Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 4.0 Code Freeze
MagusX writes "FreeBSD 4.0 has just gone into a 30 day code freeze leading up to release." This is as good an opportunity as any to mention that our earlier "code freeze" story in fact turned out to be a feature freeze in the run up to the release, and not a code freeze. The 30-day freeze is longer than average for FreeBSD, but as this will be a .0 release, it was felt necessary to spend as much time as possible making sure it's as stable as possible.
Send the person responsible a Virtual Kick In The Nuts!!! http://nuts.webdice.net
I know this is off-topic, but would someone please close that bold tag? It's very disturbing.
You are a dumb, dumb dork. But I love you. Give me a hug!
Instead of Windows - If you want UN*X.
Instead of Linux - You don't want to eat the bait, hook and sink of the Linux hype.
All you want is a Free(Like in Freedom) UN*X like system with kick as security and power.
Generally I feal that FreeBSD is like a mix of Debian and SlackWare, without the bad parts.
So where can I buy software for FreeBSD? Is it sold in stores? Or does FreeBSD only run open-sourced internet-acquired software?
-The same AC as above.
Frozen B&^HSD indeed.
Where did you find the hardware compatibility list and feature list for 4.x?
Wow. This was scored up why?
:-)
1. Linux is a Unix Workalike. The only thing that makes BSD 'real' was all the legal BS it went through ages ago over it being a 'real unix' (not meant to be a flame, but largely fact)
2. Linux isn't stable? Funny, that's the first I've heard of it. And I run an 'unstable' distro of Debian. Linux supports more, and if you turn on all the newest bells and whistles.. Well you won't be 'rock hard stable'. After all, the latest bells and whistles are in *development* kernels/software.
3. If you're going back to the old 'Security' argument, you shouldn't even list FreeBSD as a contender. The only 'true secure' BSD is OpenBSD. And I mean that somewhat sarcastically. It's secure because it was audited from top to bottom.. And as a result, there's a little less code, a little less software. AFAIC, Debian treats security *very* well. As do all the BSD's.
So in the end.. Well, those shouldn't be reasons to go from Linux to BSD. They make good reasons for going Windows to Linux or BSD
Further proof that this guy has nothing interesting to say, even when he's not karma whoring. Keep up the good work.
freebsd 4 has had gcc 2.95 for quite some time. Using builtin specs. gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
... and counting.
But.. none of that is really interesting. Tweaks to the VM system, SVR4 binary support, some new drivers, IPFW logging to a different file, a new version of the compiler, and a new syscall.
That warrants a new major version number? It's about the number of changes Linux has after about 10 patchlevel increases.
new DK support
nice work
Get with it Linus, Alan - adopt egcs like the rest of the friggin computer world.
I'm glad they completely revamped the DK support for this version of the kernel. Much improved.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/01/28/16532 28&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread &pid=18#33
5 3228&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread &pid=33#111
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/01/28/16
OpenSource DKwear
Sorry about that nasty mess. I goofed. Jason
Here are the stats DK SCSI old vs. new
Further proof that some people, having nothing interesting to say, have to constantly berate other posters.
Maybe better than other distros, but it's still not great. I'm constantly removing the setuid bit from programs, as every time apt-upgrade my system they return. Can someone explain why a mail server (exim) needs to be setuid-root? Inetd can be used to run it on a privileged port, and setgid-mail would be good enough to write to mail spools (chown user:mail /var/spool/mail/user ; chmod g+w /var/spool/mail/user). And try installing the ssh client. The client and server are together in one package, so installing ssh automatically starts up sshd, without even asking you. I think the telnet client works the same way, I found a telnet server running right after I installed Debian.
So now I have a secure.sh script that I run whenever I upgrade my system. It removes 12 services (such as exim, which I only use to *send* mail - dselect won't let me uninstall it anyway, as some other program [unnecessarily] depends on mail-transfer-agent), 14 setuid bits, 4 setgid bits, and sets 9 setuid programs so only the "wheel" group can run them.
dk() info
dk nod code freeze
That's sheer bullshit. FreeBSD makes an excellent desktop. It runs most of the Linux programs that were written for generic UNIX-type systems. Seriously, you and the Linux community is much more arrogant that you accuse the BSD crowd to be. Choose Linux if you want the user support of a clan of 13-year-olds to provide support.
OpenSource link
Different kinds of candy.
I like candymix where I can do both, like in the BSDs, like "pkg_add" and "make install".
dont forget those 13 year olds are going to grow up and earn more than you will ever earn. and they'll hate BSD and its users for ignoring them. those 13 year olds are going to push the technology and if BSD users dont grow up, the BSDs will be left behind.
Linux Mandrake 7.0 does the insecurity report, too.
in case you arent 'with it', gcc == egcs now.
This was deserved.
I agree with the guy. Signal11 is a huge dork.
You want a "real unix"
You want something more stable than either of the above mentioned OSes
You want something more secure than either of the above mentioned OSes
Isn't it by definition...
everything thats left over after you strip "real Unix" out?
You are such a dork.
I honestly desire a "Signal 11" filter.
Can I ignore any certian person?
"install -c -s -o root -g wheel -m 4555 -fschg rcp /bin /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: install: Undefined symbol "string_to_flags" *** Error code 1" Where can i get the source to install. i cant find it anywhere i look. thanks
Did OpenGL make it into 4.0?
_ROTFLMAO_. Ohhhh my god that picture made my day. ROTFLMAO!
Can someone give me an example on how they are actually using jail()?
I can think of a dozen theoretical ways that make it compelling, especially for custom firewalls/web servers/virtual servers for ISPs/... though I'd like to see how it works in practice.
I'm now thoroughly convinced of your idiocy.
-- Brian Fundakowski Feldman, FreeBSD committer (developer)
And people wonder why nobody uses FreeBSD? Maybe it's because of the "helpfulness" of people like yourself.
mean man posted make him stop whaaaaaa
Larger hardware support for Linux is largely a myth. There happen to be more both closed drivers and toy drivers for Linux.
So my dual UltraSparc running Linux is using "toy drivers" and that's why it can't run FreeBSD?
I do. I have to disagree that UNIX is a generic term nowadays. It refers to a specific lineage of software written by people who are considered to be gods among men because of what they've done. I could, because of Open Sourcing, take a Linux distribution, make a few changes, and still call it Linux. If I tried to call it BSD, it wouldn't even get out the door, because it's not BSD. Linux was written to emulate UNIX in many ways, but it had absolutely no access to the UNIX/BSD code base from which FreeBSD 4.0 and all other BSD flavors originate. It is, to be honest, a UNIX work-alike.
*sigh* Time for a reality check, guy. FreeBSD is no more UNIX than Linux is. All real UNIX code is encumbered by copyright, so FreeBSD had to clone it from the ground up, just like Linux. Just what do you think all those lawsuits in the early '90s were about, anyway?
Of course, now I need to say that OpenBSD is the most secure OS in the world.
Oh, bullshit! Things like Trusted Solaris and the various other B1-level-certified Unix variants (which, I might add, are really Unix, unlike *BSD and Linux, since they derive from AT&T code) are far more secure. And if you want real security, forget Unix altogether and get something like OS/390 or MVS or....
Thanks! You don't know how much that helped clear things up for me about *BSD. The strange thing is from the way you describe things it sounds a lot like Debian. The way the Debian upgrades have been going for me lately BSD and Debian sound like they work very similarly. For example the patch thing you mentioned. Unlike RedHat (and variants) Debian is pretty much a centralized source of all software. As long as you are installing an official .deb package it is designed to fit in seamlessly with the rest of the system. I'm pretty sure there is a Debian announce mailing list to keep up to date with the latest updates. A couple months ago I did a similar upgrade as you did (from stable to unstable) without too much pain, then again I didn't have many custom config files. Stil, now I'm starting to get interested in giving FreeBSD a try. Sounds like fun. :) -AX
Been there for awhile. I believe they call it aliasing or network address translation (NAT). If you're using a dialup connect, run userppp with the -alias flag and make sure you have "GATEWAY=YES" in the rc.conf. There's probably more, but I set my box up almost a year ago and haven't touched the settings since. If you have an ethernet or cable modem connection, you can use the natd.
because he cannot even hope to touch Natalie, even if she was petrified because billie only likes petrified little boys
The sounds a heck of a lot like Debian... -AX (Score:-2, Redundant)
Total agreemenet here. A lot of the FreeBSD folks seems to be elitist assholes. Just check out the the FreeBSD newsgroups on USENet and channels on IRC. Though Linux has its share, as well as Windows. But the jerk ratio in the FreeBSD camp seems to be definately higher.
