Development Release: FreeBSD 10.2-RC2

Printable View

02.08.15, 02:28
SealLion

Development Release: FreeBSD 10.2-RC2

The BSD systems are not for n00bs, for sure. I don't even think I'd use one. I also read from some previous reviews that this particular system and even some other BSD systems aren't exactly user friendly. Regardless, the BSD systems are some of the most proactively secure systems one can get.

Quote:

Glen Barber has announced the availability of a test release for FreeBSD 10.2. The new release candidate, version 10.2-RC2, offers users a number of improvements to UEFI support, laptop suspend/resume and driver updates. Security updates discovered since the previous release candidate have been patched and more work has been done on the 10.2 release notes, which are a work in progress. Work has also been done to make the live images for ARM devices more accessible ...

And here's the link:

Quote:

Development Release: FreeBSD 10.2-RC2 (DistroWatch.com News)
02.08.15, 23:13
Instab

bsd is always a good choice. real unix, no toys :top:
03.08.15, 03:00
SealLion

I guess kind of it might be, Instab. However, with BSD, there is less restriction of including closed source software/apps into these types of 'unix' systems. With a Linux/GNU OS, there exists the GPL license which prevents the inclusion of closed source software. Mainly to ensure that open source technology is included into that type of system.

Whereas with BSD systems, these include binary sources. With GPL, that license ensures that code is open source and gives people the right to use software anyway they deem necessary.

What's unfortunate that I find is that some of the BSD licenses don’t require that a person ensure that the next person who want's to use or even modify code, make that code available.

The other thing is that with BSD, the code isn't really controlled, so to speak by any one person or group. Whereas the Linux kernel is more or less controlled by Linus Torvalds.

It kind of reminds me of the old True Crypt program. It wasn't at all open source. It was controlled. Some what quasi-open source, if you will. And hence you have organizations like the Fedora Project which refused to support True Crypt because that whole mess with that program wasn't really open source in the true sense. Regardless, getting back to topic. The thing is, is that with BSD systems, they are a bit more similar to UNIX because they're direct derivatives of a traditional unix system (so your right with what you mention in your comment and I agree with you), whereas with Linux/GNU OS, in the beginning, and still to this day, it was/is a newly created OS which was more or less loosely based on a unix derivative.
03.08.15, 10:49
Instab

Quote:

Originally Posted by SealLion

I guess kind of it might be, Instab. However, with BSD, there is less restriction of including closed source software/apps into these types of 'unix' systems. With a Linux/GNU OS, there exists the GPL license which prevents the inclusion of closed source software. Mainly to ensure that open source technology is included into that type of system.

not sure i follow, you can grab the freebsd source anytime.

Quote:

Whereas with BSD systems, these include binary sources.

binary sources? not sure what you mean. you can either get the source (code) or the resulting binaries.

Quote:

some of the BSD licenses don’t require that a person ensure that the next person who want's to use or even modify code, make that code available.

that can also be a plus.

Quote:

The other thing is that with BSD, the code isn't really controlled, so to speak by any one person or group

that's wrong. all bsd flavors have a core group of people working on it and the major difference is that these people are relatively mature, professional and keep the number of silly calls relatively low in comparison. another very important point there is that ...

Quote:

Whereas the Linux kernel is more or less controlled by Linus Torvalds.

... unlike linux which as you mentioned is just a kernel the bsds are a full package. having the effect that the system as a whole is thought through and the components actually work together.
linux on the other hand is a patchwork. the vast number of distributions alone shows how little common ground there is and a total lack of standards when it comes to important parts. from a developer's perspective it can't get much worse so the only choice is to limit support to a small selection of distributions if at all.

the only disadvantage of bsd is as you said that it's not as easy to use as some others. for that ease of use however you have to pay a high price which is nothing less but sacrificing a fundamental quality of unix: hassle-free and direct control of the whole system.