2003 and many have criticized its accuracy and security so far. FreeBSD has its own ntpd(8) anyway, it might not be portable but it works well.
  • LibreSSL was indeed released first in 2014, it's ported to FreeBSD and it can be safely used as default SSL/TLS crypto stack while compiling with FreeBSD's make too. However Are we sure we need it?: "there was a dark period between 2010 and 2016 where OpenSSL might not have been the right answer, but that time has passed. OpenSSL has gotten better, and, more importantly, OpenSSL is on-the-ball with vulnerability disclosure and response"
  • OpenSMTPD was released first in 2013, and it's great; however FreeBSD has its own smtpd(8) Postfix server already, which can already satisfy most OpenSMTPD use cases.
  • mandoc is truly awesome and was released in 2008. But it's ported to FreeBSD and FreeBSD's man database is already written in mdoc.
I could add sndio too to your list, given it was first released in 2008. However, again, it's been ported, and is perfectly integrated and supported in FreeBSD too, while FreeBSD in addition provides shameless ALSA emulation which OpenBSD lacks.
However do sndio, mandoc, OpenSMTD, OpenNTPD...account as advanced OS technologies, capable of bringing any concrete advantage against another server system or is mdoc for instance rather just a macro language and an example of good portable piece of software released by an open source project?
I mean, in the end tons of software is developed by other projects, e.g. Clang/LLVM, and a lot of this is ported to BSDs. Those are not OS features or "technologies" IMHO.

Anyway, we spoke about things ported from OpenBSD to FreeBSD.
Naturally, the other way round is true too: there are many good things which were first developed in FreeBSD and then ported to OpenBSD: kqueue, ULE scheduler, devd, UFS2, GEOM, gpart, etcupdate are just few important ones and the list is quite long.
 

Trihexagonal

Daemon

Reaction score: 1,818
Messages: 2,389

TL;DR:
Old TrueOS is now known as 'Project Trident'.
Now there's a new project, which occupied the name 'TrueOS' (which is absolutely not the same with what you know as TrueOS) and which will be FreeBSD with everything-on-ZFS + OpenRC + LibreSSL + poudrierre (and without DE).

Last I heard PC-BSD/TrueOS/Trident/DandyOS or whatever they're calling it this week, is supposed to be competition to the Linux desktop. Am I correct in what I thought this was supposed to be about from the start? And if so, is that still the goal?

Because this is beginning to look like a disorganized Linux distro that is splitting off into different directions. So I guess in that sense they may compete.

But not as a functional desktop. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, I think they were still using Fluxbox 1.3.1 when I tried it last summer, which dates back to 2011. It's where I originally got my menu, when I was still using PC-BSD, and carried it over to use with FreeBSD as a default with that header.


Not everybody, including me needs, uses or wants ZFS or poudriere, and if I can't be shown the file manager now has those improvements I'm throwing in the towel, popping popcorn and sit back to watch this farce unfold.

This is from x11-fm/xfe, the file manager I use on all my BSD laptops and what I'm talking about. Is that too much to ask? Not if it can be provided.

menu.png
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Oko

Oko

Daemon

Reaction score: 793
Messages: 1,620

Rember it's 2008-2018 we're speaking about, so:
Anyway, we spoke about things ported from OpenBSD to FreeBSD.
Naturally, the other way round is true too: there are many good things which were first developed in FreeBSD and then ported to OpenBSD: kqueue, ULE scheduler, devd, UFS2, GEOM, gpart, etcupdate are just few important ones and the list is quite long.
With the exception of ALTQ which was replaced by a native queueing discipline many releases ago I can't think of a single thing besides soft-updates which came out of FreeBSD proper.

http://openbsd.das.ufsc.br/faq/pf/queueing.html

And by the way ALTQ was always semi-broken on FreeBSD and never enabled in generic and only fully functional on OpenBSD. As a long term OpenBSD and FreeBSD users I can assure you that ULE schduler, devd, GOEM, gpart, etcupdate are not the part of OpenBSD and never ported to OpenBSD. All those technologies are older than 10 years. Now in whole honestly once upon time sysmerge, typically no longer needed for major version binary updates, was inspired by FreeBSD just like the OpenBSD's port system but that was more than 10 years ago. Few drivers did get ported from FreeBSD but many more drivers got ported from OpenBSD to FreeBSD.

