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.
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
--
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.
Because he may have other reasons to want to run Linux, and those may be legitimate reasons; if some particular OS comes up with a useful feature, I have no particular problem with other OSes adopting that feature, or a variant thereof.
(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
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."
Call it elitism if you like, whatever floats your boat. Apparently you've never worked support for any length of time...I have no problem saying that I prefer an OS that doesn't cater to the general user. Can't stand all that user friendly bullshit. I don't care how trimmed down you make it, it still uses up more resources for something I don't need/want. Take your graphical installs and shove them up your ass. I only run X when I actually need something graphical. This isn't like most cases of elitism, where it is infinitely hard for the lesser class to become part of the preferred class...they can go and learn the shit themselves and move beyond their little protected world.
My hardware is not 10 years old, in fact most of it is less than a year old (except the little p120 that serves as my gateway/firewall box). All quite well supported, too.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
with the make vulnerability reported a few days ago ? thats one buggy OS.
Fixed in -STABLE I think.
--
"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
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
This information is in UPDATING (though may not have been when you first posted).
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
sorry I didnt read the article, please don't flame me :-)
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
i know its not old, and i am sorry, if you would just read my other post before yours you would have noticed that i acknowledged my mistake.
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Had the same problem. The 'install' program is broke, so you need to reinstall it before it works:
/usr/src/usr.bin/xinstall; make all install
cd
Good luck!
Cheers,
Sean
...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.
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!
I've got it working under FreeBSD 3.x via a kernel patch.
Do a Deja search for "Promise" in comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc.
Also, it will be fully supported via the new ATA driver in 4.0.
"You can represent this entire problem as a 3x2 matrix"
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 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!
***