Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 5.0 Delayed One Year
Satai writes: "FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE has been delayed a full year, until November of 2002. The reasons included a lack of support for SMPng - including a developer fall-off ratio of 15 to 1 - a desire to finish the PowerPC/Sparc64/IA64 architectures, and a general desire to robustly test the additions. The economic downturn even makes an appearance in the announcement."
I thought it said FreeBSD 1.0 delayed for five years! What a relief!
"Where's my peanuts?" said the parakeet.
Can somebody, who knows what happened, explain to the rest of us why so many developers left the boat ?
15:1 is way above what can be regarded as "bad luck".
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
*cough*TIM*cough*
anyway, at least the bsd-hackers forum can be quite hostile, and i've seen it keep more than a couple people away..
I'm an avid open-source supporter, using windows NT at work, 95 at home, and ME on my laptop.
Now, this story seems quite interesting. In this day and age where we are increasing only interested how quickly we can churn out things, it's good that a developer (or rather, group) has decided to admit that things do need time, in this case a year, to be improved and have the features users want implemented to a satisfactory level.
Look at Netscape 4 - definately a rush job, as anyone who has to get CSS and / or javascript working with it will tell you - it's pretty obvious that little testing took place on it, hence even *really* obvious bugs stick out like a sore thumb.
Whilst users always like new features, ooh-ing and ahh-ing over them, it's no good if the features themselves are ridden with bugs. If a few more developers were to spend enough time testing and really ironing out the problems in their applications, the program would slowly come together, gaining a reputation for itself as it does so.
The only problem with this is that in a year, people will be looking at BSD, hoping for some king of uber operating system. I really do hope that the developers live up to expectations - it would be a real shame if they didn't.
that better tested products last longer. maybe the year they now take for testing and developing will help them build a system that is competitive for 5 years or longer. perherps. i will use linux though.
".Sig Stealer" was here
that's too bad. I know that Free BSD 5 is actually going to be able to grow the filesystem on the fly (like AIX) and I really wanted to see how it works. Just recently I switched from Linux to Free BSD and I'm quite happy with what I already have, so I suppose waiting a year won't kill me...
As others have pointed out, it's good that the FreeBSD developers have decided to push the deadline by several (14) months.
But I can't help but wonder if the FreeBSD "core" isn't trying to do too much with too little.
SMPng is great. Porting FreeBSD to dozens of architecture may not be -- I thought NetBSD was the one group that was supposed to focus on portability? Stick with Intel CPUs, guys! =)
Nevertheless, a magnificent OS, and one that I use very often...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Though not currently running FreeBSD, it is a system I *really* like and it has a lot (ports, licence...) going for it. Unfortunately, excess developers isn't on the list, it seems.
I hope that all that talent isn't lost forever.
To be honest, I'd like to see some shrinkage in the number of projects going on out there, in the hope (perhaps mistakenly) we'd see quality products turned out faster, rather than just more of them.
eg. There seems to be about a dozen HelpDesk projects out there, but none offer what our horrible old Win3.1 version did - let alone what our current crappy Win32 system does.
But I'd hate to see FreeBSD be part of the shrinkage!
The reasons included a lack of support for SMPng - including a developer fall-off ratio of 15 to 1 - a desire to finish the PowerPC/Sparc64/IA64 architectures, and a general desire to robustly test the additions. The economic downturn even makes an appearance in the announcement."
You didn't take Butterfly Effect into account.
Failing to take into acount a butterfly flapping its wings in the country called Elbonia could cause the delay of its release up to several month, even a year.
The parent deserves some moderation : (+1, Troll smart enough to cut-and-paste)
-- Colin
Why are they setting dates in the first place? Can't they just say that they will release it when feature A, B and C are implemented and stable?
This isn't as bad as it might sound to Linux users.
FreeBSD has multiple branches:
* 5.0, aka -CURRENT, currently the target of
most new development.
* 4.4, the next release in the 4.x series,
due to be released today
* 4.3-RELEASE, which is updated with security
fixes as necessary
* 3.x, which is still being used, so it
occasionally gets a fix or two.
What this delay means is that the general public won't see most of the nifty 5.0 features until the end of next year.
That doesn't mean, however, that we won't get *any* new features; the list of 4.4 improvements will be evidence of that...
You can sit and whine about how its being delayed or you can get off your duff and help.
Even taking some time to run what parts of FreeBSD 5 do exist to give some valuable feedback as to how it behaves on your system could be useful.
I am just as dissapointed as anyone else about the news but I can't help but feel motivated to lend a hand in such bad times.
I will probably try FBSD 5 this weekend and see what's what. Too bad I don't have SMP...
13-Mar-2000 FreeBSD 4.0 has been released
hmm... so a little over a year and a half for another major labeled release..
wow, most corporate software would be GREEN with envy. No pressure guys, you're still outperforming Microsoft and the rest of them.
