Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 3.5-RELEASE Now Available
dougc writes: "FreeBSD 3.5-RELEASE is now available for the x86 architecture. Many changes in both the kernel and userland, plus several very small security fixes were included. A bunch of neat things were also merged from -current." 3.5 is the continuation of the 3.x branch, with mostly important bug and security fixes. New development continues on 5.x. This release is almost certainly the last on the 3.x line, with 4.x becoming the new ``stable'' release. The release notes have the full details on what's changed, you can download 3.5 from here.
I always get this *slightly* wrong, so bear with me.
:)
BSD sets off on branches with a fairly broad set of features. So, the 3.x branch changed a whole lot of stuff from 2.x and added (for instance) support for the Alpha.
4.x binned the whole of 3.x's IDE architecture and replaced it with a new ATA one. The jail system call was added. A new network card driver architecture for cards that use the MII physical layer went in. Stateful extensions were put on the firewall. Lots of USB stuff. IP6 is now *very* integrated, SSL is quite integrated and all is good. Go see the changes for your self. I use it every day with no problem.
Anyway, development continues along all these branches until no-one needs/wants it any more. There are thousands of incredibly serious users of the 3.x branch that have no desire to break their scripts so development continues along 3.x. Most users now use 4.x that I believe has just had its' first "-STABLE" release. I should cvsup and buildworld, really.
There is a 5.x branch that is merging some of the work from BSDi. This is cowboy country, for hackers developers and nutters only. Not for production servers.
So there you go. A more verbose explaination is yours for the taking in the FAQ.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Uhmm... BSD *is* mainstream. Linux just happens to get all the media coverage. Ever wonder what sites like Yahoo!, Hotmail, eBay, run? Why it's FreeBSD! Oh my god, it's mainstream! Linux is slow compared to *BSD, for the mere fact that *BSD has more code maturity. Hell, NT is about on par with Linux for performance but *BSD smokes them (AIX and Solaris around the top of the study I saw, they didn't test my favorite FreeBSD, but it's up there). You Linux people need to stop thinking Linux is the be all and end all, it needs to catch up with BSD in alot of areas first. However, to be fair, I must say for software compatibility Linux is out in front (though FreeBSD's linux emulation levels it out). A *BSD beats Linux in all other areas, NetBSD for hardware, OpenBSD for security, and FreeBSD for performance. Read up next time.
(I know some Linux-fanatic moderator is gonna mod me down for this, but I refuse to post anonymously)
--
Sort of true.
CURRENT is where all the major development goes on, think of it as a permanent beta test. It usually complies and works, but not always.
STABLE gets some new features back-ported from CURRENT, plus bugfixes and other enhancements.
Periodially STABLE is frozen for a short period, and is released as a RELEASE version, therefore think of RELEASE as a snapshot of STABLE at a particular period in time, with effort made to ensure that it's a worthwhile release point.
Currently 5 is CURRENT, and STABLE sort of encompasses 4.0 and 3.5 depending upon your point of view. 4.0 was generally reckoned to be more stable than 3.4 and hence was adopted slightly quicker than normal.
4.1 will most likely be the official STABLE version when it is released.
Despite being a zealous Linux user and Slashdot reader, I still want to remain open-minded about what is out there in the open-source world, and not look at it with a single main frame set on using on Linux alone. Diversification - That's the one beauty of open-source I think a lot more people need to appreciate, and I have a gut feeling that raising concerns about privacy and security on the Internet will create more demand for BSD experience; not that I'm implying that Linux has poor security. It's just that BSD, especially Open has an unrivalled track record with not having any local or default-install exploits for the last 2-3 years. It's a record that even the most paranoid Linux distribution would envy.
I've also noticed in recent months that FreeBSD has one of the largest collection of ports compared to any Open source OS out there, not to mention high performance as indicated by the trust placed in it by so many high-level Net services such as Hotmail. The only thing holding me back from diving straight into BSD is package-management. Please enlighten me on this one if I'm wrong. Sure, FreeBSD has a simple package management system, but does it come anywhere near to the sophistication of Debian's apt? I've never seen anyone else come even close to beating the dpkg system. What does the BSD have in store for the future of it's package management? Please do tell me
I'd also like to point out having a Linux kernel for BSD defeats the purpose of using BSD. BSD is inherently stable due to the maturity of its kernel. Ports are recompiled from source designed with Linux in mind so that it can run at its best on BSD systems. From what I've heard BSD already has very good Linux emulation as well. BSD looks like it could outshine it's famed-endowed cousin Linux with the next few years as long as it keeps its high standards up.