With that being said, I've used FreeBSD and from the user's point of view its not a whole lot different from a Linux experience. Especially if you install the GNU equivalents of the standard command line utilities (fileutils, shellutils, etc.). I liken the install process to be similar to that of Slackware Linux, with FreeBSD's being a bit more slicker. Overall, FreeBSD is a very good system and the decision of whether to run Linux or FreeBSD is definitely a personal preference thing.
> fact is - any decent UNIX is secure if its admin know what the hell theyre doing. :-) Try maintaining 18 machine online. Compare OpenBSD versus Linux. Easy choice.
Two whole point about OpenBSD is that you *don't* need to spend hours to clean up your 'dirty' fresh install, removing suid programs, shutting off remote access, installing SSH. It comes SECURE BY DEFAULT which is a good thing. As an admin (not a hobbyist) you don't have time for all this playing around. And wondering if you overlooked something. If you claim you can redo the effort the OpenBSD team did in 5 years in a few hours... Fine. Dream on
I thought all FreeBSD news were colored red!
The base C/C++ compiler has been upgraded from GCC 2.7.2 to EGCS 1.1.2. This gives users full ISO C++ support.
Since when did EGCS have *full* ISO C++ support? Last I checked it didn't support the "export" keyword. And lets not talk about its C++ library ...
Here is the e-mail of this troll who's been posting the most boring link posts in the past month. delchi@dorsai.org - PLEASE ADD ME TO ALL SPAM LISTS
go away. BSD doesnt need anyone like you.
no remote root exploits ? *cough* *cough* what about the openssh exploit ? and if you think openbsd is secure by default with NO work from the admin including patches youre wrong. nothing can replace a good admin.
Is there any patch/software to support something similar to jail() on Linux ? jail() + capabilities + lids would really increase security.
What OpenSSH exploit? Explain please... it's not listed on the OpenBSD errata pages.
OpenBSD userland and libraries are NOT the same as Linux distribs. Try finding an OpenBSD userland pr ogram that your can make dump core...
Since you aren't 'with it', the egcs versions are still considered experimental, and always have been. egcs won't release a stable compiler until gcc 3.0.
All real UNIX code is encumbered by copyright, so FreeBSD had to clone it from the ground up, just like Linux. I'm not enough of a Linus groupie to know what he was trying to do when he wrote Linux, but the philosophy behind 4.4BSD-Lite is a direct and blatant rewrite of the proprietary code that came before it. What the programmers did was to basically reconstruct the copy-protected code in a new, lawsuit-free form. It's not a direct clone, but it's close enough to look, feel, and behave the same way. Linux is different -- I don't think it was written to emulate a *BSD. What Linus did was completely new and very different. Whereas the modern *BSDs came out of the ashes of the older, proprietary code, Linux is totally new (at least in source code terms).
Well now, it wouldn't be, because then Theo couldn't keep making his
claim of "no remote root exploits for 4 years". I happen to know for a
fact this claim is false (there's at least one other remote root exploit
I've found, now silently fixed), but I don't expect people to believe me
because I'm posting anonymously and not giving the evidence to support
my claim.
Incidently, not to fuel the "BSD is better/worse than linux" arguement, I generally find that FreeBSD is overall snappier than linux when I'm not hitting the disk for lots of little seeks. I do notice much better file performance in Linux with Reiserfs--even ext2 I guess. Why is this? Anyone know? When is BSD going to get a new fs like reiser?
So you make a broad and fairly unsubstantiated comment about Linux. Someone comes up with a counterpoint, you 'psh' them and make excuses. As long as you're talking about 'platforms that noone has interest in', why don't you just axe everything but x86? After all, that's where the user base is.
Hey while we're at it, and who needs i386 compatibility? Everyone should at *least* have a 486. Heck, why not just optomize for P5 class machines?
Almost every project within Open Source, with the exceptions of the ones that have proven to be commercial successes, go unfunded.. I find your argument largely without base.
-T
No, I honestly think you need to take a pill. You're all over this thread, doing your damndest to babble on about the 'myths' of Linux. The original post was the furthest thing from Trolling. The next one by the same AC asked for some verification. You went on, slandering the AC.
Now you accuse the poster of making 'incorrect rhetorical questions.' WTF is an incorrect question? Zealots like you need to crawl back under the rocks you come from. There's room for more then one bloody operating system on this planet. There just isn't room enough for all the flames the zealots toss about.
Looks like FreeBSD beats all the linux distros in supporting the 1 million + Promise Ultra66 users out-of-the-box.
Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. I got the Ultra66 and have since been trapped in NT.....
You're about 2 years out of date.
As you can see, I already explained myself around a few posts up. You really need to try to read everything before posting.
Explaining that you're an asshole doesn't excuse it.
Now, why don't you answer his / her question? S/he wants to know where to buy commercial software for their elite FreeBSD box. Surely there is some?
OpenBSD userland and libraries are NOT the same as Linux distribs.
/procfs root exploit all three *BSDs just patched.
That's true. Linux has *never* had that embarrassing
Now, can we stop the "my dick is bigger than yours" contest? This is getting silly on both sides.....
Traffic shaping might be a good reason.
;-)
Even though linux has traffic shaping support (that's bandwidth limiting etc), it's hardly documented and not well maintained.
Except that you don't know what you're talking about. The QoS stuff on Linux is miles ahead of the equivalent *BSD support. A couple of major ISPs here just switched to Linux from *BSD for that reason.
But then, Win2k also has QoS stuff, and it also works fairly well. Go figure
Yes, it's called ipnat.
This post was brought to with the assistance of OpenBSD and ipnat(1)...
Unfortunately, he was asking about FreeBSD, where it's natd, not ipnat. Also, it's ipfw, not ipfilter.
And people say the Linux world is fragmented? At least all 2.2-based distributions use ipchains, all 2.4-based use netfilter, etc.
'linux' doesnt encompass the userland software, whereas 'openbsd' as well as the otherbsds do. Everything that comes with openbsd is very heavily audited, and configured for security. There are no openbsd 'distributions', there is only openbsd. You should install openbsd in a spare partition if you really are skeptical, though be warned that you might learn something. Note that I do not use any bsd for desktop.
>*sigh*
man, god forbid a newbie asks a question of freebsd folks. man, dealing with all of the idiots in the world must be such a chore for you leet bsd h4x0r5.
We don't need trolls.
AC only usually == Troll.
When an OS is foolproof, then fools will use it.
ssh! dont spread it around. openBSD has no exploits..but a few that have been silently fixed.
To:
BugTraq
Subject:
OpenBSD sslUSA26 advisory (Re: CORE-SDI: Buffer overflow in RSAREF2)
Date:
Thu Dec 02 1999 01:42:11
Author:
Theo de Raadt
Message-ID:
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
----------------------------------------
..snipped..for security reasons.
OK.. So when you say 'Linux doesn't have as much hardware support as is believed' and then someone says 'Yes it does', you suddenly say that their point doesn't fit your argument?
Wow. What logical process led to that?
Sure it does - I've been running an SMP kernel since FreeBSD 3.0.
this is false
*sigh* *sigh* Network address translation in the Linux (and Cisco, and Firewall-1) world has a different meaning than in the BSD world. Network address translation refers to doing translation by drawing IP's from a pool, assigning a unique IP to each translated machine's connections. IP Masquerading (called hide-mode in FW-1) refers to doing translation by using TCP/IP port numbers to distinguish the translated connections.
By buying a BSD OS, reporting bugs, etc., one is supporting the development of software and of a "culture" which is more free than a GNU OS like Linux or Hurd which have a much higher proportion of software bound by the GPL.
Oh yeah, heaven forbid the unwashed masses should come in and mess up your little sandbox. Keep telling yourself that while you're running on your 10-year-old hardware because no vendor will cater to such a tiny user base.
it most certainly does. However, even in 4.0 the locking is not nearly as finely grained as linux.
