Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FreeBSD 4.0 Code Freeze

Posted by Nik on from the still-chilly dept.

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.

14 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. A newbie question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4

    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.

    1. Re:A newbie question... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 3
      BSD Unixes are mostly ports. They started as a System X release, then some bright folks at Berekely add some extra stuff (like TCP/IP) and pretty soon there was BSD.

      System {III,V} didn't exist when they did the first BSD; the first Berkeley Software Distribution was a collection of software to put atop the Sixth Edition (and possibly also the Seventh Edition) of the UNIX from Bell Labs Research. 3BSD and 4BSD were based on the 32V UNIX from Research, which was essentially a Seventh Edition port to the VAX; the Berkeley folk added demand paging (and other stuff, such as job control, and a TTY driver more pleasant for the user, and ex and vi, and curses, and so on), and, in 4.2BSD, added the BSD file system (file names > 14 characters, symlinks, bigger block size, different allocation policies) and their TCP/IP stack (although that was far from the first TCP/IP stack for UNIX).

      That's why BSD looks less System V-ish than most other flavors of UNIX these days, including most Linux distributions (although I have the impression some distributions - Slackware? - might have a BSD-ish rather than an SV-ish init), although, over time, BSD has grown to look more SV-ish (Paul Vixie's cron is SV-flavored rather than the V7-flavored cron that BSD used to have, and various other system calls, other API routines, commands, etc. have flowed into BSD), just as SV has grown more BSDish (symlinks, BSD-style socket calls standard, and various other system calls, other API routines, commands, etc. have flowed into SVR4).

    2. Re:A newbie question... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 3
      The API is more integrated.

      In what fashion is the Win32 API "more integrated" than the APIs of various UNIX systems?

    3. Re:A newbie question... by Bishop · · Score: 3

      I would like to see more people use BSD. I use OpenBSD myself. However I feel that except for points 2 and 6 your justifications of why *BSD is better are incorrect. Try Debian. It does a good job at at the upgrades. Out-of-the-box it was as secure as my out-fo-the-box OpenBSD 2.6. Patches are easier to apply. The command "apt-get update&&apt-get upgrade" downloads and installs everything I need. I don't have to compile anything. Debian has several good mailing lists as well as Debian weekly news.

      For me BSD really wins in the intergration dept. I really like how the base system fits together well. Configuration is much easier. I wish Debian would stop trying to be everything to everyone and decide on a base set of packages.

    4. Re:A newbie question... by Mullen · · Score: 5

      You want a "real unix"
      Blah. Unix is such a generic term now a days. Who cares if the FreeBSD is descended from Unix that came out 15 years ago. Standards come and go, and new ones pop up. Saying something is "Real" in the Unix world is pretty dumb and short sighted. I think my Linux boxen are pretty damn Real Unix. Looks like Unix on the front end and runs like Unix on the back end. Makes it Unix to me.

      You want something more stable than either of the above mentioned OSes
      Anyone have ANY proof of this? I here this all the time, but I have yet to see one study that proves it right. Just saying something is true does not make it true.
      In this part, I would give a slight upper hand to FreeBSD since it only has distribution. Linux main problem is that there are too many distributions that have too many dumb people running generic stock kernels. Personally, the only way I would be convinced is that you took a FreeBSD box and Linux box and put them on a load balancing hub (Switch) and then compare kernel panics, and amount of work each did. The tests would exclude all problems related to non-kernel issues.

      You want something more secure than either of the above mentioned OSes
      Again, proof. I have ran Linux in a production environment and the only security problems that I have had were with some lamers packet sniffing on the other side of the network. The "Other End" consisted of HP/UX and Sun machines.

      So in the end, I think that a good admin that knows how to run the machine(s) the right way will prevent all (Or most) problems.

      --
      Linux O Muerte!
    5. Re:A newbie question... by ctj2 · · Score: 5

      There are two major camps today in the computer world. Windows and unix. Anybody asking why we should run Windows over anyother OS is trolling and it isn't worth responding to. Of the Unix offereings there are two main varients: SVR4 and BSD.

      The Linux kernel was built by a DOS programmer according to the specifications and papers he had read from POSIX and SVR4 (yeah, I know there is more to it then that). So much of Linux feels like a SVR4 box. SVR4 is the "One True Unix" as defined by AT&T Bell Labs or whoever owns UNIX now. From this you get a certain set of administrative functions in a particular style.

      BSD Unixes are mostly ports. They started as a System X release, then some bright folks at Berekely add some extra stuff (like TCP/IP) and pretty soon there was BSD. This version was then ported to different chipsets. Including the Intel x86 set. Because it is a port and not a new product, most BSD based OSes have a style that has much history behind it.

      One major difference between BSD and Linux is the question of where things end up. Because Linux is a "kernel" plus distribution, everything but the kernel is an add on. You need to decide if "tcl" is part of the "system" or an add on. In most Linux distributions, everything is considered a part of the "system" so "tcl" ends up in /usr/bin and "gs" (ghostscript) ends up in /usr/bin and so on and so on.

      With the BSD Unixes, you get many base parts. Generaly they have a history leading back to the original Unixes at BSD. For example, there is "cc". While we don't run the portable C compiler on any of the Free Unixes but instead one of the GNU compilers. That means that our "cc" is really "gcc" but it lives in /usr/bin. But those extras... Thats where the big difference is. The extras endup over in /usr/local or /usr/X11R6.

