# FreeBSD 10.1 is awesome!



## frijsdijk (Nov 21, 2014)

Reading the release notes of 10.1 a couple of days ago, I was very impressed with the loads of improvements in so many areas, that we didn't wait long before upgrading some of our Very Important Machines in our network (mainly ZFS-based storage machines) and the improvements show right away. Very pleased indeed. With the 1M $ donation recently given to the FreeBSD foundation as well, the future looks bright!


----------



## ucsdboy (Nov 21, 2014)

+1! Definitely my daily driver!


----------



## sw2wolf (Nov 22, 2014)

Can 9.3-RELEASE be upgraded directly to 10.1 using freebsd-update? 

Regards!


----------



## Beastie (Nov 22, 2014)

sw2wolf said:


> Can 9.3-RELEASE be upgraded directly to 10.1 using freebsd-update ?


I can't see any reason why not. Make sure you read the FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE installation instructions. They include some notes on upgrading from 9.3.


----------



## Oko (Nov 22, 2014)

Beastie said:


> I can't see any reason why not. Make sure you read the FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE installation instructions. They include some notes on upgrading from 9.3.


I can see many reasons why not! For starters 10.xxx uses a different tool chain than 9.3. BIND is removed from the base and many other intrusive changes. Actually real upgrading is not even possible from 10.0.pX to 10.1-RELEASE because of UEFI additions  to the 10.1 boot sequence.


----------



## junovitch@ (Nov 22, 2014)

sw2wolf said:


> Can 9.3-RELEASE be upgraded directly to 10.1 using freebsd-update ?
> 
> Regards!


Yes, it's mentioned in the release notes:


> Systems running 8.[4]-RELEASE, 9.[123]-RELEASE, 10.0-RELEASE, 10.1-RC[1234] can upgrade as follows:


https://www.freebsd.org/releases/10.1R/installation.html


----------



## frijsdijk (Nov 22, 2014)

I haven't done any 9.3->10.1 upgrades yet, only two 10.0 -> 10.1 upgrades. These were ZFS storage machines for backups. As Oko mentioned already, BIND is removed in favor of Unbound. For the rest, I guess it all depends on what this machine is doing?


----------



## wblock@ (Nov 23, 2014)

Remember that BIND is still in ports.  The only difference is the expected location of the configuration files, rather than in /etc/namedb, the port expects them in /usr/local/etc/namedb.  Oh, and the option to run named in a chroot(8) is not available.  For better security, it can be run in a jail: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.IS...k/jails-ezjail.html#jails-ezjail-example-bind.


----------



## Oko (Nov 23, 2014)

wblock@ said:


> Remember that BIND is still in ports.  The only difference is the expected location of the configuration files, rather than in /etc/namedb, the port expects them in /usr/local/etc/namedb.  Oh, and the option to run named in a chroot(8) is not available.  For better security, it can be run in a jail: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.IS...k/jails-ezjail.html#jails-ezjail-example-bind.


And for even better security it should be not run at all  and NSD should be used instead. What kind a DNS server uses Python programming language? BIND 10 of course Now FreeBSD firstly has to fix the problems with random numbers


----------



## jmccue (Nov 24, 2014)

I agree, 10.1 is quite nice.  It was also the first time I used bsdinstall(), based upon the comments I have seen, I was a bit concerned.  But turned out it was easy to use, got a slightly confused on disk partitioning (needed a repartition) but was easy enough to figure out 

edit: forgot, pkgng also impressive


----------