You probably hate petrified girls and grits too. The best actor ever
Why don't you just use the linux 1.2.2 sdk on freebsd, it works, it seems to work as well as it does on linux. I agree it'd be nice to have a native port, but its better than nothing (for when 1.8 won't do).
perhaps you would see it that way if you had a hair-trigger for percieved slights against the one true OS.
What is it that we notice? We notice a surge of interest and third party support for both BeOS and Linux. But look at Freebsd news -- it is not news at all but self-generated press releases and vanity stories. Contrast that with ascending systems like Linux. More real independent news appears in one day about Linux than appears in a year about all the BSDs combined. That is indisputable fact.
We should all recognize that Nik Clayton who posted this story is really not an impartial observer. He is not even a journalist. He is a member of the Freebsd organization who essentially only posts Freebsd press releases. But he won't tell you that. He wants you to believe that the press releases are "news". You can write to Nik at his real email address: nik@freebsd.org. He's not fooling anyone.
It's high time that journalistic integrity is restored to Slashdot. The blatant dishonesty and conflict of interest as epitomized by Nik Clayton would not be tolerated in any legitimate media organization. When we read Slashdot, we no longer can assume what we read was selected for its news value, or whether it is a press release charade crafted by those pandering to some fringe element.
What is it that we notice? We notice a surge of interest and third party support for both BeOS and Linux. But look at Freebsd news -- it is not news at all but self-generated press releases and vanity stories. Contrast that with ascending systems like Linux. More real independent news appears in one day about Linux than appears in a year about all the BSDs combined. That is indisputable fact.
We should all recognize that Nik Clayton who posted this story is really not an impartial observer. He is not even a journalist. He is a member of the Freebsd organization who essentially only posts Freebsd press releases. But he won't tell you that. He wants you to believe that the press releases are "news". You can write to Nik at his real email address: nik@freebsd.org. He's not fooling anyone.
It's high time that journalistic integrity is restored to Slashdot. The blatant dishonesty and conflict of interest as epitomized by Nik Clayton would not be tolerated in any legitimate media organization. When we read Slashdot, we no longer can assume what we read was selected for its news value, or whether it is a press release charade crafted by those pandering to the fringe element.
What is it that we notice? We notice a surge of interest and third party support for both BeOS and Linux. But look at Freebsd news -- it is not news at all but self-generated press releases and vanity stories. Contrast that with ascending systems like Linux. More real independent news appears in one day about Linux than appears in a year of all the BSDs combined. That is indisputable fact.
We should all recognize that Nik Clayton who posted this story is really not an impartial observer. He is not even a journalist. He is a member of the Freebsd organization who essentially only posts Freebsd press releases. But he won't tell you that. He wants you to believe that the press releases are "news". You can write to Nik at his real email address: nik@freebsd.org. He's not fooling anyone.
It is high time that journalistic integrity is restored to Slashdot. The blatant dishonesty and conflict of interest as epitomized by Nik Clayton would not be tolerated in any legitimate media organization. When we read Slashdot, we no longer can assume what we read was selected for its news value, or whether it is a press release charade crafted by those pandering to the fringe element.
What is it that we notice? We notice a surge of interest and third party support for both BeOS and Linux. But look at Freebsd news -- it is not news at all but self-generated press releases and vanity stories. Contrast that with ascending systems like Linux. More real independent news appears in one day about Linux than appears in a year of all the BSDs combined. That is indisputable fact.
We must all recognize that Nik Clayton who posted this story is really not an impartial observer. He is not even a journalist. He is a member of the Freebsd organization who essentially only posts Freebsd press releases. But he won't tell you that. He wants you to believe that the press releases are "news". You can write to Nik at his real email address: nik@freebsd.org. He's not fooling anyone.
It is high time that journalistic integrity is restored to Slashdot. The blatant dishonesty and conflict of interest as epitomized by Nik Clayton would not be tolerated in any legitimate media organization. When we read Slashdot, we no longer can assume what we read was selected for its news value, or whether it is a press release charade crafted by those pandering to some fringe element.
What is it that we notice? We notice a surge of interest and third party support for both BeOS and Linux. But look at Freebsd news -- it is not news at all but self-generated press releases and vanity stories. Contrast that with ascending systems like Linux. More real independent news appears in one day about Linux than appears in a year of all the BSDs combined. That is indisputable fact.
We must all recognize that Nik Clayton who posted this story is really not an impartial observer. Clayton is not even a journalist. He is a member of the Freebsd organization who essentially only posts Freebsd press releases. But he won't tell you that. He wants you to believe that the press releases are "news". You can write to Nik at his real email address: nik@freebsd.org. He's not fooling anyone.
It is high time that journalistic integrity is restored to Slashdot. The blatant dishonesty and conflict of interest as epitomized by Nik Clayton would not be tolerated in any legitimate media organization. When we read Slashdot, we no longer can assume what we read was selected for its news value, or whether it is a press release charade crafted by those pandering to some fringe element.
Oh cmon. Judging OS's is like judging people. You can't say one person is better that another based on peripheral things like their line of work, their hobbies, their personalities, etc... You have to base this judgment on core intrinsic things like race and gender.
This is directed to everyone out there arguing that FreeBSD is better than Linux or that Linux is best or that OpenBSD is more secure or whatever.
... it's in everyone's best interest.
... they all have their strengths and they all have their weaknesses ... the ideal situation in my mind is that all run the same applications which is what we really need to make UNIX (and variants) the dominant OS.
... it may be stupid ... but it works for me .... M$ is like General Motors once was ... Linux is like Toyota and FreeBSD is Honda ... they both started slow in the US automobile market, but soon they both had better, more reliable cars than GM and today GM stuggles to keep up with THEIR innovations ... HOWEVER do you think Toyota or Honda would have gotten anywhere if Toyota would have put a joystick in the car instead of a steering wheel and honda would have put motorcyle handlebars inside the car with gas and clutch operated by hand and the shift lever operated by foot ... no chance ... instead they put in normal steering wheels, normal gas pedals and made their cars operate just like GMs ... which everyone was used to ... they concentrated on the engines, the overall quality and reliability and they succeeed ... and some even say surpassed GM.
... assisting the KDE and other X-Windows camps in any way possible to make their apps easier to code and working out some way to make cross-platform hardware drivers easier to write ... don't make Diamond have to choose which variant to write a driver for ... make it easy for them to write one that will work with all of them ... when a new hardware technology comes out, the different camps should converge together to decide how to support it.
... once they can write it once and have it operate on any of the variants.
... Linux, FreeBSD, AIX, HP, BSDI, OpenBSD, Solaris ... etc ..
If you want to support a single OS world, you have a nice big M$ bandwagon to jump on.
Their is no reason why each camp should not wholeheartely support the other
In my opinion, the strongest reason to use and/or recommend UNIX variants is the long history of network compatibility between UNIX machines on a network. The problem that we have today is the end user applications.
I can't imagine a 'perfect' CPU or a perfect 'OS'
Here's an analogy
I think the highest priority for all the UNIX camps should be making their OSes much more outwardly compatible with each other
If this happens, I guarantee the mainstream Office App, Vertical Market and Game developers will start investing significantly more effort into making their apps work on UNIX desktops and with UNIX servers
Keep in mind, mechanics may appreciate big differences under the hood, and I strongly encourage the different camps do their best to make their engines better, but the average consumer just wants constistancy and ease-of-use and unfortunately, without the average consumer, you can never dominate. We need to unite and support each other to succeed
Again this is my opinion, but being in a consulting firm specializing in Accounting software and end-user assistance, this is what we need to influnce our clients to jump the M$ ship.
Matches what I have been told Linux on the desktop, and a BSD for network stuff because its faster/more secure. Linux has single threading of some second level interrupt handlers, so needs some work, so NT is under threat of losing its crown on humongus boxen
Ah yes, look at the tailspin:
Quote from: BSD Better OS than Linux?. Article on ZDNN.
Operating systems are not religions. Ethical engineers place the technical aspects of a decision above all else.
