FreeBSD 4.1 Released

Dr. Banana writes "Jordan Hubbard announced that FreeBSD 4.1 is now available on ftp.freebsd.org. You can read the release notes here. The ISO will be available on August 1."

Comments

So what's new?

[RJ11]

Is there anything super special about this new release? Or is it just another release filled with bugfixes, etc.?

Re:So what's new?

[tonyj]

After reading through the release notes, I see that this release no longer need to ever use IPv4, and can use IPv6 100%. This seems like a pretty big deal.

Re:So what's new?

[locutus074]

According to the Release Notes (note the link in the story), some of the changes just in the kernel are:

• Significantly improved IPSEC functionality. In particular, IPSEC security associations must no longer be manually keyed: the new code supports racoon, the KAME IKE daemon, which is located in /usr/ports/security/racoon. Racoon has been shown to interoperate well with other vendor IKE systems, meaning that FreeBSD 4.1 can be used in a heterogeneous IPSEC environment. However, racoon *is* still a work in progress, meaning that there may still be bugs, configuration syntax changes, etc.
• About 9 months of fixes and improvements to the IPv6 code relative to what was in 4.0-RELEASE.
• FreeBSD 4.1 can now be installed on an IPv6-only network - this will be the first release of FreeBSD that never needs to operate using IPv4 at all! ftp7.jp.freebsd.org (Listed as Japan #7 in sysinstall) is an IPv6-reachable mirror site for installation and package-fetching.
• The ALTQ traffic-shaping system has not yet been merged - it will hopefully be added before the release of 4.2. The more experimental KAME code has also not been merged. If you need those features, consider using the the 4.1-RELEASE+KAME snapshots from ftp://ftp.kame.net which will become available after 4.1-RELEASE.
• KNOWN ISSUES: NFS mounts over IPSEC do not seem to work reliably in all cases - mount hangs and possible data corruption have been observed.

There are other nifty changes in userspace, but it looks more like a maintenance release than anything really groundbreaking.

--

Re:So what's new?

[Amokscience]

Aren't most .1 releases basically maintenance and fixes? And I'd count the pure IPv6 as somewhat significant (for the future, maybe not immediately).

Anyways, not too much reason for most people to cvsup other than to be leading edge.

Re:So what's new?

[Omega996]

USB support available in the GENERIC (aka, boot) kernel - this rocks... no more putting X config off until I get the box all set up so I can use a USB mouse (or Zip drive), and then recompile my own kernel, and mess that up a few times, and then have to... anyway, you get the idea...

awesome... (although I too just finished getting 4.0 squared away...argh).

Re:So what's new?

[locutus074]

And I'd count the pure IPv6 as somewhat significant (for the future, maybe not immediately).

As a non-BSD user, I'd consider the IPv6 improvements to be the single most significant achievment in the 4.1 release.

Slightly OT: IPv4 will certainly be here for a long time; on my home network, even it's overkill. Joe User might not be making the change anytime soon, but it's nice to know that when IPv6 really takes off, you won't have to have any "cruft hardware" in place to support a fresh install.

--

Re:So what's new?

[bsletten]

Noone has mentioned this yet:

A new event notification facility called kqueue was added to the
FreeBSD kernel. This is a new interface which is able to replace
poll/select, offering improved performance, as well as the ability
to report many different types of events. Support for monitoring
changes in sockets, pipes, fifos, and files are present, as well as
for signals and processes.

Re:So what's new?

[sporty]

Um, IPv6 has been everpresent in 4.x. its usable as an install feature in 4.1 for the first time. if you wanted ipv6 in 4.0, you needed to recompile, which for any fbsd'er.. is not normal. Most curren't fbsd'ers might cvsup to newest sources..

Silly package users ;>

---

Re:So what's new?

[locutus074]

I'm no stranger to compiling. :)

Actually, the install support was what I was talking about.

--

Re:So what's new?

[dadragon]

Well, for linux people who want 3D accelerator support agp gart is available. There are also tonnes of bugfixes, and other new features.

Re:So what's new?

[questionlp]

One nice addition to 4.1-RELEASE is the support for the Dell PERC, PERC2/SC and the PERC2/DC RAID controllers. Support for the Adaptec RAID controllers is still in the works, but people have gotten the older SmartRAID and SmartCache IV, plus some of the Compaq RAID controllers to work as well.

Mother-son-of-a-bitch!

[Mullen]

I just got done upgrading a couple of servers to 4.0-stable, now 4.1 is out!

I wish they would not release anything for atleast 60 days after I buy it/install it/upgrade it!

I should have majored in Art, where nothing changes for atleast 20 years and the old stuff gets more valuable!

Re:Mother-son-of-a-bitch!

[Leto2]

a) never upgrade a server to a point-oh release
b) there is no b, because you would be installed fbsd-4.1 right now!

Ivo

Re:Mother-son-of-a-bitch!

[randombit]

I wish they would not release anything for atleast 60 days after I buy it/install it/upgrade it!

Really, I installed 4.0 last week! :( That always seems to happen. I bought a OpenBSD 2.5 CD once, and 2.6 came out the next week.

Re:Mother-son-of-a-bitch!

[softsign]

4.0-stable? When did you last update your source tree? I was under the impression that 4.1-stable had been available for the last little while. In which case, there's no point really in updating to 4.1-release aside from cosmetic reasons.

I just did a cvsup of my 4.0-release a few days ago, and it defaulted to 4.1-stable.

--

Re:Mother-son-of-a-bitch!

[Pinball Wizard]

bummer, but if you check out the release dates of previous versions of OpenBSD you'll see they are released every six months, once in June and once in December, like clockwork.

I've not tried Free, but Open rocks.

Drivers?

[LionMan]

Does anybody know how much work is going into FreeBSD's drivers? My major reason for not installing FreeBSD is because it doesn't have as many drivers as say, Linux. This seems to be tha major limitation of all free OS's, though linux is in much better shape than it was a few years ago. I'd gladly work on this stuff, but I don't really know much about low level hardware IO. I hope people are working on their drivers.

Re:Drivers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it depends on exactly what hardware you're talking about but I've found FreeBSD to support my hardware better that Linux.

I have a machine that I do a lot of media work on that has many devices in it. Multiple network cards, multiple capture cards, video, sound, etc. I could not get Linux to detect the in-busisness ethernet card (nor the tulip card). And it wouldn't load the SoundBlaster driver. FreeBSD detected everything and works great. I just need a port of bttvgrab to *BSD now.

Overall the *BSD's (I use OpenBSD and FreeBSD) seems extremely stable and detect hardware nicely. And the installs are a snap compared to any Linux install (not as pretty but very simple).

If VMware would run under FreeBSD then I'd switch my desktop to it.

Re:Drivers?

[eel]

The point of open and free OS's is to not "hope" that somboedy does sompthing but to do it. (Says the man that has contributed darn close to 0)

Re:Drivers?

[Amokscience]

Not having as many drivers as Linux doesn't sounds like a good reason to NOT install it (unless you plan on adding new and weird parts all the time). If it supports what you have and it does what you want then there's nothing keeping you from installing it and using it (especially if you're making it a server).

If you need the newest spanking video or sound though, then that sounds more like valid reasoning.

All that said I can offer no insight into the status of driver development.

Re:Drivers?

[deuteron]

hi. check out /usr/ports/emulators/vmware and vmware2. have fun!

Re:Drivers?

[softsign]

I've already posted this elsewhere in this topic, but until now, my only unsupported piece of hardware in FreeBSD was my SBLive. Not anymore. Although I think ALSA has also added SBLive support to its list for Linux.

Hell, FreeBSD even detects my MS Sidewinder USB joystick!

Gotta love it... the least you can do is try it out. The install is painless.

--

Re:Drivers?

[questionlp]

FreeBSD 4.x has support for the SB Live! card...

You can get more information, drivers and installation notes here.

Re:Drivers?

[softsign]

Dude, that's what I'm saying... read closely. =)

--

Re:oops!

[skrysakj]

good eye!

BSD and GNU utilities

[11223]

The csh(1) shell has been replaced by tcsh(1), although it can still be run as csh(1).

The more(1) command has been replaced by less(1), although it can still be run as more(1).

I see they're getting with the GNU bandwagon, but I hope that the original BSD sources for csh, more, etc. get kept somewhere for posterity - when/if all BSD's switch to using GNU userland software, we lose the original BSD software, which wouldn't be a good thing.

I wonder if it could still be made an option to have a FreeBSD 4.1 kernel without the GNU utilities but with original BSD utilities. Anybody from FreeBSD care to comment?

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[Zigg]

As long as the CVS repository is still around, you can always check them out. I know FreeBSD's goes back to 2.0, which was the first unencumbered-by-AT&T release.

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[Parise]

The original 4.4BSD code is available in the ports tree:

http://www.free bsd.org/cgi/url.cgi?ports/shells/44bsd-csh/pkg/DES CR
http://www.freeb sd.org/cgi/url.cgi?ports/misc/44bsd-more/pkg/DESCR

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[nconway]

when/if all BSD's switch to using GNU userland software, we lose the original BSD software, which wouldn't be a good thing.

Why would this be a bad thing? If the BSDs switch, this means the GNU stuff is better. And if that's true, then there would be no reason to continue using the BSD stuff.

Unless I'm missing something...?

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[11223]

Heritage. That's what you're missing. I've got no problems with the GNU stuff, but the original BSD stuff needs to be kept for posterity.

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[Silver A]

The more(1) command has been replaced by less(1), although it can still be run as more(1).

I consider this a mistake. On my Linux system at home, less is more useful than more, but more has its place. In particular, ls -l --color | less is ugly on the terminal and various xterms, while ls -l --color | more looks like it's supposed to.

I suppose that trying to keep the distribution compact is a justification for some of these replacements, but the old commands should be kept around, even if not installed by default. Someone, somewhere, may need to use both csh and tcsh, without the one substituted for the other. What's next, dropping vi for emacs?

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[11223]

Try --color=auto instead of --color. Works for me. Usually I alias ls='ls --color=auto'.

Actually, what's next might be dropping nvi for vim, which once again IMHO would be a mistake.

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[jemfinch]

Neither 'less' nor 'tcsh' are GPL'ed.

Please, check your facts before you complain--it's as simple as going to the ports tree and doing a 'make'.

'less' is licensed as follows (from LICENSE):

Less Copyright (C) 1984-2000 Mark Nudelman Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

and 'tcsh' is licensed as follows (from README):

Feel free to use it. These changes to csh may only be included in a commercial product if the inclusion or exclusion does not change the purchase price, level of support, etc. Please respect the individual authors by giving credit where credit is due (in other words, don't claim that you wrote portions that you haven't, and don't delete the names of the authors from the source code or documentation).

Please, check your facts before posting.

Jeremy

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[11223]

Oops - I must have thought otherwhise, but what I meant is that they're adopting a lot of the software the Linux community worked on. The idea of my original post still stands, even if I screwed up the license. I don't think that deserved a flame, esp. because I am at work and cannot get to the FreeBSD tree.

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[mikpos]

Use less -r, brainiac.

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[longword]

ls -l --color | less is ugly on the terminal and various xterms

Try ls -l --color | less -r instead. Maybe even alias it.

Paul.

