Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FreeBSD 13.0 Beta1 Now Available

lists.freebsd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: FreeBSD 13.0 Beta1 Now Available

#101

Post by oblio »

tal8d wrote: post #96
oblio wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sys V init was not a standard. Is it in POSIX? I can't find it.

One of these init systems is run by a guy that is openly hostile to POSIX, the other can be found on several different operating systems and has been around forever. hmmm...

Which "different operating systems"?

Only some Linux distros use SysV init and they're not any of the big players (Fedora/RH was the distro creating systemd), Ubuntu adopted systemd as the default 5 years ago, SUSE did the same 6 years ago, Debian 5 years ago. Almost everything else is a hobbyist OS (I've never seen Gentoo or Slackware in production anywhere else than at small companies where the server was on the critical path for maybe several tens of thousands of dollars, at best, which is peanuts on a global scale) or a niche OS (Alpine is used 95% as a container distro, and who freaking cares about the init system in a container? :-) ). Basically anyone who "puts there money where their mouth is" uses systemd.

SysV init was never adopted by BSD.

I think Solaris used to use it but it's been using Service Management Facility for the past 16 years.

HP/UX and AIX use SysV init, I think, but they're so vanishgly rare that 99% of developers and sysadmins out there could have the most successful careers in history and both HP/UX and AIX could be nuked from history for all they care.

And my point was that nobody even bothered to standardize SysV officially, though it was supposed to be a standard. That's how little everyone cared.

Poettering might be annoying, but he cares, he's opinionated and is actually knowledgeable. I've been using his software for a while and it's quite solid and his vision makes sense. POSIX isn't enough for a modern operating system.

Re: FreeBSD 13.0 Beta1 Now Available

#102

Post by tal8d »

oblio wrote: post #101
tal8d wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of these init systems is run by a guy that is openly hostile to POSIX, the other can be found on several different operating systems and has been around forever. hmmm...

Which "different operating systems"? Only some Linux distros use SysV init and they're not any of the big players (Fedora/RH was the distro creating systemd), Ubuntu adopted systemd as the default 5 years ago, SUSE did the same 6 years ago, Debian 5 years ago. Almost everything else is a hobbyist OS (I've never seen Gentoo or Slackware in production anywhere else than at small companies where the server was on the cr…

So what are you arguing? Because I see a list of disparate platforms sharing the same init system, and I see the homogeneity that is systemd/linux. What is that a counterpoint to? Or is this a celebration of network effect?

> POSIX isn't enough for a modern operating system.

So there should be no standard? I can think of only one time I ran into a shortcoming that can be blamed on POSIX, and a few more where the OS just did a bad job in implementing the standard. Can you imagine how awful things would be right now if the DoD hadn't forced the concepts of interface commonality and multi-source procurement? You'd likely be reading this on a Honeywell glass TTY hooked up to an IBM timeshare. Because without standards the network effect acts as an insurmountable barrier to entry, and incumbents fully control the height of that barrier with needless complexity and arbitrary breaking changes. Hell, not that long ago there was talk about wielding GPL export symbols as a weapon to punish nvidia... I'm no fan of nvidia, but I like the idea of an API inspired by spite a lot less. Also, in a world where your vision prevailed, there would be no AMD - because Intel already set the industry "standard", so why worry about second-source availability?

Re: FreeBSD 13.0 Beta1 Now Available

#103

Post by oblio »

tal8d wrote: post #102
oblio wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which "different operating systems"? Only some Linux distros use SysV init and they're not any of the big players (Fedora/RH was the distro creating systemd), Ubuntu adopted systemd as the default 5 years ago, SUSE did the same 6 years ago, Debian 5 years ago. Almost everything else is a hobbyist OS (I've never seen Gentoo or Slackware in production anywhere else than at small companies where the server was on the cr…

So what are you arguing? Because I see a list of disparate platforms sharing the same init system, and I see the homogeneity that is systemd/linux. What is that a counterpoint to? Or is this a celebration of network effect? > POSIX isn't enough for a modern operating system. So there should be no standard? I can think of only one time I ran into a shortcoming that can be blamed on POSIX, and a few more where the OS j…

> Because I see a list of disparate platforms sharing the same init system

Which one? I just listed the others and they all use different init systems...

> So there should be no standard

No, they should turn systemd into a real standard. ECMAinitd :-p

Re: FreeBSD 13.0 Beta1 Now Available

#104

Post by tal8d »

oblio wrote: post #103
tal8d wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what are you arguing? Because I see a list of disparate platforms sharing the same init system, and I see the homogeneity that is systemd/linux. What is that a counterpoint to? Or is this a celebration of network effect? > POSIX isn't enough for a modern operating system. So there should be no standard? I can think of only one time I ran into a shortcoming that can be blamed on POSIX, and a few more where the OS j…

> Because I see a list of disparate platforms sharing the same init system Which one? I just listed the others and they all use different init systems... > So there should be no standard No, they should turn systemd into a real standard. ECMAinitd :-p

Are you intentionally missing that the point is the fact that any one of them can use the portable init system that isn't systemd?