"NAT" is needlessly cryptic and vague. It smacks of those guys who say "DASD" instead of "disk". In my opinion only people who can remember what drum computers looked like have the right to such pretension.
sigh sigh sigh.. lets see, right now we are bickering over what os has the most "attractive" install, when we should be fighting microsoft. divide and conquer. linux is good, freebsd is good.. BUT, why why why why why why the heck are you people talking about, why does it matter if your unix machine has a good graphical anything, UNIX isn't for playing games, its not about pretty desktops, thats what windows is for, i'm typing on a windows computer right now, it never crashes, its running ssh connections to my web cluster (disklisk freebsd systems ;>) as i'm working on these ecommerce sites. Thats right, unix wasn't designed to play solitare, it was designed to maintain systems. If you are not a developer, and just read email and browse the web, why bother? your red hat linux system might be more secure than windows 95.. but i'm telling you, if someone hacks your red hat linux machine, they can do a world of hurt using you as a staging point. UNIX is powerfull tool, and that is overlooked. By the way, everyone pay attention to the CERT advisory comming out tuesday morning, it may affect alot of people here, (not the people who use GTK desktops to browse the web). bleach
What about taking a break from Linux & FreeBSD? If I had a multi-processor machine free, and no multi-processor operating system, I would try BeOS first. BTW for anyone that is reading. Have you used BeOS? Are you telling me BeOS sucks?
The same way there's a piece of gum "integrated" with my shoe.
Seriously, it's integrated into one huge blob. I'm not sure this is a good thing.
I agree with this comment. I'm surprised by the contrast between the attitudes of some FreeBSD posters compared with Linux posters on Usenet. If "community" equals "prosperity," FreeBSD is in trouble.
*sigh* Time for a reality check, guy. FreeBSD is no more UNIX than Linux is. All real UNIX code is encumbered by copyright, so FreeBSD had to clone it from the ground up, just like Linux. Just what do you think all those lawsuits in the early '90s were about, anyway?
Nonsense. Most of what made UNIX the operating system it is today* was done at Berkeley, not Bell Labs. After 32/V in 1978, UNIX development was, for all practical purposes, moved from Bell Labs to UC Berkeley. At Berkeley, UNIX was transformed from a research system (with no networking whatsoever, a primitive filesystem and poor support for interactive terminals) into the engine of the Internet. Without BSD, it's almost certain GNU and Linux wouldn't even exist (not to mention Sun Microsystems, Mach, NextStep, etc.). More importantly, the revolution which has made the Intetnet ubiquitous might never have happened (or have happened later).
AT&T later reimplemented many of the BSD features for its commercial UNIX releases, but the original in these cases was BSD UNIX (90-95% of which was, by the Net/2 release, original, non-AT&T code).
People who take the view that `real' UNIX was written entirely by Bell Labs have absolutely no understanding of the history of the OS. More to the point, if that view is taken, then more accurate phraseology would call System V, GNU and Linux BSD-like systems (as opposed to calling BSD, GNU and Linux UNIX-like).
* Among other things, BSD introduced the following to UNIX: networking, TCP/IP, sockets, paged virtual memory, the fast filesystem, vi and csh. All of these features were later incorporated into System V (and cloned/included in Linux distributions).
That has all the appearances of a real troll, you petrified grit eating idiot. Leave the Don Knots guy alone, he is funny.
>Remember that the original questioner is already running Linux. If someone is running Linux on the desktop and not experiencing any problems that FreeBSD would solve, I see no point in trying to convert them to FreeBSD.
Well, actually Ben, we aren't really into the whole conversion thing. At least I am not. I work for a global ISP and for the Dutch office we exclusively use FreeBSD for our servers. Even the people here who are Linux users (and quite experienced) even recommend FreeBSD for our servers over Linux. They use Linux for their desktop, I use FreeBSD for my desktop.
I am not trying to convert them, they are not trying to convert me. But we all agree (even the NT admins) that Unix definately owns for the server market.
And we all get along great. =)
I thought we were all here to improve on Open Source, and instead we get OS war after OS war.
>> more real independant news appears in one day about Linux than appears in a year for all the BSD's combined. Ok, and probably more than Solaris and HPUX also, so I guess that makes Linux far more superior eh? Of course, I could probably add that "more real independant news appears in one day about Windows and Microsoft than appears in a month for all the Linux variants combined." Does that therefore mean that Windoze is a far superior OS to Linux? I sure hope not. Why is it that most of the highest traffic/uptime sites on the web rely on either FreeBSD or Solaris?
>> more real independant news appears in one day about Linux than appears in a year for all the BSD's combined.
Ok, and probably more than Solaris and HPUX also, so I guess that makes Linux far more superior eh? Of course, I could probably add that "more real independant news appears in one day about Windows and Microsoft than appears in a month for all the Linux variants combined."
Does that therefore mean that Windoze is a far superior OS to Linux? I sure hope not.
Why is it that most of the highest traffic/uptime sites on the web rely on either FreeBSD or Solaris?
1. Linux is a Unix Workalike. The only thing that makes BSD 'real' was all the legal BS it went through ages ago over it being a 'real unix' (not meant to be a flame, but largely fact)
no, it's not a flame, it IS fact, there was a TON of BS that the great grandaddy of all UNIX OS's had to go through. that is, licensing from AT&T back in the day.
as for the linux vs BSD stuff.. it's a personal choice. i prefer FreeBSD over Open- and Net- because of a solid performance streak that i've had with it. My first experiences with Linux were not as impressive.
as far as wether or not freebsd users/administrators are more "elitist" than others, i like to think that both camps have their vocal minority that drags everyone down.
ok, feel free to flame me.
i thought you said there were *none* ?
FreeBSD has the daily security output in root's mail as well.
The FreeBSD installer is curses based and is very user friendly IMHO. I have installed FreeBSD in the myriad ways that FreeBSD provides. (cdrom, ftp, make world, binary upgrade) I have installed Redhat 6.1 using the install floppy and cdrom. I _prefer_ the way that FreeBSD breaks down the levels of installation. I do not like the way that the Redhat default server install configures to run on init so many processes. I have to then chkconfig them all away and rpm -e the unneeded packages. If you are tight on disc to start with, Redhat does leave you to the option of a custom install in which you must not forget to select from a very long list all of the items that one might consider to be part of a basic unix OS. This install is very much more detailed than the FreeBSDs most granular install. You may like this. I just think that Redhat misses the mark with providing useful install options. Redhat seems to give you one size fits _or_ piecemeal out of the box. Disk handling in both installers is about the same with the exception of the kooky dependence on the DOS partitioning madness by Linux. If you happen to not have a mouse connected to the server you are installing, then Redhat defaults to a curses based installation anyway. Same easy to use field driven UI blue screen as FreeBSD. Of course, it is up to the admin to pare down or build up a system according to the application. I just find that FreeBSD's installer is more sane. What about new users? I installed FreeBSD as my first foray into unix. I was up and running in 45 minutes thanks to a kick ass network connection at UW. Not that I really knew what the hell I was doing. In some respects I am lead to inquire, "Why in the hell didn't I take the blue pill?" The ease of use of FreeBSD thrust me into a wider world of computing than I ever would have expected. The cool thing about both FreeBSD and Redhat (and free software) is that there is not one thing stopping any of us from trying both systems. Vive la Open Source! Jason C. Wells FreeBSDbie (What was my password anyway?)
The Linux kernel was built by a DOS programmer
Umm, no. Linus came from a Unix background, which is precisely why he wrote Linux--he didn't want to have to become a DOS programmer, and at the time, there was no real Unix for x86 (the *BSDs were all dead off in lawsuit land). Remember, Linux began as an attempt at extending Minix (an old unix-like teaching OS).
FreeBSD Project is pretty much alive, thank you very much. It doesn't take much time to see the volume of daily posts on FreeBSD mailing lists and amount of daily commits going into FreeBSD CVS repository. I really wish you did some investigations before posting your nonsence here.
And you will probably surprised how many posts on FreeBSD-questions mailing lists begin with sentences like 'I am switching from Linux to FreeBSD'. Are all these people just a bunch of necrophiles? Or may be your 'ascending OS' with their world domination babbling just does not cut it?
So when if ever will core give Matt Dillon back his commit privileges without requiring prior review?
So he's good enough to basically fix NFS etc. but core won't trust him? What a pathetic situation where a group of free source bureaucrats can basically degrade a developer because he won't kiss their *ss.