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[mr]

>Oops - I must have thought otherwhise, but what I meant is that they're adopting a lot of the software the Linux community worked on.

And here all this time *I* thought the "Linux community" (whatever that is) was taking code that was unix-portable and getting people to refer to it as 'linux software'.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[DaveTerrell]

how is TCSH GNU software?

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[bugg]

Invoke tcsh as csh or less as more, and you'll get the behavior you want. If you investigated a bit before posting, you'd know that ;)

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[Anonymous Coward]

TCSH is highly evolved BSD csh and as such is distributed under BSD license

LESS has it's roots in BSD more and is distributed under dual license, Less license, which is BSD-like, and GNU GPL.

So there is no reasin to say that FreeBSD is dmping BSD utilities in favor of GNU ones - programs in question are not GNU despite common mistaken opinion.

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[Guy Harris]

Oops - I must have thought otherwhise, but what I meant is that they're adopting a lot of the software the Linux community worked on.

...and that, I suspect, people outside "the Linux community" worked on as well.

Do tcsh and less antedate Linux? Even if they don't, were they originally done for Linux, or were they done for other UNIXes instead or as well?

If the answer to either of those questions is "yes", then saying "they're adopting a lot of the software the Linux community worked on" may be technically true, but may not necessarily be equivalent to "getting with the GNU bandwagon" or "switching to using GNU userland software" even if you reinterpret "GNU" in your original message as meaning "Linux", so, no, I do not believe that particular idea of your original post still stands.

I'm not sure that "we lose the original BSD software, which wouldn't be a good thing" applies either, if by "lose" you mean "don't have it available as part of the system" (as opposed to "the source is unavailable" - as noted, the source is still available in the CVS tree). I don't see csh as being preferable to tcsh, or more as being preferable to less, merely by virtue of being the implementation that came with older versions of BSD - the BSDs have changed a number of things, over time, from "the original BSD software" in the sense of, say, "what came with 4.4-Lite", but I don't view that as being ipso facto A Bad Thing.

There may be other reasons to prefer csh or more, but there are probably reasons why, for arbitrary piece of code XXX in release N of operating system YYY, some people might prefer alternative ZZZ, where alternative ZZZ might have been there instead of XXX in release N-k. So it goes....

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[d^2b]

Just to clarify: tcsh has nothing to do with
GNU, the GPL, or the FSF as far as I can tell
from looking at the source (on my FreeBSD 4.1-RC
system)

less(1) on the other hand seems to be
GPLed and copyright the FSF.

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[Arandir]

That's not the point. Try being a user. When I type in "more" I want to see "more" behavior.

Re:BSD and GNU utilities

[Arandir]

I don't think that deserved a flame

Well, you did say *GNU* which in the context of BSD is guaranteed to push people's hot buttons. If you were concerned about FreeBSD changing some of their old tried-and-true utilities, then you should have said so. But when you say that FreeBSD is dumping BSD stuff for GNU stuff, you deserved all the flamage you got. I mean, you don't call the Pope a Mormon and then expect to get away with it!

Excellent!

[Kailden]

* FreeBSD 4.1 can now be installed on an IPv6-only network - this will be the first release of FreeBSD that never needs to operate using IPv4 at all! ftp7.jp.freebsd.org (Listed as Japan #7 in sysinstall) is an IPv6-reachable mirror site for installation and package-fetching

The revolution has begun! IPV6-->and you thought the internet was already big enough.

Re:Excellent!

[Ex Machina]

my toaster will come online toaster.kitchen.exmachina-house.providence.ri.us.n injas.org

like kernel xxx.xxx

[ArchieBunker]

A major release is not important? How often do we see kernel 2.2.16acbeta15build57 posted? How about Redhat 6.3 debian 5.6 suse f00.12.

Doah! wouldn't you believe on tuesday I installed 4.1 RC3? oh well at least my sblive card works.

Haiku

[talonyx]

Free BSD has
Released a new version, for
You to use and love.

Upgrades

[kchayer]

Does anyone know whether FreeBSD is any easier or convenient to upgrade between releases? I can't speak for all Linux distributions here, but it seems that at least Slackware recommends that you delete and reinstall everything, just to be safe. Is FreeBSD that inconvenient, or does it allow for a smoother upgrade path between versions? That would be a major plus for me for looking into FreeBSD usage more heavily at our location.

Re:Upgrades

[alexandre]

Yeah i was thinking about the same thing, after using debian for over a year i don't think i could go back to upgrade my distribution from a CD everytime and having to reboot etc...

How does FreeBSD work for that? :-)

---

Re:Upgrades

[Brandon Hume]

Well, my means of upgrading from 4.0 to 5.0-CURRENT was merely by cvsup'ing the source tree, doing a 'make buildworld', 'make installworld', built a kernel using the new sources, installed it, rebooted, and then basked in the -CURRENT. :) I imagine the same process would work for 4.0 to 4.1.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/

Re:Upgrades

[InfiniteReality]

When a new release comes out, use CVSup to downloaded the latest source tree.. not the full sources, just patches to whatever you have on your system. Then, just run make world, recompile your kernel, and you're done. CVSup is also used for downloading the latest ports.

Re:Upgrades

[eel]

Or if you wan't to do it the lame way, you can always just slip the new CD in the drive and hit upgrade. That is as long as you have enough HD space on /usr which I often do not.

Re:Upgrades

[Amokscience]

http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/cutting-edge.html

From what I gather while sitting in irc it's amazingly simple once you've "cut your teeth" on it. btw: a good number of Debian like features seem to be modelled after *bsd features (I hope I got that right and not backwards).

Re:Upgrades

[alexandre]

And how much space do you need for that kind of upgrade? :)

---

Re:Upgrades

[swdunlop]

Urr.. The only two Debian features that come to mind are:

1) It's community.
2) It's packaging methodology.

While Debian /does/ have a really good group of people behind it, and their packaging dependencies system is really clever, I don't see much similarity to FreeBSD. FreeBSD has gone the low road, and instead of trying to implement a package system, they provide very clever makefiles that will download the source, 'fix' it, then compile.

Okay.. There /is/ a third feature, that is rather BSD-like..

3) They're patient. Debian /and/ FreeBSD will label something experimental, even if it's considered tried and true by other distros, until they're /positive/ it works.

Re:Upgrades

[JumpSuit Boy]

My present /usr/src drive has about 300 megs of source file for 4.1 RC2
/usr/obj where the intermediate obj files go during make buildworld go has about 150 megs of stuff in it after a compile.

3 or 4 hours on a 2x366 celery

Re:Upgrades

[Guy Harris]

FreeBSD has gone the low road, and instead of trying to implement a package system, they provide very clever makefiles that will download the source, 'fix' it, then compile.

That's certainly a way of installing software on FreeBSD, but I usually just do pkg_add -r package and have it download the binary package (and packages on which it depends) and install it/them. (If I care about the source, I'll download the original tarball and do the configure/make/make install myself, as I'm likely to care about the source because I want to change something, in which case I'll probably want to send it back, and patching the vanilla source rather than port-ized source seems as if it'd be a better idea.)

Re:Upgrades

[Guy Harris]

You can do all that with the ports by just typing 'make extract' to do everything up to extracting the sources in the work directory (then go into work/ and change whatever you want)

Why am I better off doing that than just extracting the tarball? (Note: "because it works with Berkeley make" would not be a valid answer - I've installed GNU make on my machine, which is what I get by default when building stuff, which, for me, is a feature.)

or 'make patch' to do everything up to the freebsd patches

If the original tarball needed patches to build on FreeBSD (other than patches to work with Berkeley make, which I don't care about), the changes should've been sent back to the maintainer of the package, so that future tarballs won't require that.

From there you can type 'make configure' or 'make' or 'make install', whatever.

If all I'm doing is make followed by make install, I'd go for the binary package.

Re:Upgrades

[swdunlop]

Well. The justification for doing this is twofold: 1) The ports system does better at version-to-version compatability. Many ports are only very lightly maintained, as opposed to the packages which are built and tested as a part of the release process. Therefore the ports tend to include things not in such popular demand. 2) Using the ports over just the original author's makefile, is that the ports are usually more careful to adhere to the FreeBSD standards for what goes where and how, than these authors are. See also the '/usr/local/', '/opt/', '//bin /lib /share /whatever' holy wars that rage in your nearest unix shop.

Oh poo.

[grub]

2000-07-27 12:42:28 FreeBSD 4.1-RELEASE is out! (bsd,bsd)

I guess my notification was passed over. :(

BSD

[Dungeon Dweller]

I love how people always say, "BSD did nice" in benchmarks and such. BSD has a long, strong tradition. I'm not knocking on Linux, but if you want REAL UNIX, this comes from the original source. This IS UNIX, the kernel is where it's at. It's stable, strong, and a GREAT operating system. Also, it can run Linux binaries and the binaries for SEVERAL OS's. If you haven't checked BSD out, this is a good place to start. I suggest that EVERYONE out there grabs an ISO. Those of you who use slack will be familiar with BSD fairly quickly, as Slack strives to be as true to BSD unix as possible. It's very minimalistic in nature as well. The idea is to add the software you want, not just take away from software that you already installed. Have an operating system, and know what you are installing on it. BSD is a great system, you should all check it out.

Re:BSD

[locutus074]

I'm not knocking on Linux, but if you want REAL UNIX, this comes from the original source.

Not to be argumenative (okay, so maybe I am), but *BSD contains no more of the original AT&T Unix source than Linux does.

That said, the heritage is different, yes; BSD came from the original source, but it wound up being totally rewritten to avoid heat while AT&T was suing Berkeley. Linux, of course, was written ground-up (okay, actually started on Minix, which was itself a re-implementation) to mimic Unix.

Different lineage, same result in the "purity" of the code. They're both good.

--

Re:BSD

[eel]

Slow down, we are all frends hear. If nothing else show some respect for the project that started the entier OpenSorce movement. You don't have to use it and you don't even have to like it. But you shuld realize that BSD and Linux are freands. To sum up: CHILL DUDE!!

Re:BSD

[eel]

People like you used to say "Mac OS Bites the big one, Real men use Dos." I tire of zelots. Rob a bank and buy an open-mind

Re:BSD

[azz]

Linux, of course, was written ground-up (okay, actually started on Minix, which was itself a re-implementation) to mimic Unix.

No. Linux never contained any Minix code. It used the Minix filesystem for a while, but the code was reimplemented.

"I want to use software that doesn't suck." - ESR
"All software that isn't free sucks." - RMS

Good Deal!

[Superb0wl]

I might have to switch from my Slak install to FreeBSD. I ran OpenBSD last year for about a month, but i found i liked linux better. Some things that look kewl in the new FreeBSD:

It now supports an IPv6 ONLY network. no more IPv4. How kewl is that.

And basically the only other differences (besides hardware compatability) that i noticed were tcsh is there now, It uses less i/s of more and ls is color! (yay)

Yea, i'm sorta karma whoring, but no one else is posting. so shut up.

ok, nevermind. this is now redundant. Remind to not go on a coffee break before posting...
(try to save face....)

Anyway, to provoke discussion....Does anyone else have any opinions on FreeBSD(or Open or Net, for that matter) vs. Linux? I'd be interested to know...


