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

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!

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The csh(1) shell has been replaced by tcsh(1), although it can still be run as csh(1).

The more(1) command has been replaced by less(1), although it can still be run as more(1).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

[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

[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.

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.

Nah...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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: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: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.)

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.

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: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.

--