Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD-4.0 Release Candidate Out
shlong writes "Just wanted to let you all know that the release candidate of FreeBSD 4.0 is now available at the usual places. Both i386 and Alpha iso images are available (and both are bootable!).
A full list of changes is at the release notes.
"
Why is it that at times BSD stories never make it to the main page???
Because Slasdot has "sections". Sometimes a subsection headline (apache/bsd/your rights online) makes it to the front page, sometimes not.
... wow! I think it's real cool that BSD keeps up so well, and many times surpasses, Linux in pure technical functionality. Remember, Linux has friends like Intel, IBM, SGI and some newly IPO companies like Red Hat, VA, SuSe etc pouring hot $$$ down their kernels.
Does FreeBSD have any kind of commercial backing ala Linux? If not
Personally, i think it kicks ass when it comes to ease of use, performance and stability, and it sucks when it can't boot a partition beyond cylinder 1024. So i can't actually use it now. Must get rid of that FAT32 kludge that sits in front of my disk first. And UNIX is supposed to be older technology than DOS...
I was a linux junkie too, until recently. So i'm not really an expert but i know this:
Biggest Pros:
FreeBSD = Advanced, stable, fast, free
NetBSD = Portable, free
OpenBSD = Secure, free
BSDi = No idea. Never heard of anyone using it. Non-free, in both senses.
So it's FreeBSD unless you have something really weird than needs NetBSD, or if you are paranoid, OpenBSD.
The lack of soundcard support in FreeBSD drives me insane.
It's fucking shame that such a beautiful OS is flawed by the lack of, sorry, non-existant, sound drivers.
When Jordan and the boys are done with 4.0 I hope they put every effort into making the crappiest of all soundsystems on sweeeet mother earth atleast usable.
I mean, SoundBlaster Live! has been available for ages, and the drivers are opensource but still no sight of support for that card in FreeBSD, FUCKING NUTTS!
If FreeBSD is to get the respect that it otherwise deserves it better get good soundsupport, and FAST.
every time I run make on a large project (postgres, e.g.,) the fucking thing freezes on me. Same with building a kernel. And I installed the RC last night and still have the problems. Still, it's noticably faster than linux, and the setup kinda makes me nostalgic for the DECSystem I used in college. (sniff)
Why should anyone have to pay to get a piece of hardware that you already have paid for is beyond me. Ok ok. OSS guys have chosen to write drivers and charge for them. That is their right. But why should everyone especially in the BSD camp just want to say that "its the standard?" I thought BSD guys wanted their core os to stay as free or even freer in some ways than Linux. Why do some in the BSD world think that OSS is the most official sound for BSD. OSS is not BSD licensed and OSS is not a standard other than a defacto standard and even that looks to change in the near future with projects like ALSA. What FreeBSD and other BSD's need is to not have a standard response of sending people to someone with yet another closed driver/app etc but rather make sure that FreeBSD is a truely complete OS including basic sound support for most sound cards. Maybe FreeBSD needs an ABSA project. The issues relating to getting GPLed drivers in FreeBSD is a non-issue. The FreeBSD team could work from available specs to recreate a BSD'ed implementation or they could simply "port" the GPL version. And before you scream "license violation" for either side their are examples of GPLed drivers that were ported as modules only to FreeBSD, and that is of course the key to not violating any licenses. Anyway I have heard that version 4.0 of FreeBSD will include more extensive support of sound and has gone through a serious rewrite. This sounds promising, and hopefully if care is taken FreeBSD could add open source SBLive support without breaking the GPL or causing the FreeBSD kernel to be GPLed. Ok I just had to get that off my chest.
Try OpenBSD or try NetBSD :>
NetBSD users work together if they use computer types of different kinds. VM additions done from architecture ONE also benefit architecture TWO and THREE - same deal with networking, security, pkgsrc, toolchain, userland, X11, kernel, ports and homepage right?