-Superb0wl

Re:Good Deal!

[bluetea]

> Does anyone else have any opinions on FreeBSD > (or Open or Net, for that matter) vs. Linux? Nope, not me. I think you'll find that most people on /. are pretty much indifferent. The best thing to do is to just not bring it up.

Re:Good Deal!

[niekze]

confuse "your" and "you're?" you're an idiot.

Haiku2

[Hard_Code]

this appears to be
a haiku but doesn't have
any poetry

Re:Haiku2

[SnakeStu]

Neither of those are haikus, idiot(s).

And you can't count? Both were 575.

Whatever...

Re:Haiku2

[talonyx]

But yet it was an
Attempt at conveying a
Deep understanding.

Re:Haiku2

[Omega996]

FreeBSD 4 Rock Stable and Performance it's free like linux!

Re:Haiku2

[Tower]

Some need practice
Others have great Haiku style
Trying to sound smart

Slashdot.org cluster

[Delirium Tremens]

I seem to remember that some of Slashdot servers are running FreeBSD. Since Slashdot (community) is generally Linux centric, I wonder what technical superiority does FreeBSD have over Linux. No flame, just curious.

Then, if this post is no longer valid, I still would like to know why FreeBSD was used in the past. Thanks, --

Re:Slashdot.org cluster

[Amokscience]

Someone else will no doubt come along and give more detail but the FreeBSD used to have much superior networking than other OSes. That's not the case anymore as most everyone has 'caught up'. It was also used by and developed by a lot of people in the ISP/networking business (i386 and alpha ports).

It's also centrally organized with a strong core team which gives it focus and prevents a lot of splintering (exceptions being Net and Open which are strongly focussed in their own right). I suppose some consider this to be a drawback but most people seem happy with the end products.

Also it has a great ports system where people maintain src and binary pacakges for easy installation. I've seen the Debian package system and it's exactly like that. Not sure which came first but BSD is where I first saw it. You install a hierachry of application skeletons. The it's run by a system of Makefiles. You want openssh on your system? You go to /usr/ports/security/openssh and type make install. It will download teh source and any dependencies and compile build, install and register man pages etc. All from one command, incredibly neat. You can also do binaries using the pkg_add command.

More info at http://www.freebsd.org/ports/

You can also upgrade your whole system via cvsup. Similar in simplicity to the ports collection you automatically download any sources that are needed and diff and patch things until your system is upgraded.

Lots of info at http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/

There's also NetBSD and OpenBSD which focu on running on multiple architectures and security respectively. They're all great server OSes imo.

Re:Slashdot.org cluster

[qnonsense]

"All the boxes are VA Linux Systems FullOns running Debian"

That's a direct quote from http://slashdot.org/faq/tech.shtml. Slashdot has never run on FreeBSD. Yahoo does though.

Re:Slashdot.org cluster

[Amokscience]

Probably got the BSD reference from the blurb that says it sits behind a BSD box doing firewalling.

Re:Slashdot.org cluster

[howardjp]

For a time, the ads server was FreeBSD. I do not know if this is still the case.

Re:Slashdot.org cluster

[questionlp]

I believe Slashdot is using FreeBSD on their firewall boxen (which I believe replaced a Cisco PIX firewall).

I think you can probably search the past articles for the Slashdot move to Exodus Communications.

Re:Slashdot.org cluster

[lw54]

Slashdot has never run on FreeBSD.

No, but I think images.slashdot.org does. :-)

Re:Slashdot.org cluster

[Jesse Shrieve]

This is false. Half of Slashdot's servers used to be FreeBSD. Two Linux, two FreeBSD. I know, because I ran them. I won't bother joining in on the war of why Linux or why FreeBSD. Others can do that pretty well.

Re:Slashdot.org cluster

[qnonsense]

Nope. Netcraft quotes "images.slashdot.org is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) on Linux".

BSD and GNU true utility

[91degrees]

So, which version of true does BSD use? Is it the ultra efficient -02 compiled GPL'ed version written in optimised C, complete with command line options, an original BSD version fo the same, an empty script or a script with copyright information commented out?

Re:BSD and GNU true utility

[B-Rad]

Well, since they're replacing more with less, it would stand to reason that they're replacing true with false.

Re:BSD and GNU true utility

[LionMan]

The whole idea behind less is that less is more, but more than more. So true and false are equivalent. I'm sure the incompleteness theorem fits into this somewhere.

Re:BSD and GNU true utility

[afc]

No, the actual quote is: less(1) is more(1), more or less...
--

Re:BSD and GNU true utility

[kps]

Just for the hell of it, I rewrote true on my box at work in i386 assembly: pushl $0; movl $1,%eax; lcall 7,0. I'm proud to say this is the only i386 assembly code I've ever written. And I hereby place it in the public domain :-)

For some real excitement, though, see /usr/bin/clear on Solaris, or better still Unixware. It's "tput clear" preceded by twenty lines of copyright notices, including:

# Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation
# All Rights Reserved
# This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft
# Corporation and should be treated as Confidential.

Uhhh

[Dungeon Dweller]

I run Slack 7 as well thank you.

Slashdot Bug?

[suwalski]

Why does the main page seem to have the "Read More" italicised? Could it be that there's a SlashCode bug that doesn't close opened "I" tags? =P

Re:FreeBSD...

[NetJunkie]

The ipf how-to covers this as well as the book "Building Linux and OpenBSD Firewalls". Both of these are excellent reads. The HOW-TO is at http://www.obfuscation.org/ipf/ipf-howto.html

wtf?

[Less;Than;Jake]

well as long as this post blows i might as well mention that i have 58 pet chickens

what?

[grav.2k]

hell, which version of freebsd did you use? a snapshot of -current int times of 2.X? i used to have RH 6.1, and after some months i went to freebsd 4.0 release. the installation was smooth, it ran smoothly, and i haven't had a single problem ;-) i think linux is indeed a poor copy of UNIX, although it is nice and coo to use. but i think freebsd 4.0 is a lot cooler, although i find it a hell more difficult to configure (since 4.1 RC 1 i just cant get natd/ipfw to work correctly. damnit). as far as i have used fbsd, it is a lot faster than 'linux', which, as you all know, is just the kernel.

Re:FreeBSD...

[Brandon Hume]

Try:

block in on ed1 all
pass in on ed1 proto tcp from any to any port = 21 keep state
pass out on ed1 all keep state

I don't believe passing incoming on port 20 is terribly useful, since that's the ORIGINATING port for ftp-data (it connects OUT, not in).

Also, you might find it useful to use a 'pass in quick from /32 to any' at the top of the file, until you get the rules sorted out.

There's extensive documention that comes with IPFilter, you shoudl check it out. Once you know how to use it, you'll see how ipchains and ipfw are pale imitators.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/

Nah...

[Anonymous Coward]

I get lots of Free BSD's already with Windows.

Re:FreeBSD...

[Brandon Hume]

Gak, of all the times to skip previewing.

I MEANT,

'pass in quick from [your workstation's ip]/32 to any'
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/

Re:Who cares?

[eel]

Tell it to HotMail and Yahoo. And almost all of the small to medeum ISP's.

Not a haiku

[panda]

this appears to be
a haiku but sorely lacks
poetic value

That's a haiku!

Anyone for Renga?

As I said before

[Dungeon Dweller]

I like both. I run both. Heck, my main OS is Slack. I just really like BSD as well, and wish that more people would get into it. That's all. And yes, I suppose that your argument that the purity of code is about equal stands. I mean, you also have that most linux distros are made to emulate SysV, whereas BSD has taken its own path. Then, to counter that argument, you could mention that most SysV servers these days run a BSD compat package. It's really a circular argument, don't you think?

Re:As I said before

[locutus074]

Then, to counter that argument, you could mention that most SysV servers these days run a BSDcompat package. It's really a circular argument, don't you think?

Quite. Aside from your normal /bin, there are /ucb or /5bin directories, depending on the flavor of Unix you're using.

I've been thinking more and more about trying some flavor of BSD. FreeBSD is the "Linux", of sorts, of the BSD world, OpenBSD has an impressive security track record, and NetBSD seems like it would be a godsend if you've got wacky hardware. :)

--

Re:As I said before

[rtaylor]

Woo for DreamCast

Nooo!

[Cerb]

Dang it. Thought I would broaden my horizons and installed 4.0 just last night... I will say I'm very impressed with the speed of FreeBSD, I/O seems much faster than Linux w/ext2. The bing util reports much higher speeds between two BSD (Open and Free) than between Linux and *BSD. Quite nice!

Re:Applixware ceases FreeBSD development.

[BadlandZ]

Well, I for one am not supprised. When installing StarOffice for FreeBSD, you get a global install, not the typical 1 install per user Linux install. Considering that Star Office is a bit more advanced than Applix, Star Office is free, and both Star Office and Word Perfect are in FreeBSD Ports (to make the installation as smooth as glass), is it any supprise Applix had a hard time?

I don't think I would fault FreeBSD for Applix shortcomings. To sustain a market share, you have to be competitive, that has nothing to do with FreeBSD support, and everything to do with other office suites avaliable!

But my question is...

[Sir_Winston]

When is *BSD going to get as easy to install as Linux? I'd gladly take it for a test drive, but installing it is such a chore. I always thought install routines should be the easiest part of getting an OS up and running, with tweaking later being the most time-consuming part, but last I heard about *BSD you set up, get dumped to a command line, and then have to manually set up X. Yuck. Has this changed in recent releases, or is there an option to configure X during install yet? I'm not asking for some shiny graphical install routine, just something as user-friendly as Mandrake 6.0, with its lists of choices for setting up X if you want X. I tell ya, if there's one nice thing about Solaris, it's that the CDE desktop gets installed by default and it works like a charm with no black magic needed... :-)

Re:But my question is...

[Snocone]

When is *BSD going to get as easy to install as Linux?

In early 2001.

Re:But my question is...

[questionlp]

The sysinstall in FreeBSD is very easy to install (a couple of my friends liked the text/menu based install for FreeBSD better than RedHat's install, and even over OpenLinux's GUI-based installer) and has an option during the setup to configure X using either the command line or through X itself.

The sysinstall program is very easy and allows you to customize your install the way you want it.

Re:But my question is...

[Teferi]

In my experience, FreeBSD 4.0-RELEASE was actually easier to install than Debian Slink -OR- Potato.
On a LAPTOP, none the less.
It autoprobed my PCMCIA NIC, which both Debian installers threw up their hands at. fdisk and disklabel have 'Do it for me' settings. There's more than adequate documentation for each step, and although I had some issues due to my laptop's BIOS permenantly having LBA on, they were quickly resolved.
On a slightly offtopic note, IMHO, the ports tree is superior to ALL linux packaging systems, even apt/dpkg.

"If ignorance is bliss, may I never be happy.

Re:But my question is...

[jslag]

On a slightly offtopic note, IMHO, the ports tree is superior to ALL linux packaging systems, even apt/dpkg.

Maybe the ports tree has its advantages in the initial installation phase, but do you really think it's comparable for major upgrades (stuff like moving from glibc2 -> glibc2.1, etc.)? Or removing stuff you don't need / want anymore? How about tricky dependency issues?