My desktop machine is COL 2.2, I needed the IPX support and it was convenient to do. Also the COL installer configured X more or less automagically.
But I've put up two FreeBSD machines as Apache and Postfix servers. These were older machines that didn't have CDROM drives, and I was too lazy to fiddle with NFS. So I installed FreeBSD from the net -- a pretty easy thing to get going. And the FreeBSD "ports collection" makes it absurdly simple to install just the features you want on your machine. My servers have no X, no KDE, no Ghostscript, no games, no nothing except what I want. And it took very little effort to do this.
The ports collection isn't on the bleeding edge though, and if you want the very latest version of a particular piece of software you may well have to install it yourself.
FreeBSD has a reputation for robustness and a fast IP stack -- some very high profile sites run FreeBSD. OpenBSD emphasizes good security. It seems to me that you'd want to look at one of the BSDs if you have a server requirement.
For the desktop, I'd probably go with one of the Linux distributions. They come loaded with a bunch of applications, the installation procedures are becoming pretty simple, and everybody and his brother releases RPMs and DEBs for Linux. If you're into non-free software, there's any number of vendors out there whose binaries are ONLY supported -say- on RH6.0 or some such. I don't think you can get WebJetAdmin to run on BSD, for example.
(And since you mentioned MS-Windows... you should consider switching to one of the Unix variants if you want your machine to run for months at a time without rebooting. You should not be afraid of tinkering with the operating system to get it right -- Linux/BSD printing is not idiot simple. And finally, if you must keep MS-Windows around, consider VMWare... which allows you to run a real no fooling copy of MS-Windows in a virtual machine under Linux, allowing you to switch back and forth effortlessly. VMWare is non-free, but a clever hack, and it allows you to test other things without trashing your system (Hurd, Netware, BSD, what-have-you).
Go directly to jail() /var/go
Do not pass
Do not bind to 200.*.*.* IP addresses
Can anybody explain to me why I would want to use FreeBSD instead of Windows or Linux? Are there any features my two OS's don't have? Is ther any software available on FreeBSD that i can't get for linux or Windows? I'm just looking for practical reasons, not flames, thanks.
there's a perl script that I use for that called pkg_version.
a simple pkg_version -v | grep "<" gives me a list of everything that's definitely outdated, and then pkg_version -v | grep "?" gives me the ones that it's not sure about (multiple versions in the index or installed on the system, e.g. bash, gcc, acroread, etc)
the only issue is occasionally a package changes names and thus pkg_version dies.
as for those who want a make upgrade, do a make, then a pkg_delete then a make install (having backed up any config files). and that's as close as you can come for the moment, i believe.
DrWiggy,
So you know you're probably basing your arguments against Linux on version 1.2 or something.
I've worked on large networks of both (admin of a large linux network, and designing software for a large mostly FreeBSD network) and the fact of the matter is that the technical reasons such as 'stability, security, speed' are there in both the OS's.
If you need SMP, you use Linux. FreeBSD's SMP support is horrid versus a 2.2 Linux box.
FreeBSD tends to handle massive swapping conditions better than Linux, this is true, but when you are deploying machines that are properly spec'd they don't swap at all anyway.
Security is better in FreeBSD? I'd like to know how this conclusion has been drawn. The fact of the matter is that in most situations the deployed servers in large networks tend to be running very customized setups. If you haven't taken the time to set them up properly, they'll be insecure, if you have, they won't be. That's an admin thing, after all, we don't see very many kernel level attacks these days, and we all know that we tend to run the *exact* same software on *BSD or Linux machines.
I use FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Linux all on a regular basis. They all have their strong points and weak points, but truly, I think most unbiased comparisons of Linux and FreeBSD show that they are very competitive operating systems with very similar features.
As for 100% reliability, I've seen the following operating systems turn to shit at some point in my life: Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, Irix, HP-UX, OSF and of course win*. Nothing is 100%. 99.9999, maybe, but not 100.
That's because you're not using Debian. I honestly don't remember how my Debian install process went. It's been such a long time. And I've run Debian 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2...
---
You should try Debian. The package management is excellent. I used Redhat for a year, so I know how much of a pain RPM is. Debian really has it beat.
Of course, if you're happy with FreeBSD, there's no harm to sticking with that ;-). Judging by user opinion, it's the Debian package management system and the BSDs' ports collections which are the most loved software installation systems. I've got to give FreeBSD a go someday, but right now Debian just works wonders for me.
---
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Outside of Linux circles, "IP masquerading" is called NAT (network address translation). This is supported in FreeBSD in the form of natd, and more specific information on setting it up can be found in numerous places.
One place to get more informations, other than mailing list searching, is a great site called The FreeBSD Diary, where there's actually an entire section of the topics devoted to NAT :)
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Regarding AMD, FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT has a much newer version of AMD; I am pretty certain the specific deficiency you mention has been fixed.
Thanks to work mostly done by Martin Blapp, mount now shows the mount parameters correctly in (what seems to be, I cannot speak in complete certainty due to that being impossible to assure) every case.
Have you reported how the package system "fails to register all the files"? I haven't seen this behavior. As far as ports not having to be built as root, if you set the make/environment variable "DISTDIR" to any accessible directory, and set "WRKDIRPREFIX" to an accessible directory, you will be able to make ports as a user.
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Project Foobazco, a recently-formed network-services/Free Software development cooperative, is in the early planning stages for such a thing. I do mean EARLY. It'll be a source-only package-by-package build-it-and-go distribution. Choice and security will be priorities. If you're interested, go to the idea page for some of my thoughts on where to go with this. Did I mention that it's in the EARLY planning stage?
Does anyone know if IP masquerading (or a workalike) is offered in FreeBSD? I'm going to need a IP masquerading box for next semester, and if FreeBSD does this I might try it just for fun. Linux is just getting too easy these days.. :^)
-- Does Rain Man use the Autistic License for his software?
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Standards conformance.
John
John_Chalisque
So I have a RH Linux box running Notes because I couldn't get a FreeBSD-intel box (either 3.3 or 3.4-RELEASE) running the Domino Server for Linux under linux binary compatibility.
Does anyone know if Domino is known to work under the linux compatibility for FreeBSD-4.0?
cheers,
-o
Then again, the politics were part of what lead me away from debian, happily landing with FreeBSD.
Now I've got two solid reasons to think about FreeBSD as an alternative to Debian on new systems here.
Anyone in touch with linux-kernel know if there's been any interest expressed there in bringing anything like these two to Linux?
I've already setup one OpenBSD box on my network as the gateway/firewall (IPNAT is great for this), and might be considering putting FreeBSD 4 on my workstation. Before I do this, I'd like to know how robust the SMP support in FreeBSD is when compared to that of the current Linux kernels (2.2.14/2.3.* series?). I heard once (a while ago) that the FreeBSD SMP kernel is similar to the SMP kernel from Linux 2.0.*, and it isn't quite as efficient/well-suited for SMP as Linux. Is this still the case? Does anyone have any first-hand experience with SMP between the two? Any problems?
--
keep acting shocked and move slowly towards the cake.
An AC wrote: ... a fast IP stack"
"FreeBSD has a reputation for
I've heard this for 4 years now, but I have NEVER seen numbers to back it up. I honestly don't know if *BSD's is faster than Linux 2.2., but I'd like to...
Zapman
The current "egcs version", for what it's worth, is called GCC 2.95.2. Does it say in the 2.95.2 distribution that 2.95.2 is considered experimental? This announcement for GCC 2.95 says:
Assuming the next major release is even called 3.0; this entry in the GCC FAQ says:Sorry, putting a quote from the 2.95 announcement just before a quote from the person to whom I'm responding makes the above, from my response, a bit confusing; the first of those two statements came from the 2.95 announcement, but the second was a quote from the person to whom I responded - it is not a statement from the GCC 2.95 announcement.
(The answer to the implied question about 3.x appears to be "you'd have to bludgeon the kernel changes into compiling under 3.x"; I didn't put a lot of effort into trying to do that, so I don't know if it's doable.)
