Active discussions

Derivatives — Embedded device operating systems listEdit

Not sure this list of commercial products is noteworthy. I think instead perhaps we should just link to List of products based on FreeBSD. KMeyer (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


This operating system looks much more reliable than competitors. Typical uptime of production machine should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC) version 5 : 2222 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch doesn't use FreeBSDEdit

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

Prominent patriostistic flags should be avoided world-wideEdit

The screenshot with the big flag is inappropriately out of topic. I do assume that it was put there *on purpose* or the guy who did the screenshot has been living for so long in an exaggerated patriotic community that he doesn't *think* anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Really? The screenshot includes a photograph of one of the contributors of FreeBSD and a FreeBSD foundation board member on a FreeBSD desktop and it took me 5 minutes to even figure out what flag you were even talking about. (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The “patriotistic” flag, whatever that is supposed to mean, is actually an Xfce tray widget that indicates the current keyboard layout. I know because I created the port in 2004. It looks huge because nobody in the Xfce project has a single clue about graphic design. DES (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Trimming "Version history"Edit

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 ParagraphEdit

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.

Violation of the Unix trademark?Edit

The text of the article currently states:

FreeBSD is a direct descendant of BSD, which was historically called "BSD Unix" or "Berkeley Unix" (in violation of the UNIX trademark).

This sounds wrong to me. BSD Unix was Unix. It shared the code base. It wasn't until the AT&T stuff was excised in the early 1990s that BSD lost the right to be called Unix. Does anybody disagree? I plan to remove this claim of violation. Groogle (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

As the saying went, "Unix is a trademark of Bell Laboratories", later "...a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories" and, still later, one of the "registered trademarks of AT&T" listed.
So Bell Labs, later AT&T, got to decide to whom to license the trademark. There was a time when they only allowed the trademark to be used for systems with few differences from the code they sold; "shared the code base" wasn't sufficient. (When I was at Sun, in the late 1980's, we changed the name printed in the OS banner from "Sun UNIX 4.2BSD" to "SunOS", at AT&T's request, when we started working with AT&T on what ultimately became SVR4, due to the trademark issue.)
So BSD UNIX "was Unix" in the sense of being derived from the AT&T code base, but that didn't grant the University of California, Berkeley, or any vendor who based their OS on BSD UNIX, a right to use the Bell Labs/AT&T trademark.
However, AT&T then sold the code, and the trademark rights, to Novell; Novell later sold the code to SCO and the trademark rights to X/Open. Later X/Open merged with The Open Group; The Open Group now own the trademark. They license it for use with any system that passes their validation suite for the Single Unix Specification, regardless of how much AT&T code, if any, was used in that system. (NetBSD explicitly say they're not UNIX - not because they have little AT&T code left, but because they haven't been licensed for the trademark.)
So if somebody were to take FreeBSD (or NetBSD, or OpenBSD, or DragonFly BSD, or pick-your-favorite-Linux-distribution, or...) try to run it through the Single Unix Specification validation suite, fix the problems that appeared, try to run it again, lather, rinse, repeat..., they could eventually produce something for which the "UNIX" trademark would be licensed, making it a "UNIX(R)", regardless of how much AT&T code remained. In fact, an organization did take an OS with a kernel based on a combination of Mach and BSD kernel code, and a lot of BSD userland code, and go through that very cycle, and produced something that can have the UNIX trademark applied to it (and have continue to do so for all releases since the first one for which that was done).
And AT&T did, in fact, sue the Regents of the University of California and Berkeley Software Design, Inc. for, among other things, trademark issues. At least as I read the court's opinion (usual disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer), they didn't completely dismiss the trademark complaints of AT&T, so I'm not sure whether AT&T's claim to a right to decide what's a "UNIX(R)" was rejected. Guy Harris (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

GA ReassessmentEdit

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)
Return to "FreeBSD" page.