I ask because in a couple years of using dpkg, it has never let me down, and (almost) always done what I told it to without a hitch...

Re:But my question is...

[randombit]

Unlike Linux distributions, FreeBSD can be installed over the net. No need to buy or burn stupid installation CDs.

Dumass. You can install Redhat over NFS, FTP, or HTTP, and probably most other distros are the same.

Re:But my question is...

[Teferi]

I have no problem with apt/dpkg - my Linux box runs debian, and I love it, too.
I haven't had to try with a major upgrade; my BSD box suffered severe hardware failure a few weeks ago; bad luck. But I imagine it's up to the job...

"If ignorance is bliss, may I never be happy.

Re:But my question is...

[Tower]

Um... I've installed Linux over a network since 1995... a simple boot/rootdisk combo, then you're off to the FTP/NFS install. Easy.

FYI: Burning an install CD (~$.50-.80) is a rather nice way to have a lot of the extra packages on hand, too...

Re:But my question is...

[theMAGE]

On a slightly offtopic note, IMHO, the ports tree is superior to ALL linux packaging systems, even apt/dpkg.

Not intending to start a war here but how can you remove one package?

And if you wander why, think about upgrading: I want to put the new samba package but, it needs the new glibc package. Fine I upgrade both and oops... apache doesn't start anymore. So, remove the latest and greatest and go back to tried and true.

I like FreeBSD but I want to be able to remove things. And I like to be able to update system components piecewise (withoutmake world).

Re:But my question is...

[mr]

>When is *BSD going to get as easy to install as Linux?

I keep asking the same question about Linux.
Linux is just a kernel. It doesn't DO much.

Any only some of the Linux distros sport the features that FreeBSD has had for YEARS.

FTP install-> Insert a boot floppy and FTP the rest over from a server

The way ports/packages work. On RedHat, if I type in rpm --install package, if it needs additional packages it tells me that they are needed and stops running. Whereas FreeBSD goes out and gets them, downloads and installs them.

CVSUP upgrades. To upgrade the system make update then make world.

>but last I heard about *BSD you set up, get dumped to a command line, and then have to manually set up X. Yuck

Funny. Last time I did an install, it asked me what graphics environment I wanted. I picked windowmaker and then all I had to do was run the normal X11 setup. If command lines are that repulsive to you, then exactly *WHY* are you even involved in installing *ANY* OSes? Should you not just buy a box pre-loaded?

Re:But my question is...

[Isamu.]

In the past day, I've installed FreeBSD 4.0 and RedHat 6.2 on two machines. I found the FreeBSD install was significantly easier than RedHat, which surprised the hell out of me.

Re:But my question is...

[bugg]

How do you remove something? with pkg_delete or make deinstall inside the directory in the ports tree.

Re:But my question is...

[steelhawk]

That's "as easy to install as some GNU/Linux distributions" to you! =P

No, seriously...
Are the BSDs harder to install than the not-so-newbie-targetted (GNU/) Linux distributions?
(I.e. Would it be much harder to install than.. let's say Debian or Slackware? (Except of course being different))


--

Re:But my question is...

[jandrese]

try pkg_delete(1), and the ports tree will automatically handle dependancies like new glibc. You can also just make a component and install it (by using cd to go to the directory and typing make and make install).

Re:But my question is...

[jallen02]

Could just be me but there are no pretty graphics But the FreeBSd setup in 3.3 is extremely easy.

Feed it a couple of boot disks have the CD Rom In Drive.

It has nice menu's to configure devices and nicely tells you where conflcits are with IO ports...

This makes setting up something like ohh.. a NIC pretty cinchy. It has always easily found my 3Com card with the GENERIC Kernel.

Compiling the Kernel is like edit a file added a couple of lines.. typed in one command It went

There is also no way to really write over your kernel and then get locked out since at boot time you can just tell it to use a different kernel.

So is it easier to install for a newbie? Yes.

Is there documentation that explains a lot of these features and guides you through it... Not really.

I would say with just a little more decent documentation there would never be a need for GUI Installer. If you know the basics of the hardware you are setting up its very easy.

If you are talking a transition from a "I dont know what a serial port" windows/linux crowd who somehow managed to get either OS installed.. No your just gonna wipe out your partitions

Anyhow.. If you ahve installed a Linux distro and used it for a while and then you move to BSD you will fin dthat its generally easier to use than xyz Linux distro.

You want a program and you have the CD? "/stand/sysinstall" Install the package I imagine this release has KDE 2, Gnome 1.2 and all. They stay update on all of those packages.

You a program? /usr/ports find it type "make install" it downloads all the dependencies it needs and just works, no RPM hell, or weird ass commands it just goes.

Lets just say it significantly cut down on the time I spent downloading libraries and compiling this and that to get Applications working to the point where it is now pretty much all I use at home for a Server.(Given that my needs are somewhat limited ;)

Jeremy


If you think education is expensive, try ignornace

Re:But my question is...

[afc]

Any only some of the Linux distros sport the features that FreeBSD has had for YEARS.
FTP install-> Insert a boot floppy and FTP the rest over from a server

Most Linux distros have had that feature for years too, the only one that misses it is Slack, but it is far from mainstream now.

CVSUP upgrades. To upgrade the system make update then make world.

It's not like you've been able to do this with software that does not come from FreeBSD, like, say X, for quite a long time...

--

Re:But my question is...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

In my experience, FreeBSD 4.0-RELEASE was actually easier to install than Debian Slink -OR- Potato.

As a Debian user, I have to concur that the Debian install is needlessly painful. Especially dselect-- ugh.

On a slightly offtopic note, IMHO, the ports tree is superior to ALL linux packaging systems, even apt/dpkg.

Why? The only extra thing I can think of is the ability to make from source. Debian does not automate this, but you *can* download source packages with apt-get source. It would be trivial to automate this to download, build and install in a single step; I suspect it is only because of lack of interest that no such code is there by default.

OTOH, I think the BSD approach of separating the core system from the ports is superior to Debian's mess...

Re:But my question is...

[aonifer]

Any only some of the Linux distros sport the features that FreeBSD has had for YEARS. FTP install-> Insert a boot floppy and FTP the rest over from a server

I installed my first version of Slackware like that back in 1996. As a matter of fact, I installed Redhat and Debian that way, too, until I lost my ethernet connection in 1998. Which Linux distro doesn't (and why is that a strike against Linux in general)?

CVSUP upgrades. To upgrade the system make update then make world.

To update Debian you type "apt-get update" then "apt-get upgrade." Which, btw is a whole lot faster than a "make world" since you aren't recompiling the entire freakin' system. Also someone wrote a third party utility called autorpm to update a Redhat system. It's not nearly as nifty as apt or cvsup, but it works.

Don't get me wrong. I like FreeBSD, but honestly, to this home user, there is very nearly negligible difference between a quality distro like Debian and FreeBSD. I can find likes and dislikes in both.

Re:But my question is...

[softsign]

It depends on what you think are "tricky" dependency issues. In nearly all cases, ports will download all required dependencies and install them too. If there's some weird configuration problem you have, or if you need some older library to stay, then ports gives you the flexibility to work around that: unlike rpms.

Ports is basically something that holds your hand through the usually frustrating task of

find the latest source for what you need
download
configure
download missing libs
configure
download another dependency
(repeat)
configure
make
fix makefile to work on your *nix
make
make install

It handles all the dependencies beautifully. It applies patches that ensure your make will run smoothly. In short, it's a huge timesaver.

Not only that, but it also registers installs, so removing stuff is easy. All you need to do is go into the port directory and type 'make deinstall' or even a pkg_delete.

--

IPv6 am big

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is off-topic, but I'm bored. Assuming that (a) there are 6e9 people in the world; (b) there are 1e14 cells in the average human body; and (c) my calculations are correct, then every cell of every living person could have 5.67e14 (567 trillion) unique IPv6 addresses, which is over 13000 times the address space of the entire IPv4 Internet.

Personally I won't be satisfied until every particle in the universe has its own /32 subnet.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux : Linux !

[Brandon Hume]

To add on to my reply to your previous rant on the same subject:

Add 'log' to your rules. Run ipmon. Then you can SEE what IPFilter is blocking, and it'll even provide the line of the rule that caused it to do so!

And again: Read the documentation.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/

Re:BSD?

[eel]

Nice judge and entier OS on one single incedent. BTW what hardware config are you running? And what ver of BSD? Just curious cuz every benchmark I have seen between Any BSD and redhat has shown BSD to average better. (I am not saying that this is true for Linux in general just redhat, although the resent artical on slashdot pointing to this shows the contrary)

VMWare2 for Linux does run in the FBSD Linuxator

[thallgren]

VMWare2 _does_ work. I simply installed the port and got an evaluation key from VMWare Inc and I ran Win2k for a while. I did not configure sound or network, but floppy and cdrom worked just fine(I booted the win2k cd when I installed it).

Regards, Tommy

sound.

[XyouthX]

I know FreeBSD isn't aimed at the desktop/workstation marked at all, but I really think it's time for Soundblaster Live! support..

Re:sound.

[ozzmosis]

It does supoprt SB live! I have SB live and there is a nice little howto at defcon1.org (for freebsd4.x and defcon1.org (freebsd5.x)

Re:sound.

[questionlp]

The SoundBlaster Live! is supported since 4.0. You may want to surf the mailing list archives to find out how to set it up.

Re:sound.

[XyouthX]

thanks! :) maybe i'll give 4.0 a shot then, until i can get a 4.1 ISO.

Re:sound.

[Nugget94M]

As ozzmosis and questionlp have indicated, there is sblive support in FreeBSD 4. Although I'm curious exactly why there needs to be a howto on using one. It's a simple matter of "device pcm" in your kernel config and you're ready to go.

The howto listed above lists steps which are no longer necessary and haven't been for quite some time.

The only issue I'm aware of (which may be resovled, but hadn't been as of about a month ago) is that the sblive driver appears to conflict with some systems using ECC memory. I had to disable ECC in my bios for some reason. Before doing so, I experienced occassional lockups during pcm playback.

Re:sound.

[maXter]

The million dollar question for me is: Do these drivers support the mmap() calls required to play Quake1/2/3?


Ryan Patrick Harris (maxter)
rpharris@engin.umich.edu maxter@maxtersbox.net

Re:sound.

[ozzmosis]

yes

kewl

[happystink]

when r they gunna have a version for Linux?

:)

sig:

Re:Attn: "Real Unix" zealots

[eel]

No, it is not ATT Unix, but it IS Berkeley Unix. Thank you Bill Joy, may one day you get back to computor science.

Re:BSD?

[eel]

Obviously you don't, so how do you know that it is "broke-ass" or a "piece of shit"? and yes lots of people use it. But I guess that open-minds arn't part of the Open movement.

Re:FreeBSD 4.1 Released: Public Unusually Indiffer

[eel]

Where you born stuped or did you work real hard at it, Oh wait I get it you are one of them Troll thinges, cute. Why, if you are so starved for attention, don't you just go down to your local coffie shop and flirt with the girl behind the counter?

An answer

[BitKat]

Actually it took me a while before I started to use X precisely because of the steep hill you describe. Eventually I painstakingly managed to install it under 2.2.5 by hand. So I know what you're talking about.

