FreeBSD 14.4-Release Announcement

> Or just run -current in production, like we do.[0]

If you develop, it's probably best to do that against current [1], but if I'm running a web, mail, file, database, etc, server there is IMHO very little advantage to doing so. Most folks aren't trying to push >400Gbps.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4TZxj-Dq7s

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ0mvmZtbaY

Seems like the reason is to catch new bugs, fix them and upstream the fixes promptly, with a team of 10 doing that. Sounds awesome, but I could see other people just passively consuming stable.

While I also use -current, I don't think this is good advice to the kinds of people who don't know if they should be running 14.4 or 15.0. There are caveats to running -current (for example, you need to disable the built-in debugging stuff on -current to get decent performance but the debugging stuff is already disabled on actual releases), so I think for new people it's best to recommend they use the latest release (15.0) and they can discover -current when they are more familiar with FreeBSD.

Yes, FreeBSD current is quite usable. It's fun to start using the new features as they are added to kernel and userland immediately !

Yeah but nobody else has as many a FreeBSD developers on staff to fix stuff when it breaks. Or, you know, to run monthly stabilization weeks and extensively QA before deploying to a herd of cattle.

There are so many factors in favour of Netflix running 16.0 which don't apply elsewhere.

The networking subsystem is probably the place where FreeBSD is most competitive with Linux.

Linux just supports so much more hardware capabilities and fancy ways of doing things (e.g. io_uring, bpf logic in kernel etc.) that an expertly setup and tuned Linux system will probably exceed the networking speed of FreeBSD and provide more features while doing so. I'm not a networking expert by any means but this is what my understanding is.

I use FreeBSD for mostly for taste and the other reasons I outlined in my detailed answer above even though Linux is superior performance wise.

>> and approaches Linux performance in some areas (e.g. Networking)

> FreeBSD has been the gold standard for networking features and performance for decades; not sure I'd agree.

This is the accepted wisdom. But reality on the ground is that Linux has probably surpassed FreeBSD in this domain too. With bpf programs making dynamic packet steering decisions in kernel space, io_uring, support for every hardware networking enhancement under the sun and $$$ being spent by everybody on the Linux networking stack (to speed up AI training or supercomputer clusters for example) I doubt a highly tuned Linux box will be slower than the equivalent FreeBSD one.

(P.S. I'm not a networking expert. This is my assessment though. Someone well versed with networking on both FreeBSD and Linux should confirm on this !)

By the way - does 32bit packages 'problem' for WINE has been resolved on 15.x series?

On 14.x and older versions WINE brings `/usr/local/share/wine/pkg32.sh` to keep 32bit packages for WINE32 ... but 15.x does not build 32bit packages anymore ...

Are you using pkgbase on 15 now or still using the old approach ?

> FWIW, openSUSE defaults to btrfs on the root filesystem and uses snapper in a very similar manner to zfs boot environments on FreeBSD.

CachyOS (Archlinux derivative) with either GRUB (since recently), or Limine Bootloader(since longer), too.

Ish. Most FreeBSD installs still make use of stuff like Wayland and a lot of Linux parts.

NetBSD - situation does not seem that good. Project feels less active now.

OpenBSD - has a fanatical band of security obsessed users. Not going away anytime soon.

FreeBSD - It chugs along. Why is FreeBSD worth trying out ? See my reply above.

I love the BSDs; I have the most experience with FreeBSD, I regularly use macOS, and lately I’ve been learning NetBSD due to its rumpkernel.

With that said, with the decline of commercial Unix and the dominance of Linux, POSIX, in my opinion, has become less important, and in its place Linux seems to be the standard. I prefer the BSDs to Linux due to its design and documentation, but Linux has better hardware support, and the FOSS ecosystem, especially the desktop, is increasingly embracing Linuxisms such as Wayland and systemd. The FOSS BSD ecosystems are too small to counter the Linuxization of the Unix ecosystem, and I feel that Apple does not pay much attention to the BSD side of macOS these days.

I don’t expect the BSDs to die, but I do believe they’ll need to find ways to adapt to an increasingly Linux-dominated FOSS ecosystem.

Has Netcraft confirmed it?

Whenever people use unnecessary commas like this, I hear nothing but William Shatner in my mind.

"BSD is dying" has been a popular (at least with kids and trolls and Linux fans) jeer for the past three-ish decades.

The reality of it is kinda like "Buffalo Bills will win the Superbowl this year".

...just as soon as Linux takes over the desktop! ;-)

Diversity of programming languages, operating systems, cultures, human languages, countries, music etc. always gives a fresh perspective I've found. You may go back to what you prefer at the end but it gives you learnings that are at a "higher level" :-)

> Is this still true, given how much runs through systemd now?

Yes, still true. On FreeBSD you will realize what complexity systemd might be hiding from you and what additional features it provides. BTW I don't actually like rc init on FreeBSD that much ! I feel that rc.d can learn a lot from more modern init systems like systemd, dinit etc. I don't like reading highly complex rc scripts !!

Systemd comes to mind, although it wasn’t as dominant initially

> How does Linux have a monoculture? You'd think it is anything but "mono" with all the distros.

The kernel, systemd, most mainstream distros use glibc, a whole bunch of GNU utilities, GCC being the default on many distros. Versus a different kernel, different libc, different utilities (gawk vs One True Awk), clang default.

Yes, within Linux there is diversity -- I was not talking about that. The server space in 2026 is dominated by Linux.

Solaris ? Gone* WindowsNT ? Niche. HP-UX ? Gone* AIX ? Gone* macOS ? Not in server. FreeBSD ? Niche (smaller than WindowsNT though).

In another world there would be at least two open source server os-es battling it out (like in hardware where we have aarch64 vs x64 and so on).

(*) "Gone" means probably a rounding error by now.

> Translation: whatever investments in time, tooling, training and documentation you made for 14.x, they were useful for about 18 months.

Don't agree. Not too many differences between 15.0 and 14.x -- there are some changes -- mostly improvements and enhancements, many just internal but nothing that voids your pre-existing knowledge of FreeBSD or changes your approach drastically.

> x.0 shouldn't be deployed in production because it is brand new ...

Is that true ? Could depend on how conservative you are. 15.0 came out in ~Dec 2025 and we're now in March 2026... I'd say 15.0+latest security fixes/errata should be OK for _most_ people ? 15.1 should be out in June 2026 for those who absolutely insist on waiting...

> in part because I can’t decide whether to go with pkgbase or not…

pkgbase is optional in FreeBSD 15 BTW.

One way to upgrade the base system and another to upgrade packages just feels inconsistent to me and pkgbase finally resolves that. I've not had any problems with pkgbase. I love it and would highly recommend it.

> Huh, in a point release?

MFCed (merged from current):

* https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=e97ad33a89a78f55280b...