To all BSD developers/auditors/testers out there, keep up the great work (please improve package management for all the BSD newbies/hopeful converts = P) and you're bound to become the next great thing...
PS: Now if only Linux could keep up in security and performance...then we'd have a great competition and higher quality development = )
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
5x won't be released for quite some time.
4 is the current version
3.5 is an update for those that don't want to change from 3 to 4. Similar releases happened for 2.x after 3.x came out. Come to think of it, I think 2.x stil gets security fixes.
BSD doesn't smoke Linux in all areas. (Hey, I use BeOS mainly, so I have no preference for either.) In terms of usage, I'd give the upper hand to BSD because it is a much more coherent system, and the ports system absolutely rocks. As for performance, it all depends on what you're gauging. Under low load single proc systems doing network stuff, Linux has a slight edge. However, BSD handles high load MUCH better than Linux does. Also, the MM in BSD is better, but the multimedia subsystems (sound, graphics, etc) are better under Linux. As for NT, NT smokes both Linux and BSD when it comes to certain gauges of performance. It wins for raw throughput through the network, for raw disk I/O speed, an has insanely better multimedia capabilities. (Courtesy DirectX and a very mature OpenGL.) However, you have to look at its performance in real world terms. NT makes a lot of sacrifices to achieve these raw benchmarks. First, it has small in kernel bufers for I/O and stuff. That makes it faster, but mucks up the system and increases non-pagable memory use. Then there is graphics. The Win2K HAL integrates DirectX calls, again messing with the cleanliness of the system, increasing the code size of a very low level layer, and introducing a major source of bugs into the HAL. Also, all system servers run in kernel mode, so they do not enjoy the protectedness inherent in micokernel designs. By running stuff like graphics in the kernel and running the server in kernel mode, it becomes a lot faster, but at the cost of stability, memory use etc. Also, NT has problems under heavy load, so when comparing a FreeBSD and an NT machine, the FreeBSD machine will wipe the floor with NT, even though NT has the raw throughput advantage.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I know the issue of having 3.5 come out AFTER 4.0 is confusing, so let me try to explain why.
.0 tended to be a bit rough around the edges.
There are many thousands of users who are using 3.4, which are quite happy doing so.
When 4.0 came out, it was using lots of (relatively) untested code, so the general advice was "unless you have a good reason to use 4.0, stick with 3.x until 4.1 comes out". To be perfectly blunt, in the past anything ending in
4.0 came out, and actually has been very stable and bugs have been scarce. However, they still have the comittment to the 3.x users to incorporate some of the recent changes, so here came 3.5.
5.0 is the "bleeding-edge/scary" code that hasn't been released yet, and is where developers to go make huge changes. Right now they're making gigantic changes to the SMP structure to make interrupts more thread-like, and the such.
While I give the FreeBSD team kudos for supporting users who aren't tracking the latest and greatest, I've had no problems with 4.0 at all, and am recommending it to anyone who is getting a fresh start.
If you're a 3.x user who just wants to update, go with a 3.5 upgrade.
If you're a new users, grab 4.0. (4.1 isn't too far away, too).
-- Kevin
FreeBSD has supported >2GB files for as long as I can remember. I don't know how to tell for sure, but it would also appear FreeBSD uses a 3gig user, 1gig kernel address space, since absolute addresses well above 2G were reported available when I ran a malloc arena prospector program.
/compat/linux)
Linux support is superb. I'm posting this reply with linux netscape 4.7, and there's no detectable difference in performance, behavior, or stability. Actually it's more stable than I've ever had it under linux (probably because I'm disinclined to constantly futz with the system installed in
I do have to disappoint you a bit: UFS+softupdates will not give you journalling. Soft updates is merely another block cache and deferred write queue. Speeds up the filesystem tremendously, but doesn't really add any new features.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
eBay uses NT
They also use Solaris (although it seems to be used less in recent times).
Different OSes of choice for different people. There's no need to rant and claim that moderators are "out to get you."
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.