However, last time I looked, and that was 4.0, I was very happy to find that the install program led me by the hand into the graphical X setup and it really was an immediate success. It even let me choose a desktop environment and before the first reboot I had *everything* running includeing KDE. I have no doubt that should I have chosen Gnome, the out-of-the-box experience would have been the same.

So I'd say the time to give it a try has come.

And once the initial install is done, upgrading is nearly trivial. I've actually been running 4.1 since yesterday since I had noticed a version number bump in the source tree and decided to do the old make world trick.

Re:An answer

[randombit]

I have no doubt that should I have chosen Gnome, the out-of-the-box experience would have been the same.

For some reason, FreeBSD 4 doesn't have enlightenment. At least the ISO I got from ftp5.freebsd.org, didn't. Nor, IIRC, does it have sawfish. :( [Which is confusing because the installer gave GNOME/enligthenment as an option!]

Hopefully that got fixed in 4.1

Re:An answer

[softsign]

Enlightenment is a 10 meg package... so it's quite possible it got dropped from the CD for size reasons. It IS available if you install packages via FTP server.

--

Re:An answer

[mosch]

Make sure you have an up to date /usr/ports, then cd /usr/ports/x11-wm/enlightenment && make install

There you go, done. Oh, and the procedure for sawfish is cd /usr/ports/x11-wm/sawfish && make install

----------------------------

Re:An answer

[randombit]

GNOME is pretty cool, but you need a stable window manager to run with it, E and sawmill don't even come close.

I've never had problems with either. (BTW, it's called sawfish now).

Re:An answer

[afc]

I would gladly concur with you WRT to E, but you are terribly mistaken about sawfish. It's improved a lot since the first sawmill releases, and the pace of development is stunning (even if most of it are bug fixes).
And besides, you gotta love any piece of software that's customizable in Lisp (insert shameless plug to the One True Editor here...)
--

Re:Who cares?

[eel]

Yahoo has been using AltaVista for more years that I can remember and no they are not moveing away from BSD any time soon (B1 of the SFCron march of 200) As for HotMail MS has been trying desperatly to move it off of BSD ever synce they bought it and they have yet to succeed. Sorry to burst YOUR bubble. Don't feal bad you can always lash out at my spelling.

Q: bootable/runnable CD copy of FreeBSD?

[tiggie]

I am wondering if there is an easy way to make a demolinux-like CD of FreeBSD. Demolinux is a CD of linux which boots and runs off of a CD, no need of a hard drive. This would be cool for demo'ing FreeBSD to people without having to install the OS on someone's computer. Another good use of this would be to use it as a replacement OS for the NIC from thinknic.com

I would to make one of these for myself if its not hard.

Re:Q: bootable/runnable CD copy of FreeBSD?

[rtaylor]

It should be easier than making a diskless system. Things like /tmp, /var/tmp, /usr/tmp should be linked together and run off of a ramdrive (5mb or so for large tmp files) /var in general should be on a seperate ramdrive (2mb?) The rest can be done as normal on a harddrive. Single partition install with everything pre-configured. Ensure it's a broad enough kernel to accept most hardware (modules are a +). And create an ISO as bootable.

Re:Q: bootable/runnable CD copy of FreeBSD?

[questionlp]

There is a special build of FreeBSD that fits on a single floppy disk called PicoBSD. Their project page is at http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd.

They have several versions that allows you to dial-up your ISP or even have it acts as a router :)

I used it in a 486/25 machine with an older NIC card and an external 28.8kbps modem as a mini-dialup router. Worked great until I got rid of the boxen and got DSL installed :)

Re:Not trying to start a war here, but..

[Resident Geek]

There's a solution to this. It's called freshmeat.

Re:BSD lacks native software.

[grav.2k]

good point. but then, i for myself like to support the minority ;) 10M users are Linux, 2M users are freebsd. and to prevent that everyone will do just like they did with windows (you know, monopoly), it's better to support the minority, if one is good enough to deal with thedifficulties that make the system be in the minority ;)

as for the applications, there are lots of apps available, and i for myself havent yet NOT found an app i needed. i even got star office running. but one problem is the realplayer.

getting the linux version run as a plugin with the freebsd native netscape communicator sucks. its a horror of symlinks combined with the horror of the directories in compat/linux.

brrr.
but at least, there arent any distro wars like in the linux world. and linux has gone FAR to commercial and mainstream. i mean, look at the banners of SuSE 6.4...thats DISGUSTING!

Hear, hear

[bee]

A good friend of mine just yesterday went to see what version FreeBSD was up to, went "holy smokes they're on 4.0 already" and sent off his order to buy 4.0 on cd-rom.

Some days, you can't win for losing.

---

Re:BSD?

[3r33t h4x0r]

Yes, it is nice. In fact, that's the entire idea of having plenty of choice in which OS you use. Apparently Linux worked out better for him. He'll use Linux. You, I assume, will use a BSD. And I'll use whatever works best for me. Don't bitch someone out for using the tool best suited to them, it only makes you look foolish.

Re:Who cares?

[Nerds]

Not that this proves anything in the Linux/*BSD debate, but Yahoo is going to use Google. Also, I feel the need to point out that Microsoft's failure to port Hotmail might say more about Microsoft than it does about BSD.

Re:BSD?

[eel]

I agree with you 100% I was just questining the speed claims and I am honistly curious about the hardware

Re:*BSD doesn't matter. The world has passed it by

[niekze]

well except for the fact that many ISP's use FreeBSD and the largest ftp server in the world (ftp.cdrom.com) uses FreeBSD. I assume you get your usage figures from an unreliable source. Maybe you monitor all the root exploit patches and who downloads them. That would show that RedHat is used by gazillions (yes gazillions) of users worldwide.

Re:oops!

[bsletten]

Also, noone has mentioned this yet:

A new event notification facility called kqueue was added to the
FreeBSD kernel. This is a new interface which is able to replace
poll/select, offering improved performance, as well as the ability
to report many different types of events. Support for monitoring
changes in sockets, pipes, fifos, and files are present, as well as
for signals and processes.

Already out of date...

[slothbait]

And my 4.0 CD is supposed to be arriving in the mail today. Foo.

Still...who am I to resist the march of technology?

Anyway, I'm dipping my toe in the FreeBSD pool by installing on an old laptop I came by. I've been digging around for information on how FreeBSD handles laptop issues like power management and PCMCIA, but haven't found much yet. The BSD nomads pages are pretty large, but pretty out of date as well.

Anyone out there have any advice or pointers on FreeBSD on (i386) laptops?

--Lenny

Re:Already out of date...

[JatTDB]

I've done a few installs of FreeBSD on my own laptop and others, and it's certainly a lot easier than it used to be. The number of PCMCIA devices supported and the APM stuff is much improved from the first time I tried to do this (around 2.2.3). The default values for the PCMCIA stuff works in most cases, and just changing the IRQ/base addrs to one of the other suggested values works in all the others I've experienced. My advice would be to try it and see what happens...and if it doesn't work, there's always the mailing lists (and one dedicated to FreeBSD on laptops, too).

Re:Already out of date...

[softsign]

You really shouldn't have any problems. FreeBSD has PnP, APM and PCMCIA support built-in.

My experience with it has been wonderful. On my desktop, I have an SBLive and struggled for a while to get OSS working with 4.0-release. Then, I looked around a little and realized that support for the emu10k had already been dropped in to 4.1-stable. All it took was a cvsup, make world and a new kernel to get my SBLive working flawlessly.

This doesn't really apply to laptops of course, but it's an indication of how smoothly FreeBSD works. Frankly, I'd be surprised if you ran into any real difficulties unless you're running some very obscure hardware.

--

Re:Already out of date...

[Vspirit]

Here is a somewhat valuable ressource.

http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~dkulp/fbsd/laptop.html

Laptop Compatibility for FreeBSD This document is meant to serve as a resource for identifying successes and difficulties running various versions of FreeBSD on laptop computers. This is notably different from the PAO survey in that we are interested in laptops not necessarily running PAO. This page is manually maintained.

Re:Applixware ceases FreeBSD development.

[fsck]

You have a choice of global install or per user install in linux as well.

Re:FreeBSD...

[niekze]

maybe he should get windoze 2000, i hear its very friendly. Kinda like Sloth from the goonies. Stupid....but friendly.

Re:FreeBSD catches up. ls -G. Finally :-)

[ozzmosis]

that was just an alias in /etc/profile like any other distro

Re:FreeBSD 4.1 Released: Public Unusually Indiffer

[eel]

Hi jim 1) Nither do I coffee is a metafore 2) Flirting is a form of human interaction 3) 5 kids???? Is that not a bit exesive your poor wife. Your poor pocket book. Our poor environment. 4) Dislexea is not stutidity. 5) Then perhaps you ought to read the FAQ before you post. 6) See #3 I think that you might be, see #4 I may be but that has nothing do do with my spelling.

Re:B*llshit

[niekze]

riiiight. And microsoft runs their software on their systems. like hotmail. Or maybe they've made their software just LOOK like BSD. You are retarded aren't you? Admit it...we won't laugh.

Re:Attn: "Real Unix" zealots

[niekze]

yea, they were out creating TCP/IP.

gnuls -l --color

[mosch]

Then you should try using the colour option correctly. Memory fails me, but one of the below is right:

ls --color=auto
ls --color=tty

I forget which of these is correct (a few years ago, the situation was such that one of these matched the man page, and the other matched actual behavior).

----------------------------

Hey troll

[mosch]

Well, it's the first of the 4.X series that's recommended for widespread public consumption. 4.0 bore warnings against production use. This means that it's the first endorsed FreeBSD which contains such things as SMP support, really good USB support (3.X has USB support, but it required about an hours worth of reading to get my mouse and keyboard working, as opposed to 4.X which just sort of worked). Install it on a machine somewhere and see what's special for yourself. You might like what you find.
----------------------------

Re:Hey troll

[bugg]

4.1 was not the first "endorsed FreeBSD" release that had SMP support, 3.1 was.

Re:FreeBSD loss of market share

[swdunlop]

&ltInsert Anti-Linux FUD Flame Here/>
Sorry. Feeling too lazy to give our AC troll a proper roasting.

Hardware support Documentation

[ulkesh_naranek]

I installed FreeBSD 4.0 a couple of months ago; I found the install program and related documentation made it pretty easy to install FreeBSD. However when I came to configure my soundcard I became stuck.

I have an ensoniq AudioPCI sound card (and it is ensoniq rather than Creative) from reading the kernel documents and the LINT config file it seemed that my card wasn't supported. I wasn't too bothered by this, but thought I'd double check by looking for a document that gives a complete list of all the hardware that is supported by FreeBSD, but can I find such a document? nah.
With linux I don't know if there is one, but I think the .txt files that come with the kernel probably list things in their heading and if you use (menu/X)config you will see all hardware listed for you anyway.

Today looking through google to double check that my card isn't supported I come across this telling me my card is supported by FreeBSD. Now I haven't time to reboot and check whether it works, but it would be nice if there was the centralised documentation that would help me out here.

Re:Hardware support Documentation

[ulkesh_naranek]

Well atm my FreeBSD install is just to learn something other than linux, so its just an annoyance. When I get a job (damn I want to be a student still) I can build a new computer and my lowly P166 will be the server in my network, so the choice will have to be which Unixalike to use. I'll prolly go for FreeBSD as the server, but thats a few months off yet.