      If I was to remove /usr/local and /usr/X11R6 from my system the base system would be unaffected but i would lose "gs" and "tcl" and "apsfilter" and "kde" and all the other neat extras I've added to my system.

      As to why somebody might choose a BSD system over a Linux distribution.

      1. Upgrades: Last night I went from FreeBSD 3.4 to FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT. This happened to be my personal box but the total time for the upgrade was about an hour and that upgraded every piece of software on the system. Every configuration script every added package. Everything. And when I say upgrade, I don't mean replacing configuration scripts. I mean merging them or using the ones that I have from 3.4. All and all for an unpleasent upgrade, it didn't take to long.
      2. Stability. The BSD and Linux camps both have excelent stability but in my experence and opinion, FreeBSD has been a little more stable than Linux.
      3. Security. Linux boxes have software from everywhere and as such the security is only as good as the weakest link. While it is still MUCH better than most commerical OSes (Win95/winNT/Irix/Soloris) it still a bit weaker than then Free BSD Unixes.
      4. Patches. Somebody finds something wrong with some software, how do you get the patch and get it installed? With Linux this can mean anything from a full kernel upgrade including upgrading libc and half your system to a simple patch file and recompile. But YOU have to figure out what it is going to take and how this patch will interact with the rest of your system. In BSD, there is one stop shopping in the form of the "STABLE" tree. You can pull the stable tree, build and install and your entire system gets the latest STABLE version of the OS. And you know that all the parts are designed to interact with each other correctly and will not break (for the most part) any extras that you have added.
      5. announcements. FreeBSD has a number of very low bandwidth mailing lists that you can subscribe to (freebsd-announc@freebsd.org) which will keep you up-to-date on the OS with out flooding your mailbox. (Yes, I'm sure there are lists like that for Linux, but finding them can be difficult)
      6. Emulations. With the FreeBSD 4.0 most Linux programs run under the FreeBSD emulation system. The new Heros III runs fine under 4.0 and linux emulation. So does StarOffice 5.1 and vmware. All of this is way good.

      I have a windows box just to play games and run my scanner, I don't use it for any real work. I use FreeBSD for all of the house servers and house computers. The exception being the one MacIntosh my wife uses (besides her FreeBSD box which is what she uses most of the time). I ran Linux for 3 or 4 years before switching to FreeBSD. I don't think I'll go back but every once in a while, when the Linux people announce another cool game that runs under linux but not FBSD I get tempted. With this release of FBSD 4.0, I don't see myself as going back to Linux ever.

      Chris

  2. fast TCP/IP. Real numbers? by Zapman · · Score: 4

    An AC wrote:
    "FreeBSD has a reputation for ... a fast IP stack"

    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
  3. Re:Question for FreeBSD users/geeks by Guy+Harris · · Score: 3
    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

    ...or writes a replacement module for FreeBSD; that page says:

    This piece of software provides some basic support for running the VMware 1.1 for Linux on FreeBSD.

    I'm using FreeBSD 4.0 -current system and don't know whether this software will work on the 3.X branch.

    ...

    At this time I was able to successfully run the following operation systems under VMware on FreeBSD:

    - FreeBSD 4.0 Current
    - Linux (Debian 2.1)
    - Windows NT
    - Windows 95 OSR2 (in safe mode :)
    - MS DOS 7.0 (Part of Win'95)

    (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.)

  4. FreeBSD vs Linux by 1010011010 · · Score: 3

    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.

    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 ... etc. And, conveniently, there's a lock_kernel() and unlock_kernel() around the bdflush code. A performance killer, especially when writing filesystem code.

    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.
  5. Re:my silly install error by magician · · Score: 3

    Had the same problem. The 'install' program is broke, so you need to reinstall it before it works:

    cd /usr/src/usr.bin/xinstall; make all install

    Good luck!

    --

    Cheers,
    Sean
  6. Some really cool stuff in 4.0 by bubblemancer · · Score: 5

    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.

  7. Cause you hate yourself... by Bill-Gates · · Score: 5

    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.

  8. FreeBSD features and improvements. by tidepool · · Score: 5

    For those of you that do not know what benefits are in FreeBSD 4.0, here are a list of new / improved features:
    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 /var/log/security.
    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

  9. Java 2 SDK on FreeBSD by FreeBSDrew · · Score: 4

    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).

    • "FreeBSD is one of the favorite OS to run servers, and Java is becoming the favorite language to write server applications."
    • "Daemon News supports this project. DN will also issue a certification if it runs well on BSD."
    • "Due to the stability we use either Solaris or FreeBSD. It is very tiresome not being able to develop on FreeBSD for deployment on Solaris. Using solely Linux is not an option for me."
    • "It's a pity that we can't develop on a OS that is very popular among small ISPs."
    • "As has been said, not having Java ports for these platforms helps only Microsoft, and hurts the people Sun really seems interested in helping: the Open Source community."
    • "With official support of Java2 on FreeBSD from SUN, I would be able to finally abandon NT platform and use my prefferd FreeBSD OS for most of my projects."

    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!

    --

    ***