One would expect that with five times more lines of code than OpenBSD, FreeBSD has lot more to show off. Unfortunately parochial corporate interests have reduced FreeBSD to a Frankenstein OS consisting mainly of dead Solaris technologies.
Maybe it is due to that multiple firewalls you guys have one coming from Solaris (IPFilter which was replaced in Solaris 11 with PF), and that ancient obsolete version of PF which is "optimized" for SMP. By the way IPFW2 works better on DF than on FreeBSD but that is a whole another topic. Maybe it is due to that kludge you guys keep in OpenSSH for "backward compatibility".
 
OP
S

Sensucht94

Guest


I beg to differ. The last SumOS based on common code with BSD was version 4. Starting from Solaris 2 (aka. SunOS 5) is System V UNIX based of proprietary AT&T code just like AIX and HP UNIX.

The difference between Solaris and FreeBSD/Linux is mainly scalability. At this time the only interesting technology present in FreeBSD is ZFS.



Now I am going to add an insult to the injury. FreeBSD jails are inspired by Solaris zones, not the other way around. FreeBSD jails with non-functional VNET which was supposed to be Crossbow knock off are of limited practical use. I do use Jails to insulate multiple servers on the same subnet Gogs, Jankins, HUGO, DokuWiki. Without any user friendly provisional tool in the base I do relay on iocell abandonware to do things. I hope Michal Lucas finally writes that book about Jails as I will probably need to fork iocell.

Sorry that this turned out into FreeBSD bashing as it was supposed to be commentary on TrueOS vaporware (brought to you by Moore brothers since 2005). Oh by the way Trident happens to be the only "English" (I didn't make a mistake even that is based in Scotland) nuclear missile for which we Americans have launching codes :) That is a bad name for a desktop project!

It's great to look over your professional report, all the more since it's perfectly consistent with other documentation I've read already.

It's a pity though that business, convenience, hardware vendors, hardware support, software availability and several other variables actually result in Linux running on all top 500 supercomputers, while holding at the same time ~40% of server share, with AIX on RISC at ~12%, Solaris on RISC at ~4-5%, FreeBSD %1, and Windows practically taking all share left, whereas other BSDs and Illumos distros occupy an insignificant slice of the market
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Oko
OP
S

Sensucht94

Guest


Before you now start telling me something about NetBSD I will just say that aside of nice regression suit they have nothing to show off not 10 but 20 years.

I'm not going to contest anything else you said, given I lack experience, knowledge, age,and research, but why such a resentment towards NetBSD? It surely has some serious managment (and financial) problem but it's unfair for me to tell that it's dead. It still has its use cases,like ARM or SPARC64, where it performs fabolously and is more stable and consistent than everything else (outside Solaris on SPARC), or old hardware, where, again I saw it carrying out miracles in reviving old deprecated or cheap software.
Then we have NASA Lewis satellite networks, Apple Airport Extreme and Time Capsule, and some active cool projects like irBSD.
NetBSD systematically fixes newly discovered CVE vulnerabilities and mitigated Spectre/Meltdown quite early.

Then, if we pass analyzing NetBSD development in the last 3 years, we have:

- SMAP
- KASLR
- nouveau
- MKPIE
- USB3/XHCI support
- NvME support
- UEFI boot
- W^X
- SSP
- ext4 support
- initial aarch64 and RISC-V support (works well for me on Rpi3)
- DTrace
- ZFS
- LVM
- autofs
- synaptics
- hardware-level OSS mixer
- Xen and NPF updates
- many drivers added and userland components updated

Might not be much or not be significant enough, but to my eyes it's still something, and still enough to justify keeping the project alive.
 

ILUXA

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 571
Messages: 743

I'm going to try to use NetBSD again, only because of your posts about it, Sensucht94 :)
"UEFI boot" was probably added to NetBSD recently, last time I tried to use it there were no UEFI support,
also it is interesting to try its nouveau driver, on GNU/Linux it works pretty well.
 