FreeBSD is missing support on Intel for a number of hardware devices available from NetBSD now you know? Even if "NetBSD supports many more platforms than FreeBSD, but compared to the Intel platform it's a drop of water in the river" a good number of soundcards, cardbus, pcmcia and scsi cards are available in NetBSD but not FreeBSD. Your point?
> Also, things sometimes tend to get messed up (especially ps) after a make world (without compiling a new kernel). You can't really expect that to work properly though.
;-)
Heh, Linux people might actually expect this to work perfectly well... but then, they can't simply upgrade their entire userland from source with 2 commands either (1 command if you already have the source
FreeBSD: The most worked on. Closest compition to Linux. Runs fast, many belive faster then Linux, but this depends on many variables, and both are playing leapfrog with speed, and working on different areas. (in particular, until linux 2.2 FreeBSD had better networking, and until FreeBSD 4.0 linux has better SMP, and linux may still be different) If you are a normal PC user and want to try something else this is the best bet.
NetBSD: The most protable. The NetBSD folks have more useful ports then anything else, and they are all running from the same source. (Note, linux has more ports, but netBSD has more useable ports) If you find a strange platform in a basement someplave netBSD is most likly to run, and probably easiest to get running it it doens't currently run.
OpenBSD: orginialy a netBSD plus a few minor changes (thus in theory it is easially ported, but most ports are not maintained, so it is less useful on random platforms) OpenBSD has seen several years go by without a remotely exploitable security hole in the distribution. IF security is important, this is the one for you. I should note there that distribution in the *BSD sense is more equivelent to Debian or Redhat in the linux sense, thus even if the linux kernel was perfect if there was a hole in something else suppliled with the kernel openBSD would call it a hole. This isn't to say that linux can't be made secure, or that openBSD cannot be made to leak like a sieve, only that by default it doesn't. (In other words openBSD is a tool that helps security conscience administrators, but the incompitant administrator will destroy that)
As a programer I prefer the *BSDs. *BSD takes the additude of do it right the first time, while linux is more do it quick, and fix the bugs latter. That isn't to say that nobody takes the time to figgure out the right way in linux, because many do. However a there are also parts that were not well designed. Of course saying that parts of linux were not well designed is not ment to imply that all of *BSD was. Confused yet? Good, you should be because in the end the only thing for sure is you need to try them all and decide for yourself what you like best.
This is not religion. You won't burn in hell for chosing the wrong one. You won't burn in hell for trying something new once you find out which is the real best OS.
Only under FreeBSD does a beta release crush the competition's production releases in reliability :)
Intosi
Intosi
To be fair, that is a limitation with the BIOS, rather than with FreeBSD.
I have been running 4.0-current for a couple of weeks and it has been nice and smooth. I have noticed an improvement in SMP speed. Very nice all in all.
Oh really?
NetBSD has technical advantages over FreeBSD too.
They had newconfig before we had newbus, our USB came from them, they have things we don't.
Frankly, it's very difficult to make a case for either FreeBSD or NetBSD, unless you have some particular hardware only one of them supports (NetBSD supports many more platforms than FreeBSD, but compared to the Intel platform it's a drop of water in the river), or a particular software feature (I don't know... PPPoN, maybe? jail? logfs?). NetBSD installation is not up to FreeBSD standards, though, and FreeBSD is much more popular.
(8-DCS)
I've been running -current for quite some time now, and I haven't had any kernel panics for quite some time. Reading the lists no other people have had any major problems either. This stability feels very...odd for something that is SUPPOSED to crash every now and again.
marotti.com
Ok. im a linux junkie. given my choice every machine would run linux. but i realized that it wont happen. So i decided one day that i wanted to play with BSD, learn how to use it etc. Anyone know which BSD i should use? i guess im more focused on server systems.. but .. what are the benifits of each? This is prob the wrong place.. but i saw that the FreeBSD 4.0 RC was out.. and i was considering downloading it. Id like to see a discussion of the pros and cons or each bsd on slashdot, i dont think that im the only one.
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/