Almost all of the OPINIONS expressed here about why Freebsd is so much better then _PUT OS HERE_ can be found in debian as well. Just once I would like to see some informed posts, rather then raving freebsd zealots preaching the holy word of *bsd's divinity. Why *most* *BSD users bother me. a) If I wanted opinions I would ask my mother. b) Myths don't become any more valid just because it isn't a microsoft making it up. c) They state opinions as though it were facts which they have a truck load of evidence to support them. (0 facts, 0 evidence 100% baseless opinions) d) They think if they say something enough it will become true (1) Linux is less stable 2) Linux is less secure 3) Linux is slower 4) Linux isn't a REAL UNIX 5) Linux is for newbies 6) Linux isn't as GOOD period e) They smell (joke) I like freebsd, I just don't like the majority of the *bsd faithful. For the same reasons why I don't like alot of Linux faithful. I judge the "goodness" of something based on that somethings fruits. Freebsd new fruits: new drivers, a couple new features.. more crazy zealots Linux new fruits: www.linuxtoday.com NT new fruits: More bugs. Ok I am done ranting now. :)
-- You can be a geeklord too
Good piece!
:)
IMHO, whereas I agree about the less controlled nature of linux as a whole, wrt things like upgrading, security and interoperability of the various parts, in practice the situation is mostly well-organized with Linux also. This is due to the fact that about nobody assembles his or her own general Linux system.
Rather, everybody uses this or that distro, and most distro's at least take care of patches and announcements. Upgrades are not so bad either, for most of them (says this Slackware man
On security, the more controlled way of development is indeed probably a plus, even though I think most of the ports collection, of which you'd probably install quite some packages, is no different from what's in any Linux distro.
Next time think before you spit out this utter nonsense. Read the documentation again and mae sure you *understand* it. It says root can do rm -rf /* on a chroot'ed file system, and NOT the root file system of your drive.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Nice list, but it's a bit old.
The compiler is GCC 2.95.2...
Also included are:
- Better USB support, including support for USB network adapters.
- IPv6, including IPsec, an IPv6 firewall and IPv6 enabled netowrking tools.
- OpenSSL now part of base system.
- and a bunch more little things...
-Jeremy
So what's up with this code freezing stuff, anyway? I heard C has a tendancy to bloat out when it gets cold and if you freeze it explodes taking out whatever container class you happened to put it in. Is that what they're talking about? Sorry about this post... I did a strcpy instead of strncopy and now I can't find a way to terminate this sente
So nice of you to visit slashdot! While you're here, could you help me with a problem I'm having? My copy of Windows 2000 doesn't work. It freezes up alot on boot. Now, I know that ActiveFreeze technology was put in to help assist in more rapidly crashing and restarting the system, but it looks like all the bugs haven't been worked out yet.
Also, I noticed that MS Knowledgebase article Q666 seemed to indicate that summoning a daemon would fix the problem, but I can't seem to find my "Summon" button - all I got is start! Please help,
Sincerely,
G. e. kwanab
Touche. :^) You win.
From memory...
/usr/src tree from one of the CVS servers. (Also, cvsup /usr/ports every now and then...) search around the freebsd web site for info on using cvsup.
/usr/src
1) cvsup to sync your
2) cd
3) make buildworld
4) switch to single user mode
5) make installworld
--Rob
I'm running 3.3-STABLE, and "make upgrade" in /usr/src fails miserably. It starts making make, and dies with
/usr/ports or debian's apt-get upgrade, where it would go out and grab the new version, compile, and install it. Am I way off here? I can live with a binary sysinstall upgrade IF I can find some way of upgrading /usr/src later on.
ld: scrt0.o: No such file or directory
sysinstall's upgrade feature gives me a list of FTP sites, none of which work, because it only wants to upgrade to another 3.3, which seems really quite pointless to me.
Can someone give me a URL I can feed to sysinstall or some pointer on getting "make upgrade" to actually work? I expected it to work sort of like
Just going out and getting the CD and wiping out my old install and restoring my home dir and configurations from backup is NOT an option I care to entertain...
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Your argument boils down to "I hear more about Linux from more diverse sources, therefore it's more important than FreeBSD."
Think back a few years, and replace "Linux" with "Windows" and "FreeBSD" with "Linux" and the absurdity of this point of view becomes quite clear.
You know, your hero Linus would probably think you're barking up the wrong tree. Senior Linux developers, including Linus, have shown plenty of willingness to share ideas and code with the BSD projects, and the exchange has been reciprocal. Maybe the senior developers know something you don't.
Grow up.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
I've done redhat installs with every version since 5.0, and I must say the new GUI install in 6.1 has some functionality I would like to see in the curses install: when doing a full custom install, it gives a description of packages; after you are done selecting packages and you have calculated missing dependencies, it does a much better job of handling changes (I remember foobaring things in the curses install and having to reselect all of the packages).
But it comes down to this: you do an install (or upgrade) for a particular version on a machine but once. So who cares?
This sig is false.
That's crazy. Why would you ever want to do that? Now, I update my packages as needed, but that isn't anything but ./configure && make && make install.
This sig is false.
- I put real unix in quotes, "like so"
- According to uptime reports, BSD is more stable than either Linux or any Windows
- If you keep up with reports of vulnerabilities in different OSes, BSD does lead the pack in security.
So there. Mark this post Flamebait if you must, but the pervious one was unworthy of moderation down or up.THHBTHBBBBT!
It does appear that RPM might have a couple of tiny bugs lurking in there somewhere. I did ran into some minor RPM database corruption once, rpm --rebuilddb cleared it up. Mind that this was on a machine that I use for development, where I install, upgrade, and remove RPMs constantly. Given the kind of beating it took, I consider rpm's reliability to be above average.
I couldn't keep track of what files where installed...
rpm -q -l -vv package tells you where package was installed. RPM takes some getting used to.
--
Take a look at Postgres
www.postgresql.org
FreeBSD will not run VMWare, because VMWare uses a kernel module under Linux. Last I checked, FreeBSD can't use Linux kernel modules. Until VMWare writes a native version for FreeBSD, we'll just have to use bochs or freevmware at http://www.freevmware.org.
to play would with 4.0, I've been toying with FBSD since 2.something and I really like it. I am disappointed in the people saying FreeBSD is dying and such things because they don't get the same publicity that Linux has been getting. Just because it isn't on ZD-TV every other day doesn't mean anything. It seems to me at least Linux gets the attention because it is invading the desktop which is traditionally Microsoft territory. FreeBSD chugs along on servers in the background doing what it does well. You can sell Linux to make a million dollars or you can USE FreeBSD to make a million dollars.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Things he forgot:
newbus/busspace,
Working NFS v3 support, both over TCP and UDP,
Improved support in tools to deal with NFS issues (mounting/umounting),
Collapsing of block and character devices into one device node type,
IPv6 support,
a lot of PAO merges (laptop stuff),
ATA/ATAPI driver to replace the older one,
updates of some GNU system utilities (such as groff, sort, texinfo),
PPPoE support and more due to the Netgraph code,
latest IPFilter integrated,
And a lot I am forgetting here
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
This is a troll argument.
Because everyone slightly clued on the FreeBSD project knows that Matt Dillon got his privileges back quite some time ago.
And wrt the reviews, almost every commit I see has had a review of some sort, its what keeps the code of quality.
And last, but certainly not least, we have the everwatchful Bruce D Evans scrutinising every commit made. So all committers are under review of this man whom frankly IMHO is one of the most knowledge people I have had the pleasure to work with when it comes to programming and everything associated.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
I do think that FreeBSD is a good OS, althought it is slightly less friendly then Linux (IMHO) distributions Like RH and SuSE. I just tried the RH 6.1 GUI install and it was neat. If FreeBSD were to do a GUI install it would certainly make it an easier adjustment for Newbiews. Just my humble opinion.
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!
adopt egcs like the rest of the friggin computer world.
Why? What does it get us?
Linux has over 400 global kernel locks (calls to lock_kernel()).
Which kernel are you speaking of? 2.3 is better at this then 2.2 was, as 2.2 was better then 2.0 was.
You speak of this as if it were a deliberate design decision. It wasn't. Linux started out as a single cpu kernel. SMP support came in with 2.0, became really usable in 2.2 and is still being tweaked in 2.3...
I'm a one OS type of person. If there's a really cool game for Windows (Riven) or OS/2 (GalCiv), I'll slice out a little partition so I can run them. Otherwise I stick with just one OS. Even though I have two OS's installed, one will always get ignored.