OP
S

Sensucht94

Guest


I'm going to try to use NetBSD again, only because of your posts about it, Sensucht94 :)
"UEFI boot" probably was added to NetBSD recently, last time I tried to use it there were no UEFI support
UEFI is not available on 7.x,it was committed to HEAD around 1,5 years ago and backported to 8.x. However, the sysinstall guided installer version which 8.0_RC1 ISO is shipped with, is still not updated to support it. Support wil likely come with 8.0_RC2 or 8.0 formal release. Therefore, the Installation on UEFI systems guide which was added a couple of weeks ago on NetBSD wiki, is still not usable and the only way to set up a GPT disk capable of EFI-booting on 8.0_RC1, is still doing it manually from CLI. I've recently posted a UEFI/GPT manual installation guide on DaemonForums, you can use it as sample ;).

also it is interesting to try nouveau driver, on GNU/Linux it works pretty well.
nouveau support is only up to 9xx for the moment. I tested it on Geforce GT 730M. 10xx is probably going to come with NetBSD 9.x, but it's not currently available even on HEAD.

Fortunately, most (all?) of the security -oriented things I mentioned above have been backported to 8.x, so Spectre/Metdown mitigation, intel microcode, ASLR, W^X, SSP, PIE, SMAP, NPF updated are things you should see on 8.0_RC1 already

My understanding is that 6.x/7.x are not something secure any longer and everybody, even in production, should update to 8.x as soon as a formal release gets out
 

dinsdale

Member

Reaction score: 7
Messages: 61

I have been privileged to first-hand PC-BSD history you have not and see things from a wider perspective than a fanboy.
Everyone needs fans, especially people that are doing difficult things.

Note the luarocks folder transfered to my desktop in the screenshot via the insight file manager. I believe that is the picture you are requesting?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot-2018-01-06-23-39-02.png
    Screenshot-2018-01-06-23-39-02.png
    173.5 KB · Views: 203
OP
S

Sensucht94

Guest


I'm going to try to use NetBSD again, only because of your posts about it, Sensucht94 :)

Just another thing, before you get disappointed :p: I'm close to 100% sure that as opposite, autofs, zfs, synaptics, dtrace, nvme, ext4 read, aarch64 and risc-v support, sndio, support for Integrated Intel graphics later than broadwell/haswell are all still available only on -current ;). Also, precious packages available in pkgsrc/wip compile on -current only
 

rigoletto@

Daemon
Developer

Reaction score: 1,218
Messages: 2,271

Oko a little off topic, but since you are always aware of what is going on DragonflyBSD, do you know if native encryption is a planned feature to Hammer2?

Thanks!
 

Trihexagonal

Daemon

Reaction score: 1,818
Messages: 2,389

Everyone needs fans, especially people that are doing difficult things.

Yes, I was one for 7 years till it turned into, what was the phrase I used when I left? Oh, yeah:

"The MicroSoft of the BSD World"

Which probably was better than what I just called it:

Because this is beginning to look like "a disorganized Linux distro that is splitting off into different directions".

Note the luarocks folder transfered to my desktop in the screenshot via the insight file manager. I believe that is the picture you are requesting?

Yes, it looks just like I remember it.

Screenshot-2018-01-06-23-39-02.pngmenu.png

Now point out on it on yours where it says Move to or Copy to for file transfer like you would to a USB stick is highlighted on mine.

It doesn't because you didn't show the right-click menu. Nice try, though:

When using the Lumina Insight file manager there is no way to move-to or copy-to a file or folder from the File Operations menu right-click menu. Only Rename, Cut, Copy, Delete, Archive or View File Checksums or Properties. I can’t believe I’m the only person who has used this that transfers files so someone had to notice this before. If I am mistaken and there is a way to do it please show me. You should not have to Drag and Drop a directory and when I tried it crashed.
https://discourse.trueos.org/t/my-thoughts-on-trueos/2196/10
 

hrenznaet

Member

Reaction score: 2
Messages: 54

Am I correct in thinking that PC-BSD/TrueOS/Trident is supposed to be competition to the Linux desktop?
Yes.

Because this is beginning to look like a disorganized Linux distro that is splitting off into different directions.
That's the bane of all open source.

But not as a functional desktop.
Yes, BSDs are not there yet at all, but one may dream, which is what they do.
Nothing wrong with that, this is exactly how technological progress is achieved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top