Talk:FreeBSD

Nintendo Switch doesn't use FreeBSD

Saying the Switch uses FreeBSD is misleading. It uses a very tiny part of FreeBSD that is already used in **many** other devices : its TCP stack. The switch OS cannot be considered a FreeBSD derivative.

I propose that either the references to the Switch is removed from the article, as it is not at all relevant. Roblabla (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC) roblabla

I agree that it is misleading to say that the Switch uses or is derivative of FreeBSD, but by your own admission it does use code from it. I see nowhere that mentions the prominence of this code in other systems, which should be considered relevant.

Bsdrevise (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Trimming "Version history"

Is anyone opposed to trimming the version history section? All this information is contained in FreeBSD version history, and having so many older versions listed clutters the article, in my opinion. In a previous discussion, I stated that I preferred having a brief prose section mentioning "the first version, important releases and branches, the latest supported releases, and expected major releases". I'd like to trim off all versions earlier than 10.0 from the table, and add a short blurb of text as a lead for the section. Mindmatrix 14:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I just did so per this suggestion and the one in the GA reassessment. I'm sure this could be whittled down much more as I simply merged the major versions together and could remove some of the more minor bullet points. I could remove the ones prior to 10.0 as you suggest, but should probably at least give a brief mention to the ones before. However, even the change so far resulted in the size of the page going down more than 5 KB. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

Shouldn't we note in the second paragraph that FreeBSD is an operating system while Linux is just a kernel? Even if we want to say that BSD in general offers complete software, then we shouldn't mention it in FreeBSD, but rather in the BSD entry.

Which version was the first, free from AT&T code?

I found it confusing in the history section of the article. The 1991 (Net-2), 1992 or 1994 after the lawsuit was the first release without AT&T code? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siavoshkc (talk • contribs) 14:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Net-2. Its predecessor Net-1 was hacked to remove AT&T code, but six files remained that contained at least some AT&T code. These were excised, and the resulting code was released as Net-2. Later, 386BSD was released containing (among other changes) replacement copies for those six excised files. Mindmatrix 16:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Article should be renamed to The FreeBSD Operating System

The first point of the "Proper Use of the FreeBSD Marks" section at https://freebsdfoundation.org/legal/trademark-usage-terms-and-conditions/ mandates that the FreeBSD Marks should not be used as nouns, and includes an example of proper use “I installed the FreeBSD operating system”. I believe that according to these rules this article should be renamed to The FreeBSD Operating System or possibly FreeBSD Operating System. I might also be completely wrong and might have misunderstood these rules and the context of their application, my apologies for the noise if that's the case :) Suzanne Soy (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Many (all?) trademarks are adjectives, and the trademark holder's lawyers may decree that the only proper use is "Frobozz brand chocolate-coated rutabaga", as in "I'll have three Frobozz brand chocolate-coated rutabagas, please", rather than "I'll have three Frobozzes, please".

However, in practice, most people don't do that, and Wikipedia has articles such as UNIX rather than "UNIX operating system", Kleenex rather than "Kleenex brand facial tissue", etc.. I don't think The Open Group or Kimberly-Clark have sent their lawyers after us, and I don't think the FreeBSD Foundation are likely to do so, either. I don't see anything obvious in the Manual of Style about this, but, given the existence of several articles with names that are trademarks, I don't see this as a problem. Guy Harris (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The trademark holder's wishes are irrelevant to anyone who is neither an affiliate of the trademark holder nor engaged in competing line of trade. WP:MOSTM is already clear that we do not decorate trademarks with registered-trademark signs, nor do we write them in all caps, nor twist usage in other ways that trademark lawyers tell their clients to demand without any foundation in grammatical reality. The lawyers, in such cases, are simply wrong, and can safely be ignored because there is no possibility of confusion or unfair competition. 121a0012 (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy about common names applies here. Mindmatrix 14:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Updated to 13.0-Release

I am having an issue trying to find the InfoBox section regarding "Latest release" in order to add today's release of 13.0. Perhaps I am missing something, but can't locate that info to update it.NantucketHistory (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's in a "latest stable software release" template. The "Latest release" item in the infobox has two small "[±]" items with links; if you click on them, it will open that template for editing. The same applies to the "Latest preview" item, which opens up FreeBSD's "latest preview software release" template for editing. Guy Harris (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:FreeBSD/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article most notably fails section 1(b) by having numerous short sections and long lists, and is weak on 2(c) with 59 out of 143 citations self-sourced. I believe we should remove the version history section as being redundant with the separate article as another editor has already suggested, and improve content/sourcing as needed. I have worked on the OpenBSD article including leading a WP:FAR, and want to get a common consensus for how BSD articles should look. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs some improvement. Fixing 1b should be straightforward. 2c Can be improved by changing version history table. I don't think it should be fully removed, but maybe simplified to only contain the major releases and significant changes between them:

Version history

version	major version release date	changes
1.x	release date	everything what happened between 1.0 and 2.0
2.x	release date	everything what happened between 2.0 and 3.0

With link to article with full version history, it shouldn't be confusing and seems to be consistent with WP:NOTCHANGELOG. I also believe that the article goes into too much detail while describing some features, like in FreeBSD#Virtualization. It gives it unnecessary attention. The subsection in question has more content than the main article about the subject. – K4rolB (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Could do with substantial updating

Hello everyone! I have been reviewing the article, it is good but some of the information is now dated in places. I am posting this to see if there is enthusiasm for a review of the article to perhaps include a more substantial change to some of the sections and was interested if anyone had any ideas. I am very new to the wiki and hope my changes are welcomed, if you notice anything out of place or any serious errors drop me a message please!

In particular,

• Root shell is now sh not tcsh
• Some arch support has changed tiers
• Could mention more about the influence of the tcp stack on other operating systems
• Might be worth mentioning approach to security issues like meltdown, spectre, et al
• Could use more up to date statistics on usage
• Nothing about the switch from svn to git
• Lacking information on package management and in particular not a single mention of the proposed pkgbase
• Would be good to have more detail on the uniqueness of any kernel subsystems and libc
• Nothing about the Forth/Lua bootloader

To name just a few!

Bsdrevise (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

New 14.0 release

Please update info about last release, because they release the 14.0 85.119.196.3 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)