> No, they should turn systemd into a real standard. ECMAinitd :-p

Well systemd can only work on linux, by design. So every standard compliant init system would require that it package a linux kernel. That is not only moronic, but with history as our guide: would directly result in never patched, network active, embedded software.

Re: FreeBSD 13.0 Beta1 Now Available

#105

Post by michaelmrose »

znpy wrote: post #83
michaelmrose wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would question whether boot time is such a meaningful target. It's trivial to leave a system up days or weeks relying on hibernation or suspend instead. This seems especially true given that freebsd is even more likely than Linux to see use as a server instead of a desktop. Besides boot time on any init system with a fast ssd seems to be pretty damn quick. Saving 10 seconds every month will take a long time to pay…

I generally agree on relying on suspend/resume, but keep in mind that doing so will greatly reduce your laptop battery lifespan. It's a toll that I decided to accept, but most people aren't aware of that.

Your drain over a reasonable period for example unplug your laptop and shove in into a bag and take it out 1-8 hours SHOULD be relatively small.

For example this now admittedly dated review seems so suggest a drain of about 0.6% per hour.

https://lifehacker.com/how-much-battery-life-does-sleep-mode...

However the internet is seemingly full of complaints that machines drain fast during sleep so your experience may not be unusual but it might pay to check if something is wrong or at least sub-optimal.

For example GPU not actually turning off, usb device keeping it from sleeping, hardware or software waking up your machine.

Re: FreeBSD 13.0 Beta1 Now Available

#106

Post by nix23 »

forty wrote: post #88
nix23 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I cannot help being a bit sad that contribution like this will only benefit the few people that use FreeBSD Same could be said the other way around, the thing is Linux can implement it and even take the code, the other way is rather difficult....so much for freedom. And not sure what you mean with "few" people, the few Playstation 3/4/5 users? Juniper? OpnSense/Pfsense installations? Or the few Truenas/Freenas users…

I still expect the number to be pretty small compared to the number of Linux users, no matter how you define user (if playstation users counts as freebsd users, then I guess nearly everyone is a Linux user :) ) The point of the licence is a good point. Is the kind of code drewg123 is referring to regularly copied from BSD to Linux? (i understand it should be possible in this direction?). Thanks for the video, looks l…

>small compared to the number of Linux users

Not to mention all the Minix and NucleusRTOS Users ;)

Re: FreeBSD 13.0 Beta1 Now Available

#107

Post by forty »

nix23 wrote: post #106
forty wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still expect the number to be pretty small compared to the number of Linux users, no matter how you define user (if playstation users counts as freebsd users, then I guess nearly everyone is a Linux user :) ) The point of the licence is a good point. Is the kind of code drewg123 is referring to regularly copied from BSD to Linux? (i understand it should be possible in this direction?). Thanks for the video, looks l…

>small compared to the number of Linux users Not to mention all the Minix and NucleusRTOS Users ;)

Haha exactly :) my own definition of a user of an operating system is someone who know what operating system they are using. So a playstation and a Netflix user would not count as freebsd users (they are not using FreeBSD, they are using a playstation). Netflix engineers are the FreeBSD users. Pfsense and freenas users certainly counts ;)

Re: FreeBSD 13.0 Beta1 Now Available

#108

Post by kevans91 »

ashton314 wrote: post #53

I set up FreeBSD on my rpi 4 a while back and had to jump through some hoops to get it to recognize all the RAM available; [1] anyone know if this version will do that out of the box? [1]: https://lambdaland.org/posts/2020-12-23_freebsd_rpi4/

Sorry, a bit late; the ARM64 "RPI" image should work out of the box and recognize all of your RAM.

Re: FreeBSD 13.0 Beta1 Now Available

#109

Post by kevans91 »

ac29 wrote: post #44
erichocean wrote: post #13

Is Raspberry Pi 4 support included?

According to this Rpi4 works with the Rpi3 image: https://wiki.freebsd.org/arm/Raspberry%20Pi

This is outdated; the RPI3 image has been removed for 13.0/14.0-CURRENT with a new RPI image that should serve all (~both) aarch64 Pi.

Re: FreeBSD 13.0 Beta1 Now Available

#110

Post by paulmd »

dagenix wrote: post #64
paulmd wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samsung was one of the companies caught using their apps to scrape data out of the filesystem (config files and logs from other apps, location from camera roll, etc) and using it to bypass permissions you didn't want to give them. https://www.xda-developers.com/android-permissions-bypass-pl... https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/facebook-scraping-call-m... They are completely terrible on privacy, lol, the answer here…

I'm not really sure what you are getting at. Regardless of what Samsung is doing, I'm confused by the argument that encryption is useless because Samsung might take steps to work around it when not using a Samsung device is a viable option.

Samsung has below-root-level access on their phones, their apps are fundamentally aggressive towards your privacy (as repeatedly demonstrated in practice) and impossible to dig out without a complete image replacement. Maybe not even then.

If you care about privacy, you don't buy Samsung phones (or other products like TVs). They are the tip of the spear on data collection.

Post reply on HN