Re:Hardware support Documentation

[Guy Harris]

What ever nice points FreeBSD has, good sound card support is NOT one of them. The best solution is to get an extra box with an OS that works with your sound card.

Fortunately, I already have two OSes on my home machine that work with my sound card...

...FreeBSD 3.x and NT 4.0.

It's a plug-and-play ISA sound card (I saw no reason to get a PCI sound card when there was a spare ISA slot), and I didn't particularly feel like banging on isapnptools or jam a PnP ISA patch into the 2.0[.x] kernel on my Debian 2.1 partition to get the sound card to work - or to shove a 2.2[.x] kernel and jam in the patch, or shove a 2.3[.x] kernel on it - given that it worked out of the box on BSD. (It also looked like More Trouble Than It Was Worth to get it to work on the machine's fourth OS, Solaris 7.)

I.e., when it comes to hardware support, the important phrase here is "your mileage may vary"; categorical statements about FreeBSD and/or Linux support may, even if valid in general (as in "more sound cards are supported by the Linux 2.x.y kernel than by the FreeBSD m.n kernel", which I suspect may be the case for most reasonable values of "x", "y", "m", and "n", although I could be surprised) may not apply in all cases.

Re:Hardware support Documentation

[AntiBasic]

FreeBSD hardware support is very good. I've installed it on several boxes and I've never had a problem with unsupported hardware. It isn't horrible as the zealots on slashdot have propagated it to be. But picking an OS based on sound is flawed. You can get some cheap ensonique for $5 on ebay.

Re:Hardware support Documentation

[elbuddha]

looking for a document that gives a complete list of all the hardware that is supported by FreeBSD, but can I find such a document? nah.

Try reading the release notes.

Re:Hardware support Documentation

[Lazaru5]

The ES1370 and 1371 have been supported for a GOOD long time. I also have the Ensoniq Audio PCI (the Ensoniq branded version, the 1370.) I've been using mine since at least last summer, probably longer.

The 1370 was first supported in Dec 98, and the 1371/73 was Nov 99.

The centralized documentation for sound card setup is and always has been in the handbook.

And when it comes to searching, nothing beats the mailing list archives. Specifically -questions and -media.

Re:Hardware support Documentation

[ulkesh_naranek]

Which lists the Ensoniq ISA cards; not the PCI ones, which are not compatible. It says nothing about the PCI ones, which are supposed to work from what I've read online.

Re:Hardware support Documentation

[ulkesh_naranek]

The documentation ONLY mentions Ensoniq ISA cards, as in Ensoniq soundscape; no mention of the AudioPCI.

Re:Aaarghhhhhhhhhh!!!

[swdunlop]

You can probably survive quite happily with old 4.0, unless you're using IPSEC or IPV6 heavily in your network environment..

They've bundled in the new OpenSSH port, with ssh2 support, but you can always just grab the new port and build it on 4.0.

Re:BSD lacks native software.

[swdunlop]

I just have to laugh at /any/ Linux user who makes that 'lacks native software' comment. Could you /please/ consider not copying Microsoft marketing? ;) I personally like FreeBSD, because it has a different focus than Linux.. Linux tries to drag everything into the kernel, and be everything for everyone, while the BSDs tend to focus more on making a solid networking and multitasking OS that behaves nicely on common hardware. And.. Finally.. For the record, Messr Anonymous Troll, FreeBSD can quite happily run those precompiled Linux binaries you're so addicted to, 99.5% of the time, so long as they're userland apps. (No, your tcl/tk-based ipchains configuration app isn't going to work.)

Re:FreeBSD loss of market share

[mr]

> And even then you are forbidden to reveal the numbers.

The parent post reminds me of Joe Macarthy and his 'list of communists'. He had this list, and it showed how all these EVIL things existed, but no one can see the list.

Care to back up these claims with some facts?

Question on the ports collection

[Arker]

And once the initial install is done, upgrading is nearly trivial. I've actually been running 4.1 since yesterday since I had noticed a version number bump in the source tree and decided to do the old make world trick.

A few questions about this "trick":

• How many version numbers can you actually cross like this?
• What sorts of problems/pitfalls might the *BSD newbie run into trying this, particularly if he's several versions behind?
• If your net connection is too slow/unreliable to even think about doing make world via the net, but one has the new version on cd, can that be used instead? (i.e. easy upgrade?)

• I've probably said something incredibly dumb here, but hey, flaming me for asking a question won't help convince me to use *BSD, educating me might ;^)

  I've read through several *BSD FAQs and haven't seen any clear answer to these questions, so I figured maybe someone would enlighten me.

Re:Question on the ports collection

[INT 21h]

> How many version numbers can you actually cross like this?

That depends on how much the two are different. The transition from a-out to ELF for instance took slightly more work than the usual going from one release to another, or following stable, (bi-)weekly. Big changes (and any manual tweaking needed) are announced in advance of course.

> What sorts of problems/pitfalls might the *BSD newbie run into trying this, particularly if he's several versions behind?

If the newbie in question have missed important announcements then there might be problems. Also, keeping an eye on the mailing list (freebsd-stable if a freebsd-newbie-wanting-to-learn) to see if there's a problem with the newest build vs. your architecture before making the world is also a recommended practice ;)

> If your net connection is too slow/unreliable [..]

Can you receive mail? Take a look at CTM then. See http://www.no.freebsd.org/handbook/ctm.html

I haven't done a cd-install since 2.2.1 (I make the world or do an ftp-install or a binary manual install) I'll leave this one to somebody with a working cd-drive...

Re:Question on the ports collection

[BitKat]

I'll bite (too much of a rabid fbsd-lover not to...)

- How many version numbers can you actually cross like this?

YMMV, but in my experience it works quite well. I'll make an exception for the a.out -> ELF transtion nightmare. That was bad. Rule-of-thumb: don't cross major version numbers. And read the mailing lists.

- What sorts of problems/pitfalls might the *BSD newbie run into trying this...?

Cryptic error messages. If you're not familiar with a platform, anything it throws at you will be cryptic. Not kidding: VMS sometimes really stumps me with trivial stuff. I just ask someone who has more experience. It's the way to learn.

- If your net connection is too slow/unreliable to even think about doing make world via the net

Irrelevant. You don't do a make world via the net. You do a make world from your local /usr/src which has been brought up-to-date by cvsup. Works quite beautifully over crappy Internet links.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux : Linux !

[swdunlop]

Actually, although I /am/ a FreeBSD zealot, I have been a little disappointed in the ipfilter documentation.. Much of it is either a half-finished manpage, or one of those silly Linux-like lists of common tasks and how to perform them.

I have been using Checkpoint to do some rather complex NAT manipulations, and I would love to use ipfilter to do this, but the docs are a little dodgy for anything beyond 'How do I set up masquerading for dialup access.' or 'What is the syntax?'

(OT) They weren't haiku; they were senryu.

[yerricde]

Haiku is 575 about nature. Senryu is 575 about human nature.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

4.1 BSD

[jetson123]

That numbering is pretty funny, if somewhat confusing. 4.1 BSD for the VAX was probably the first "real", "modern" version of BSD UNIX. 4.2 then incorporated much of the networking code. The PDP-11 versions of BSD UNIX at around the same time had 2.x version numbers.

Re:StarOfice for FreeBSD?

[BadlandZ]

Not Native. Linux Binary. But the patches to install it in /usr insted of ~/ have been around in ports for before this option was avaliable for Linux (AFAIK, I guess you can do it in Linux now as well, pretty sure you couldn't before, I remember reading the "How-To" hack about a year ago?)

Why it is bad

[mattc]

1) The BSD utilities are a lot easier to use because they have shorter man pages and fewer command line options. Also the file sizes are a lot smaller -- which may not be a big deal on a server -- but on a floppy or embedded type machine you want to save every byte you can. I've always preferred the BSD utilities over the GNU ones for this reason (the ease of use/simplicity).

2) The license. Many people don't like the GPL for various reasons. I'm not interested in turning this into a flame war, but IMO the GPL is inferior in a number of ways.

Re:Why it is bad

[dcs]

AFAIK, both tcsh(1) and less(1) were imported under the BSD license.

Anyway, FreeBSD's more(1) was a very old version of less(1).

Re:Applixware ceases FreeBSD development.

[Vspirit]

With OpenOffice.org delivering the open platform for all future office applications, Applixware will suffer similar to how msoffice will get to become nothing but a joke and an ongoing marketing consuming application to continue to exploit users who know no better.

I can't the purpose of your concerns, unless you are applixware company related. Course if you are, you better be damn scared, and clean up your act. As the future of computing whoops your lamas ass.

mirror coming up in australia..

[jason andrade]

we didn't get any advance notice of this (did anyone?) so we're still updating our mirror for ftp.au.freebsd.org.

you'll find the mirror will have completed in about an hour and will be available from

ftp://ftp.au.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/i3 86/4.1-RELEASE/

ftp://ftp.au.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/al pha/4.1-RELEASE/

ftp2 -> ftp7.au.freebsd.org will be updating soon
after.

-jason

Re:mirror coming up in australia..

[Lazaru5]

Isn't mirroring accomplished via cvsup? Just cron it.

And if it isn't, don't you watch the -stable list?

Re:FreeBSD is Dying.

[Vspirit]

the authors of those comments that you are quoting are either incompetent or non existing.

I am a new to running unixes on my local systems.
I installed FreeBSD 4.0stable less than a week ago on my laptop. Now I run 4.1stable and keeping a fresh updated system, automatically. This is my story. First I downloaded the kernel and mfsroot disks which I found through a logical visit at www.freebsd.org. I had a problem with my nic at first (I was doing a ftp/net installation off the boot disks), but after a few minutes browsing of freebsd - mobile and friendly chats at #freebsdhelp I solved it and the freebsd installation ran beautifully. At the installation I had a clear list of choice for the base setup and I chose what suited my purpose. I chose to install X with gnome&enlightment and in a short time I was up and running. Tweaked the X setup to present my desktop as I enjoy and that was set. Next I intented to see how I have to go about maintenance and here again usenet and #freebsdhelp on efnet became quite useful. I learned about cvsup with which I could keep my sourcetree and ports updated, so now I can either issue a few commmands in which I can check for updates to the sources, do a system update of the entire system build a new custom kernel for optimal performance and install or do it all in one script which I eventually intend to activate via cron... so the system updates itself and I can concentrate on my work.

With this system I finally see a future with computing as a solution to accomplish whatever purpose one may have.

Unix in whatever form or shap it may be is the cure for Microsofts deceases which have hurt so many for so long without them knowing it and many still don't. Now think of narcotics. Do you see a pathern?. Unix, as any cure it is not successful before being spread and I certainly hope the entire world of unixes would help doing so. It is not important whether you run *linux, *bsd, solaris, whatever.. as long as you can do the same on all systems and they become compatible with each other as they will do eventually, when we start doing something about it. All unixes are in the process of making this new bright world and everyone can contribute. The Open* world of development is a result of people fighting for freedom and making things right, making them how they were supposed to be in the first place. After all its not about computers its about what you use it for.
freedom for choice, possibilities for all!