Right now I have Slack and FreeBSD. I'm using mostly Slack right now, and fiddling with FreeBSD to learn it's quirks. Mostly they're identical in functionality. But one huge advantage FreeBSD has over Linux, is that it runs FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris, SCO and SVR4 binaries, while Linux only runs Linux binaries (at least I haven't gotten anything else to work). It suddenly occured to me that I don't have any need for Linux anymore. I can run CivCTP and RTII from FreeBSD.
So I'm afraid that the near future will see me dumping the Linux partitions in favor of FreeBSD. I really don't want to, but I'm just a one OS type of guy. I'll probably keep a small partition around to check out the latest distros.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Here's what I have planned for FreeBSD. I will use it as my main os. And then use VMWare for running windows/(and when/if it comes BeOS) as clients. I have already used Debian, RedHat, and lately Stampede Linux, so I am not too scared of unixes, and bash is my second language now. :)
But I just want to know if FreeBSD will run VMWare with any speed/stability. And if I don't have to recompile the whole freaking kernel to get my sound blaster working! That was my main sticking point with linux.
Serve the web... they sponsored the work on jail() in FreeBSD 4.0. They use "a heavily hacked version of FreeBSD" to do the same thing. Very cool.
The battle is, who's weaker, the admin or the software? Yes, the software comes from anywhere and everywhere, but there are more eyes looking at it.
I read that as "make deinstall", in which case what I said above is correct. pkg_delete is the way to go. :)
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Code Freeze beats System Freeze anyday.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
This code is intended to build with gcc 2.7.2 and egcs 1.1.2. Patches for building with gcc 2.95 are merged but less tested than other compilers. Caution is recommended when using gcc 2.95 and feedback is sought.
Uhm - did you mean to reply to the message above mine?
That spotlighting that Linux and BeOS are enjoying now wasn't there until quite recently.
Besides, those of us in the BSD camp will continue to love our OS's just the same. A piece of the spotlight would be nice, but the BSD community will continue to exist regardless. In the meantime, the Linux emulation gets better and better...so when some company makes it for Linux, we can run it too.
On a side note, you seem to be the type that wants Linux to win on all fronts, including the desktop. I say screw the desktop market. I don't want the demands of the populace at large causing the REAL decline of my OS of choice.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
You like the sound of your own keyboard, don't you?
Feh. Troll.
--
"This isn't the post you're looking for. Move along."
--
"This isn't the post you're looking for. Move along."
rm -rf * / won;t blow away the kernel though, may mess up a bunch of other things though. The wonders of chflag and schg
this space for rent
uuh..no. root *can* rm -rf /* your drive even if he is jail()ed. read the documentation. the only thing you cant do is add new device drivers and networking routes seem to be fixed.
using something that you can trust working 100% is far better than getting with it. grow up - using a stable compiler is far better than an experimental one...just what did you think the e in egcs stood for anyway ?
There's a good how-to on this, but its not current. Its for the 2.x series, though it likely transfers up to the 3.x and 4.x with minor changes. You should read the how-to, and the handbook. If your still confused or unsure, shoot a quick query over to freebsd-questions@freebsd.org. I trust you can find the handbook yourself. Here's the URL for the how-to. (yeah, I'm lazy)
/ make-world/make-world.html
http://www.nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk/FreeBSD
PS. Nik, any thoughts of including any updates? I think I remember on a list you saying you didn't want to bring it all the way up, as to keep it usuable for the 2.x series, but how about a section for 3.x and 4.x? Or is it still the same?
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
Never heard about that. Why'd he lose it?
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
Just because Linux Today and Be News are becoming rapidly popular, FreeBSD is not on the decline. Unless you give proof to the contrary, you look only like a fool.
I'm not even going to respond to what you're saying regarding Nik.
How long does it take to fsck seven terabytes? Or are you using a journaling filesystem (which one)?
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Hi. Having worked with Linux for quite a awhile now, I've gotten dissatissfied in a few areas. My current peeves are the number of global kernel locks and the icky, yucky bdflush.
... etc. And, conveniently, there's a lock_kernel() and unlock_kernel() around the bdflush code. A performance killer, especially when writing filesystem code.
Linux has over 400 global kernel locks (calls to lock_kernel()). One even goes like this:
lock_kernel(); nfs_read(); unlock_kernel(); It's insane. It's also a preformance-killer. Some stuff actually runs slower on SMP system because of all the locking going on.
bdflush is also a little retarded -- it flushes metadata every 5 and data every 30 seconds. So you get idle disk -- activity storm -- idle disk -- activity storm
How does FreeBSD fare in these areas? Would it be a better choice than Linux for filesystem work? Esp. server-side?
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
The command is make world. Read the handbook for more.
And it would also be good of me to inform you that the tree just underwent a series of rapid changes and may more may not build. It has been failing for a lot of people over here..
If it was ready for the user, it wouldn't be code frozen, it'd be RELEASE'd :P
Why do people think that "frozen" means "ready"? :)
-bugg
Upgrading from 3.x to 4.0
/usr/src/UPDATING. Especially todays notes regarding in xinstall changes. You may run into a few libraries that have problems during buildworld. I had to link libc.so.3 to libc.so.4. Once thats all said and done, installworld; make a new kernel and reboot.
First, it should be mentioned that you should expect problems. Afterall, this is developmental code which is still under constant change.
In order to upgrade, first and foremost get the -current source. (If you don't know how to do this, 4.0 isn't for you yet).
Of course, you'll need to read
Depending on when the last time you upgraded -current or -stable, this process may want to be repeated to take advantage of source compiled under the new features of the new source (thats a mouthfull).
This process will be made simpler over the next few days during the code freeze.
Also note, to upgrade to 3.4 from 3.3 you should either use the 3.4 install disks OR modify the installers OPTIONS (specifically set the release to 3.4 rather than 3.3).
Rod Taylor
some people complain about no GUI and all that nonsense, but give me a break. is it really such an improvement to see gtk+ widgets as opposed to curses? besides, in my experience, GUI frontends tend to make things prettier at the cost of functionality.
I use FreeBSD and am quite happy with it. Now maybe all this arguing is healthy for the mind, but we are losing site of the true enemy here:
Micr$oft Windows
use unix, use linux, Just kill M$ Windows. There's no use arguing when we need to be organizing and then storming Bill's keep. Pick up your guns and meet me at the doorway to the Sussex(Bill's Lair). Together we shall break Bill and his evil empire.
just think about it
what? this is old see this slashdot article
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
...is the ports collection. I don't mean from the point of view of the selection of software available as ports but how easy they are to maintain. There seem to be agreed standards about where files get installed and it's easy to install and deinstall. I used to use Red Hat and the rpm system gets way out of control. I couldn't keep track of what files where installed. After installing a couple of extra rpms I seemed to get an inconsistent rpm database and from that point no installation or desinstallation would go cleanly. The ports are *super* easy to manage by comparison - and when I need to do a backup I have a far better idea of which files need to be kept and which can be discarded because I know I can rebuild them with a single 'make install'. Ports aren't perfect but they work far better than rpms. This is the number 1 reason for using FreeBSD for me - otherwise I'd be back to Linux so I could play Heroes of Might and Magic III and Myth II (which seems not to run under FreeBSD emulation of Linux :-( ) The FreeBSD ports system could easily be implemented for Linux. I'm waiting for the `FreeBSD' distribution of Linux that does this. Any takers?
-- SIGFPE
That was fixed almost immediately after the release of 3.4-RELEASE.
I can't help but feel bad for the FreeBSD developers, who worked so hard getting 3.4 ready for release, only to do so with such an obvious bug intact.
Don't feed the troll.
I hope every reader, moderator, and meta-moderator look at what a link actually goes to before clicking on it, or making an assumption to it's value.
This loser has been posting this stupid link everywhere under the guise of being informative or ontopic. The best part is when he replies to himself and thanks/congratulates himself.
Yes, SANE does support the Coolscan III that I have. it just doesn't have some of the features that I use most often.
I'm looking forward to the day when SANE has better, interactive curves and levels, ICC capabilities and a few other things. As it is, I scan on the windows box and save to a samba partition then run GIMP for all my image work.
