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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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