Upgrading and version numbers.

[Lazaru5]

-STABLE is a constantly moving target. Starting with 4.0-RELEASE, it was known as 4.0-STABLE. At any given point in time, you can get the latest sources via CVS (CVSup being the best way) and make world and get a *newer* 4.0-STABLE. They in fact take daily (or near enough) snapshots and make them available via FTP (releng4.freebsd.org.)

This much you know already. If you don't, you do now.

When it's decided that it's time for a -RELEASE, the minor version number is bumped and (in this case) 4.1-RELEASE is born. About 5 minutes later (check the CVS logs) 4.1-STABLE is born. There's no such thing as having 4.1-STABLE before 4.1-RELEASE. The official announcement of 4.1-RELEASE just came a few days after it's creation. (In reality, for a few days before a -RELEASE there are a few -RC [Release Candidates].)

So if by last little while you mean 3 days, yeah, but you're already beyond 4.1-RELEASE.

Re:You know.... bsd is failure.

[Vspirit]

this comment of your say more about lack of competence on your part than the qualities of the systems you claim is not a success.

Btw, why are some linux and windows users (sorry for putting you both in the same boat) so afraid of the *BSD solution? When reading the comments to the original post, I wonder what your priorities are and what all the fud is about. *BSD is not to dizz linux, for all its worth, this is not a who is the best, biggest, you know fight.. its about making things right. And for coexistence and having solutions for whatever purpose necessary. I feel with you..

A serious question:

[Wakko Warner]

Why is there a FreeBSD 3.4, 3.5, 4.x, *and* 5.x *all* being worked on?

Don't get me wrong: I like FreeBSD. I use FreeBSD at work and at home. I just want to know what the point is of all the different versions being worked on at once? It's getting downright confusing.

- A.P.
--

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

Re:A serious question:

[AntiBasic]

The point is thoroughly test everything. Fork a new branch to test new things basically. If something has been tested enough in 4.0-current, it might be merged into 3.5 for example. Rather than let the kinks be worked out in a production series. Linux has done the same thing. A feature from 2.3.x might be deemed stable for 2.2.16. The 3.5-release was the final release of the 3.x series while 3.5-stable will continually be patched. The 5.x series will be the first to integrate the BSD/OS source merger (when it happens).

Re:A serious question:

[ozzmosis]

3.4 is not being worked on. 3.5 was the last release of 3.x branch. 4.x is the -stable branch (2.2 in linux) 5.x is the -current (2.4/2.3 in linux) and 3.x (2.0 in linux) .. and i guess your wondering why 3.5 came out. well since linux is no less than a kernel not an os its different than freebsd. FreeBSD is an OS and a KERNEL. 3.5 came out just some upgrades to alot of programs etc. because alot of ppl stayed with 3.x when 4.0 came out because .0 is kinda iffy if you know what i mean. But it has been proven that 4.0 was a great stable release.

Re:A serious question:

[azz]

Why is there a FreeBSD 3.4, 3.5, 4.x, *and* 5.x *all* being worked on?

For the same reason that Linux 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 are all being worked on. Some people don't want to upgrade, because they've got custom drivers that only work on older versions, or they simply don't need the new features.

"I want to use software that doesn't suck." - ESR
"All software that isn't free sucks." - RMS

The Safe Way

[Arandir]

The safe way to upgrade ANY system is to delete and reinstall. Unless of course you are a Good Little Citizen(tm) and did everything the distro's CEO told you to do.

The distribution does not know YOU. They don't know what software you installed outside of the package system. They don't know what configuration files you edited by hand. They don't know that package A is still needed by you even though it is deprecated in the upgrade.

Besides which, I've never found a distribution that upgraded without problems. With delete and install you have no problems.

Re:The Safe Way

[aonifer]

The safe way to upgrade ANY system is to delete and reinstall. Unless of course you are a Good Little Citizen(tm) and did everything the distro's CEO told you to do. The distribution does not know YOU. They don't know what software you installed outside of the package system. They don't know what configuration files you edited by hand. They don't know that package A is still needed by you even though it is deprecated in the upgrade.

A FreeBSD upgrade basically involves recompiling all of the core programs and reinstalling them. So essentially you are deleting and reinstalling, with the added benefit that all of your configuration files are still there, unedited. You then run a different program to diff the /etc files and you choose which files to update and which to leave alone. None of your ports are touched in the upgrade. If you are running stable, it's highly doubtful that you will need to recompile any ports, since they are designed to run on both stable and current.

For the record, I updated to 4.1 with no problems, using the same method I've been using to keep up with 4.0-STABLE.

Also for the record, I updated from Debian 2.0 to 2.1 just as easily. The only difference being that apt is slightly less flexible with edited config files, though that is offset by the fact that Debian upgrades require all of two commands and don't require a two hour recompiling session.

Re:The Safe Way

[kchayer]

That might be the *absolute* safe way, but it sure is inconvenient to have to reconfigure all the customizations I made to make it "my" system, like preferences, font settings, network settings, X settings, etc etc. I hate to say it, but even Windoze upgrades fairly conveniently, without requiring a complete reinstall. Not always, mind you--I didn't say that, but I've had plenty of luck, when using it, in upgrading one version on top of the other. I know package managers out there such as RPM as well as utilities like CVS are at least somewhat intelligent when upgrading files--don't overwrite certain "user-specific" config files, etc.
I just wondered if FreeBSD did this any better than, say, your average Linux distro. Some seem to say yes, while others would rather hassle with a complete reinstall rather than chance something in the new system being hosed.

Explanation.

[cmc]

3.5-STABLE is being eased back on (or already has been) as far as new features. For the most part, the only things going into 3.5 will be bug fixes. 4.1-STABLE will get new features that are considered stable, as well as bug fixes, and -CURRENT (5.x) will get all the evil things that could cause your computer to burst into flames, etc.

3.4 is just an older release of 3.x-STABLE. 3.5 is the most recent (and final) release on 3.x-STABLE, and 4.1 is the most recent release on 4.x-STABLE.

FreeBSD gains

[AntiBasic]

Yes Linux is gaining share from all the NT based operations. If a company is running NT in the first place they obviously don't know what they're doing. I haven't heard of a *BSD based company switching to Linux for performance reasons. *BSD is gaining marketshare and mindshare albeit not at the rate which Linux is. Look at the performance of the Linux companies since the IPO. They are miniscule compared to their initial over hyped value. I'll let all the pimple faced 15 year olds (don't believe me? go attend your local LUG) and cheap ISPs use Linux while the sentient go with *BSD/Solaris for their operations. You just can't ignore *BSD performance and Solaris applications.

It's the Firewall

[Lazaru5]

No, the servers don't run FreeBSD, it's the firewall. Don't you people remember anything?

A Serious Question . . .

[Atypical Stranger]

. . . that is probably answered elsewhere.
As a linux user (Slackware -> Redhat (about 10min) -> SuSE -> Debian) what major changes would I have to make if I switched to *BSD.
Specifically is it source/binary compatible with linux.
Does it have a similar "feel" to linux, how hard would it be to adapt to it?
How does the hardware support compare? Will it run on the "typical" PC?
Does it have any advantage (speed, stability, security or other)?
Hopefully this won't incite a riot and hopefully I will get some answers. I just want to know if it's worth playing with.

Re:A Serious Question . . .

[softsign]

As a linux user...

Virtually none. BSD is Unix. To the end user, it may be difficult to tell that it's even a different OS. To the admin, there's obviously going to be a difference, simply because it's a whole other kernel and the system is wired differently. But really, I had a little Linux experience and a bit more experience as a Solaris user when I started using FreeBSD and it took me less than a day to set up a nat-ing firewall/gateway.

... major changes would I have to make?

Again, cosmetic, really. For whatever may be new to you, the man system is VERY thorough. I've seen manpages that list under BUGS "This man page is too long". =)

Specifically is it source/binary compatible with linux.

Source? It's just as source compatible as another Unix. Meaning, if your code will compile on IRIX or Solaris too... then it's pretty much a given that it will compile under FreeBSD. There are quite a few hacked programs out there that somebody may have written that will run only on Linux - but do you really need that software in the first place? Plus there's always Ports. If there's a port for the app you want (and chances are there is) then it WILL compile. =)

If you can't get the source for some app to compile, then FreeBSD does have Linux binary-compatibility. I believe it can even be compiled into the kernel. To be honest, I've never used it... simply because I haven't needed to.

Does it have a similar "feel" to linux, how hard would it be to adapt to it?

It's Unix! You can run your favourite shell, XFree86 with KDE or Gnome and Enlightenment (or any other combo under the sun). ls is ls, xterm is xterm, etc...

How does the hardware support compare? Will it run on the "typical" PC?

It's been said that Linux tends to support more of the bleeding-edge than FreeBSD. I don't know how true this is. FreeBSD has kernel-level support for PnP, PCMCIA, USB and a whole slew of other stuff. There isn't a piece of hardware in my system that isn't supported fully in FreeBSD.

On the "typical" PC, you should absolutely NO problems.

Does it have any advantage (speed, stability, security or other)?

This is kind of a contentious issue. There was an article a few days ago about this very issue. FreeBSD outperformed Linux at some disk access benchmarks, I believe. I don't put much stock in those tests though. I think it's fair to say that performance is, at the least, on par with any of the Linux distros.

Stability and security always depend on the admin. There are some rock-solid Linux boxes out there and there are some that can barely stay up for 20 minutes.

It's not fair to say that FreeBSD is more stable or secure, because it all depends on what services you need and run.

I just want to know if it's worth playing with.

IMHO, it is. You'll be pleasantly surprised. I installed FreeBSD 3.4-release on a whim when my Redhat installer failed on an old 486. I haven't gone back since. =)

--

Re:A Serious Question . . .

[softsign]

Ooh forgot to add this:

FreeBSD has one thing that sets it apart from most other Unices: make world

By cvs updating your src tree, you can rebuild the ENTIRE system and bring it up to date. This process, while it may sound daunting, is surprisingly easy. You can always keep your system current, with all the latest bugfixes. Make world does not blow away your configuration (although it can break some config files if it's a big leap), it just rebuilds all the binaries and libraries you need to keep your system up to date.

A FreeBSD "Release" is really nothing more than a snapshot of the -STABLE branch in the cvs - which you can always track.

--

Re:A Serious Question . . .

[TheLer]

It source/binary compatibility -- I run a counterstrike server using the Linux binaries on FreeBSD and it works better in FreeBSD than in Linux :) It definetly has a similar feel, both are *nixs. Linux probably has more hardware support just because vendors are starting to come around and release drivers, but FreeBSDs hardware support is definetly good. You'll probably be fine. It will run un the typical PC. Yes it has advantages. Most tests show that its faster than Linux, and I'd have to say its slightly more secure because it has one distribution -- no stupid vendors like Caldera etc.. leaving holes in the default install (no root password eh?). You think your post will incite a riot? Hehe just wait til people read this one. Actually please no flames, I use and love Linux also.

Sometimes you by Force overwhelmed are.

Re:So Hemos and Kadtz, time to deliver.

[Guy Harris]

I believe IP should be free.

Cool. Here's some free IP, and here's some more free IP, and here's some more free IP.

