9.10.3 renamed 11.0?

[jpringle03]

It appears that FreeNAS 9.10.3 release is going to be renamed FreeNAS 11? I wonder if the team will give any reasoning for this.

It makes sense since changing the underlying OS version to FreeBSD 11 but putting out an 11 so quickly after killing Corral (10) kind of puts a bad taste in your mouth.

 

[Mlovelace]

It appears that FreeNAS 9.10.3 release is going to be renamed FreeNAS 11? I wonder if the team will give any reasoning for this.

It makes sense since changing the underlying OS version to FreeBSD 11 but putting out an 11 so quickly after killing Corral (10) kind of puts a bad taste in your mouth.

It make the most sense of the last several naming conventions. I don't see why call the freebsd 11 base version freeNAS 11 would leave a bad taste. You've gotta restart somewhere, might as well do it right. ;)

 

[jpringle03]

It make the most sense of the last several naming conventions. I don't see why call the freebsd 11 base version freeNAS 11 would leave a bad taste. You've gotta restart somewhere, might as well do it right. ;)

That's true. I guess just iterating the number over Corral is what I meant.

I just hope they get Docker support added back in ASAP with a migration plan for Corral users.

 

[Mlovelace]

It will support VMs so you could always make a rancherOS VM to run your Docker containers.

 

[m0nkey_]

FreeNAS 9.10 was supposed to be FreeNAS 10, but because the 'next generation' FreeNAS was going to be called FreeNAS 10, they couldn't use that name/number. Now that FreeNAS Corral has been put to bed, it makes sense to bring the numbering in line to what it always used to be (typically the same as the FreeBSD version).

 

[gpsguy]

Yeah. See the other FreeNAS 11 thread I created a couple hours ago.

 

[brando56894]

I was wondering why there were no new nightlies for 9.10.3 since 4/19 then I saw the FreeNAS 11 train...

 

[SavageAUS]

It will support VMs so you could always make a rancherOS VM to run your Docker containers.

Got a guide for that?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Mlovelace]

Got a guide for that?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

http://docs.rancher.com/rancher/v1.5/en/quick-start-guide/

 

[Dudleydogg]

What caused the demise of corral, I never went to that version due to no iSCSI support in the GUI since 99% of what I use FreeNAS for is iSCSI San made no sense for me. 11 Look promising seems?

 

[Stux]

What caused the Demise of corrall, I never went to that version due to no iscsi support in the GUI since 99% of what i use Freenas for is iscsi San made no sense for me. 11 Look promising seems?

At a guess.... the impossibility of rolling it out to TrueNAS... ever.

A software engineering rule about never rewriting a successful system was broken ;)

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/

Netscape 6.0 is finally going into its first public beta. There never was a version 5.0. The last major release, version 4.0, was released almost three years ago. Three years is an awfully long time in the Internet world.

Sound familiar?

Microsoft almost made the same mistake, trying to rewrite Word for Windows from scratch in a doomed project called Pyramid which was shut down, thrown away, and swept under the rug. Lucky for Microsoft, they had never stopped working on the old code base, so they had something to ship, making it merely a financial disaster, not a strategic one

Familiar aswell.

</conjecture>

 

[brando56894]

What caused the Demise of corrall, I never went to that version due to no iscsi support in the GUI since 99% of what i use Freenas for is iscsi San made no sense for me. 11 Look promising seems?

Pretty much what it came down to was disorganization (regarding how the tickets were handled), no automated testing built into the GUI which meant that something was almost always broke in it no matter if it was a nightly or a milestone build, and the Montage project (which the GUI was based on) died about a year ago so the FreeNAS devs were left to fix everything themselves if they wanted to use it. Also Plan 9 FS, which they decided to use as the primary transport protocol between VMs and the host, isn't natively supported by BSD and isn't used often in Linux, so it has constant problems that were difficult to track down.

There was SCSI support in the GUI, but there weren't access to any of the options, it was a dumbed down interface.