Truely, I run games, QuickTime and the scanner software on the widnows box. Nothing more.
Chris
So I 'm very happy that the current FreeBSD team takes time before releasing a new major version. On FreeBSD you don't re-compile your kernel every few weeks....
If you're company needs to choose between Windows-Linux: choose Linux, between Linux-FreeBSD: choose FreeBSD, if you have money to spend (on Administrators): Solaris.
My $0.02
StarTrek.org Free Webmail
My personal favorite is the jail() call that creates a virtual server within your Unix box. It locks stuff down so tightly that even root doesn't have special privileges inside a jail(). Processes in the jail can only see other processes inside the same jail(), and can only bind to the IP address allowed for that jail(), and can only see the disk allowed for that jail(). Unlike chroot you cannot break out of a jail() if you are root. That's just my personal favorite. Lots more cool stuff in there.
Whew. I thought for a minute I was going to have to buy you out. Instead I won through fair competition. See, the DOJ HAS done a good job.
Sincerely,
Bill Gates
That's why you Open Source nuts will never get anywhere... You want to freeze the code. Well, while you're freezing the code, and doing all that [pfeh]bug testing... What's that?!? If you'd only spend the proper time putting together GOOD code, then you wouldn't need to freeze it.
By the way, is this thing gonna be Windows compatible? I've got this great browser I want to seel them if it is...
Sincerely,
Bill Gates
(Score 5, Monopoly)
Have you tried my latest version of Windows? It's nice.
The main reason you would want to use FreeBSD would be self-pity. If you really hate yourself, and want to give up all technological conveniences for the sake of stability, then use FreeBSD.
After an independantly funded poll, I've concluded that most people using FreeBSD are on the rebound, or suffering long, painful divorces. Most tend to be suicidal. By using FreeBSD, it's an expression of their mood. They don't realize, that by always running, and being stable, they can lose their jobs, and it won't matter.
That's why Windows 2000 just makes more sense. You'll never have to fear that you'll be fired. Heck, your boss can't figure out what to do with a BSOD. They're there because of IT demand. Ensures job stability. Why would a FreeBSD shop keep around a sysadmin that didn't ever need to do anything???
Sincerely,
Bill Gates
(Score 5, Monopoly)
Have you tried my newest version of Windows? It's really nice.
Until someone sets up an indentical server running linux that performs better, I will believe FreeBSD has a faster tcp/ip stack.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Version numbers aren't really about the number of changes, or the significance of changes. There are two major branches to the FreeBSD kernel, -STABLE and -CURRENT. All changes are first made in -CURRENT, and then eventually backported into -STABLE. Some changes are too big to be safely backported into -STABLE, and will remain in -CURRENT until the next major release. When the version number is bumped, we cut a release of the -CURRENT work, and in this case, that becomes 4.0. There will almost surely be a FreeBSD 3.5, released from a -STABLE snapshot (yes, after 4.0 is released!), and then at some point -CURRENT will become -STABLE and there will be a new -CURRENT. Take the "tweaks to the VM system". This was a major rewrite of many parts of the VM system, and would be extremely dangerous and time consuming to backport into 3.X. There is also a lot of (somewhat unfinished) work that was done on IPv6 which won't be backported into 3.X. The decision was made that we have waited long enough to see these features in a -RELEASE, so we cut 4.0-RELEASE.
Having worked for a major non-free (beer and freedom) operating system, I can tell you that this is very similar the way the real operating systems development cycles work. About the only main difference is that the minor releases are usually distributed as service packs or patches.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
i dunno, considering how stridently pro-Linux slashdot is i am surprised they actually mention other OS in a positive light!
For those of you that do not know what benefits are in FreeBSD 4.0, here are a list of new / improved features:
/var/log/security.
Some New Features include:
The VM system's anonymous storage subsystem (the swap pager) has been completely
revamped. It should be a little faster, with less glitches.
An emulator for SVR4 binaries has been added. [i386]
Driver support has been added for PCI fast ethernet cards based on the ADMtek Inc.
AL985 Centaur chipset.
Driver support has been added for SysKonnect SK-984x PCI gigabit ethernet adapters.
Driver support has been added for Adaptec Duralink PCI ethernet adapters based on the
Adaptec AIC-6915 fast ethernet controller.
Driver support has been added for PCI fast ethernet adapters based on the Sundance
Techno-logies ST201 controller, including the D-Link DFE-550TX.
Driver support has been added for PCI fast ethernet adapters based on the Silicon
Integrated Systems SiS 900 and SiS 7016 ethernet controllers.
Driver support has been added for PCI fast ethernet adapters based on the Davicom
DM9100 and DM9102 ethernet controllers, including the Jaton Corporation XpressNet.
The top-level category security has been added, and IPFW now uses syslog(3) to log all
messages to
A new jail(2) system call and admin command (jail(8)) have been added for additional
flexibility in creating secure process execution environments.
The base C/C++ compiler has been upgraded from GCC 2.7.2 to EGCS 1.1.2. This gives
users full ISO C++ support.
System Requirements: Standard ISA, EISA, VL, or PCI bus based PC (386sx to Pentium), 8MB
RAM, 100MB disk space for a binary-only system & 340MB for a full development system.
For more information, click here
Ben Brewer
brewer@nullified.org
I had so many problems with linux's NFS implementation that I've tried FreedBSD 3.3 and the STABLE branch.
I was quite pissed by FreeBSD's behavior in this respect. Altough it had NFS v3 and NQNFS, I got several problems:
- NFS would hang forever when a server rebooted: mounting with NFS v2, v3 or NQNFS with FreeBSD server and client, cd to a NFS-mounted directory, reboot the NFS server, do ls while the server reboots, watch it hang forever.
- The AMD automounter does not pass all the parameters to the kernel: the fancy nfs parameter (nqnfs, etc...) don't get passed to the kernel because AMD doesn't know about them...
- The mount command does not show all the mount parameters: This is related to the previous one. While trying to find out what mount options were passed by AMD, I could not get to know exactly what was being passed to the kernel, and I had to use the debugger to do that. In FreeBSD, the mtab is kept in the kernel, and the kernel table does not record all the NFS-related flags.
- Unrelated: although the port system rocks, the package system sucks: I really liked the ports collection. However when files are installed, the packaging system often fails to register all the files, and upgrading was a major chore. The ports builds have to be run as root, which is also an annoyance for me.
Of course, Linux NFS is even worse. But when I was so pissed about Linux's NFS, I gave FreeBSD a serious try and attempted to convert all my servers to FreeBSD. After 3 weeks, I reverted to Linux because I was deceived by the above NFS thing.Why can't you port the JDK yourself (like Blackdown did)? Why do you expect Sun to do so much work for free?
Real database server like Oracle, Sybase that supports transaction/stored procedure; Good performance 1.2 JVM.
Okay, I'm a professional Solaris developer, and I've found LinuxThreads' 1:1 model and signalling deficiencies more than lacking compared to Solaris' LWP and user-thread model. What type of threading model(s) is/are available for the FreeBSD (and maybe NetBSD for my old Sun 3/60) platform?
Michael J.
Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?
funny that you posted as an anonymous coward. Retard. FreeBSD is not in a "tailspin" as you call it. What the hell gave you that idea?
And again, I don't like it. I want him naked and petrified .
And I don't like it. I want him naked and petrified .
I'm his greatest fan, and every night I dream of Signal 11 naked and petrified . So don't go calling him a dork!
I will take this opportunity to remind all fellow Daemons to register with Sun's Java Developer Connection and vote for the Java 2 SDK port to FreeBSD!
While there has been an official Linux port, there is no native Java 2 SDK for FreeBSD. Please, all members of JDC, go here and cast your votes to have Sun release this software. We are up to 2766 votes so far. It took 4551 votes before Sun released the Linux version, so we're almost there, right? ;-)
(However, I am well aware that the release of the Linux port was due in large part to the excellent folks from Blackdown.)
Here are a few of the tons of comments on the "bug report" page where you can vote for this RFE (request for enhancement).
You must be registered in the JDC (Java Developer Connection) to vote. Registration is free and quick, so if you're a Java developer or just have a general interest on FreeBSD or Java, please go sign up and vote!
***