This page also lets you get at some free IP, although you have to go to one of the subdirectories, download and unpack the tarball, and get it from the appropriate directory (kernel/net/ipv4).

Delete install no prob?

[GMontag]

You do have that pesky "delete and install" problem itself.

I am trying to figure out what I want loaded on the 16 Meg SanDisk of a new I-Opener, scheduled for major surgery soon for a vehicle app, always powered always on, but using SanDisk for emergency disk.

Trying to figure out what to load there and looking at issues like future upgrades (SanDisk is not infinately re-writable).

Anyway, in general, I like fixing the mess from a delete/reinstall much less than the mess from an upgrade.

Re:So Hemos and Kadtz, time to deliver.

[Guy Harris]

This page also lets you get at some free IP, although you have to go to one of the subdirectories, download and unpack the tarball, and get it from the appropriate directory...

Here's that particular free IP in an easier-to-view form.

Can you update a FreeBSD system without installing

[bko]

While the following is only incidental experience, I believe that you CAN upgrade FreeBSD w/out delete/reinstall. I know, because I have had a system for 4 years which I have updated w/out ever having to reformat the drive.

I started out in May 1996 w/ 2.1.0 on a P133 w/ SCSI drives. This machine is currently in use w/ a 3.x system on a K6-2/450. The only thing that hasn't been replaced is the HD subsystem (which has been upgraded, however). In that time, I've done the following:

- My original install was done on a FIPS'ed windows partion.
- I Upgraded the OS to 2.1.5, 6, and 7, using a CD.
- Realized that I wanted more disk space, so used FIPS to reduce the size of Windows. Each time, instead of reformatting my drive, I added another FreeBSD slice.
- moved from Southern California to northern California.
- Upgraded to 2.2BETA via a single floppy and 33.6k modem.
- Bought several more SCSI hard drives.
- Upgraded to 2.2.1 (or so) via CD, and messed up the /etc on my main drive. To repair, I installed on an empty partition and used that partition as a "fix-it" partition to fix my root /etc
- Survived the FreeBSD SCSI driver renaming / replacement
- Upgraded to later 2.2 stables by recompiling. I retrieved the source via CTM (in which you are emailed the patches) and FTP, but recompiled all of the userland.
- Upgraded to 3.0 via CD upgrade (again). This also switched AOUT to ELF.
- Upgraded several more times on 3.0, each via CD.

Now, I have not brought this machine up to 4.0 (since I have a 2nd machine now that I use for my "desktop" and the old box is my "server") but I have to say that FreeBSD has been savable at every point along the path.

However, I would never start an upgrade w/out backups sufficient to restore the data I care about onto a bare install -- anything else is asking for trouble.

Re:Attn: "Real Unix" zealots

[kps]

FreeBSD contains no original unix code

Well, of course not. No current UNIX(TM) contains original Unix code. It was PDP-7 assembly code, after all. No current Unix can contain code from anything earlier than Seventh Edition without it having been significantly rewritten, since the C language changed substantially between V6 and V7. Original code is not the point; the point is the continuous line of descent from {V6,V7,32V} through {2,4}BSD to 4.4BSD to the current free BSDs.

and is not certified as UNIX by the Open group

Who cares what the suits say? By their criteria, no real (i.e. Bell Labs Research) Unix would qualify as such.

Current free BSDs' kernel sources contain some AT&T copyright notices, by the way. If you really, really care how much code hasn't changed much since (say) Seventh Edition, you can now get the latter from SCO for free.

Yes, IKIHBT, and yes, IAHAND, thank you. HTH.

Re:Attn: "Real Unix" zealots

[kps]

ATT System 5 was the standard.

<pedantic>AT&T never had a System 5. They had a System V, though.</pedantic> It descended from System III, a suit-infected offshoot of V6 and V7; nobody used System V except due to corporate politics. (Nobody used System IV at all.) It didn't originally have TCP/IP or even paged virtual memory (just swapping entire processes).

I did like RFS though.

The people who claim BSD is real Unix just weren't there I guess.

Like the bunch at Bell Labs who based Eighth Edition off 4.1BSD?

(IKIHBT. IAHAND. HTH.)

_

OpenBSD

[eufaula]

OpenBSD is one of the absoulte easiest OS's that i have ever installed. It pops up and asks you simple questions and even makes setting up the disk partitions easy. It is the easiest *BSD i have ever set up.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux : Linux !

[jslag]

I have been using Checkpoint to do some rather complex NAT manipulations, and I would love to use ipfilter to do this

Sorry, you're SOL. Ipfilter can't do nat.

On the other hand, ipnat works nicely...

YMMV

[Tony-A]

Very true.
Even identical brand/model# can vary.The devil is in the details, the exact timings, and these do vary somewhat.
As a generality, The BSDs (at least FreeBSD and OpenBSD) seem to have stronger networking abilities than Linux, but the differences seem more in the ability to handle screwy setups than the mainstream.
I am working on newbie status, but have been around computers long enough to know what a wiring panel (IBM/604 IBM/650) looks like. The following is anecdotal, but may have some relevance.
First exposure was FreeBSD (2.6 I think) hooking up 2 486/33s via serial ports to learn that there was such a thing in TCP/IP as MTU which is 1500 for ethernet and defaults to something like 384 for serial links. (Windoze likes to set a "Do Not Fragment" bit.) The setup was DOS boxes routing Internet explorer and email over some embedded phone lines. Don't ask, we've got fiber now. BSDs eventually died, probably from overflowing /var (I'd never heard of df at that time).
I've had RedHat 4.2 (kernel upgraded to 2.2.10) on a 486/50 for a few years, ftp, samba, mostly so I can read man pages. Not really set up for anonymous ftp. Anonymous ftp works, just nothing there.
Pair of box-du-jour, one would install RedHat 4.2 but not 5.2; the other would install 5.2 but not 4.2. No idea why.
Ftp installs from intranet servers not particularly set up for ftp installs. OpenBSD, smooth as silk, just put in pertinent info where defaults are not what you want. FreeBSD, other than having to remember to set ftp username in options, goes smoothly. RedHat 6.2 requires ftp server to be set up appropriately.
From installs on various misbegotten and damaged (power surges) boxen, Linux tends to be a bit more user friendly, at least for a novice. When there are problems, the BSDs tend to be a bit more usefully informative. If either works, it tends to stay working. One word of warning, the BSDs handle disk partitioning differently. For me at least, the partitioning in OpenBSD is very non-intuitive. For any of the BSDs you probably want bash instead of the default sh.
With at least 17" monitor, 2meg video, 200MHz PPro, RedHat 6.2 gives a very easy "wow" desktop setup. One good thing about the overloaded GUI in RedHat. On a default RedHat install (RedHat 6.2 Professional, intended as a server (almost as good as OpenBSD, but the box is more impressive)), with a bunch of windows open, and the default random screensaver doing interesting things, telnet in from an NT box, and everything is crisp. Hit the mouse (move is too slow) and the original screen is back before the mouse has come to rest. Ever watch NT recover from a 3d screensaver? Painful. I think my boss is getting the idea than Linux/BSD will work better than Windows 2000. We already have had, and scrapped, Exchange Server, Small Business server, Proxy Server, and SQL Server.
If you have a chance, try them all. I think the best choice will be whatever works and feels right. It's almost like choosing a car because you like the color. There's more to it than that, but the relevant stuff is subtle, subliminal, and outside the scope of what can be objectively measured.
On topic? I have always avoided sound cards as much as possible. Almost always more trouble than they are worth. This is "mainstream" NT and Win95/98.

FreeBSD branches

[dcs]

Well, 3.4 and 3.5 and *not* being worked on. 3.x, 4.x and 5.x are.

FreeBSD uses CVS to manage source code. With CVS, every time you make a change to a file you wish to integrate, a new "version" of that file is created. You can retrieve any particular version of a file, generate diffs between versions, etc.

Now, the versions are numbered in ascending order, as you would expect, but multiple "branches" may exist. For instance, "current" is the HEAD branch, 4.x is RELENG_4, 3.x is RELENG_3,and so on. Each branch progresses independently. One can ask for the latest file of a particular branch. That's what 3.x-stable, 4.x-stable and 5.x-current are.

A release, such as 3.4-RELEASE, 3.5-RELEASE, 4.0-RELEASE or 4.1-RELEASE, is a point in time. We mark the latest version of all files in a particular with a tag, such as RELENG_4_0_0_RELEASE, and those files/version with that tag are the ones that compose a particular release.

Now, why work on more than one branch at the same time? First, let's see how work is done on FreeBSD.

There are different origins to the source code found in FreeBSD. Some of it are externally maintained programs, such as sendmail and bind. These are imported from time to time, when a particular version is deemed stable enough.

Other programs are also developed externally to FreeBSD, but their developers are also FreeBSD committers. These are usually updated on a regular basis. It's the case particularly of some device drivers, shared by FreeBSD and Linux or one of the other BSD. It is also the case of code being developed by companies who sell solutions using FreeBSD, and have internal patches.

Finally, there are the programs "local" to FreeBSD, who are constantly updated. The actual development is still done out of the FreeBSD tree, and only updated at points where the code is functional.

These updates are usually done on the HEAD branch, or current, which, right now, is known as 5.x-current. Because of the very nature of software development, this results in serious bugs from time to time, and even break down of the build process. That's why people should stay away from -current, generally speaking.

As the code matures, and particular versions are deemed safe, they are merged back on the latest stable branch, 4.x-stable. This includes new device drivers and bug fixes. New features are also added in some cases, but the general rule is to leave new stuff out of stable.

Now, when a current reaches a certain point, a new stable branch is created out of it. This branch is identical to current at that point in time, though it quickly starts to diverge. But since it WAS a current up to that time, the new stable isn't *rock* stable previous stable branches. This is the .0 syndronme.

Because of that, serious users avoid the .0 release, some avoid the .1 release, and some claim to avoid anything below .5, even.

These users expect their very reliable stable branch to continue to receive bug fixes and, particularly, security fixes. Thus, we, for a while, merge fixes to the latest two stable branches. Right now, 4.x and 3.x.

It's worth mention, though, that 3.x is at the end of it's life time, and won't be receiving many patches anymore.

Still, some people DO merge fixes all the way to 2.2.x. Usually, they have their own applications still based on such older versions, and like to keep them up to date. :-)

HTH.

Re:B*llshit

[dcs]

Netcraft says FreeBSD.

Of course, if you had ever read a press release from Walnut Creek, which, as you may recall, has merged with BSDi, you would know it runs FreeBSD.

The joys of college

[Dungeon Dweller]

Yeah, it was fun loading my folks M68K. Will be much more fun when it's splitting up my internet connection between some friends and myself in a couple months :-)

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux : Linux !

[jslag]

For comparison purposes, what checkpoint has to its advantage is application proxies for just about everything. It also doesn't require changing compile time options to keep state at high volumes.

Its other advantage is, according to a guy a work with, the fact that it has pretty gui screens instead of an ugly old text file. Pretty compelling, eh?

FreeBSD Technical Superiority

[jbf]

FreeBSD network stack is similar to other UN*Xs (much more so than Linux at the kernel level) so changes are easier to port to other OSes. One reason I use FreeBSD, at least.