"Companies like Microsoft, with thousands of hard working, dedicated fulltimers are deemed to prevail..."
I don't know about you but I get tired of seeing MS Word not work when I can play the pinball game "easter egg" that comes with it just fine. I think your "dedicated developer" theory is a bunch of bullshit. I mean have you ever even used ME? Its a piece of crap. Caveat Emptor!! [Brady Bunch quote]...
Troll assmunch go home
Guess what? OS X has 1 million users.
That doesn't include pirated copies, so it could be 1.25 million users of mac on a BSD base.
As apache is bundled with OS X, there could be 125,000 servers running on BSD from OS X alone.
OS X is doing great from all the unix apps for it.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
Typical - and people wonder why BSD is dying.
... my Lord it [FreeBSD] was slow and ... fighting with FreeBSD, it sure looks like a troll. If it acts, looks, and smells like a troll, it probably is.
Since BSD is not dying, your comment is the comment of a troll.
With quotes like
BTW, I can take criticism. Saying something is really slow without any proof is not criticism. As a person who uses both Linux and FreeBSD at work, I have seen little if any difference between the two in speed.
Linux, on the other hand, is vital and alive with people fixing and improving it.
The same with FreeBSD and the other BSD's.
They've probably been lured to work on Darwin, OS X's BSD base.
I guess they'll be back right after they figure out how to fix the dual processor dialup error.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
About a week ago, I saw the latest FreeBSD Development Report, compiled by Robert Watson. It's a simple report, including a paragraph or two on the state of all the major projects.
After reading the report, I decided to be a little bit scared of 5.0, because there were a lot of ambitious projects slated for inclusion therein.
This move strikes me as a recognition of a reality: it's going to take a lot of time to integrate all those projects and turn the result into something worthy of being called FreeBSD-RELEASE.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Hi everyone,
Despite all those annoying trolls who claim *BSD is dead, I say it lives. I've used FreeBSD since 2.1.6 and it's so good to see all the progress, in my favourite OS.
Even if we have a release date that is in the not-so-distant future, I'd prefer to see quality instead of quantity.
I'd prefer a stable OS instead of something that has releases every few weeks to fix bugs... and I think a lot of users will agree with me on that. This is one of the reasons why FreeBSD is used much on servers: for it's stability.
On the sidenote, why not give FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT a try, if you're dying to see what it looks like? It won't hurt you (much), apart from some possible problems. But why not contact the developers when your box, say, gives some core dumps? It's with our support that this product is made! We don't pay for it, so don't whine!
While this is obviously bad news, I'm not worried. FreeBSD still beats Linux easily.
I like to use a system that feels like it is a cohesive whole, and not a patchwork of often incompatible packages. It is the little details that make the difference. Something like better written manpages might not make that much of a difference to a clueless newbie, but when you get to know the system they do make a difference. Man pages are just one example though... FreeBSD as a whole system (not just a kernel like linux) has an organized, well-though out design, as opposed to the messed up patchwork that is (Debian|Redhat|Suse|whatever) Linux.
A cathedral will always be more beautiful and well-engineered than a bazaar. Even linux peasants should be able to figure that out.
Economic Downturn! HA! We ALL know that's a huge load of crap..err.. what? we like BSD stuff? Damn Economic Downturn!
Slashdolt double standard strikes again!
Moderators: do your worst! (like you usually do.) Screw Karma.
"It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
Slackware was released on CD by Walnut Creek just like FreeBSD was released on CD by Walnut Creek. WC also employed some developers for both, but WC did not produce either package. As it is, Slackware was abandoned after the buyout of BSDi by WindRiver. So, Slackware is unaffected. Even if they were still both released on CD by WC, they are wholly seperate projects and have nothing to do with each other.
A better approach:
1) Find some piece of hardware that isn't supported, but you think could be useful to more than a couple people worldwide
2) Post the question "Is anyone else working on a driver for [cool piece of hardware]?"
3) Commence work with any answering "I am" to #2 - or on your own, referring to driver-writing documentation included in the source tree.
4) Once working in a stable manner - post "Hey it works! Anyone want to help hammer it and make sure it's up to par?"
5) Gain respect and appreciation for your contribution to FreeBSD.
Simply asking "What needs to be done?" is like asking a star for a specific particle of light!
I AM, therefore I THINK!
He's talking about Trusted Solaris, not regular Solaris.
That's funny. The OS X team and the FreeBSD project share a lead developer. Most of my man pages in OS X say "BSD Experiemental" or "4th Berkeley Distribution" at the bottom. You can even buy darwin at Daemonnews (you know, the BSD magazine?). Oh yeah, you can even have the FreeBSD ports tree on Darwin.
Wow! It certainly seems like OS X has just a little bit to do with BSD. There is more to an operating system than just the kernel, you know.
Well, a simple search would have given you quite a bit of information..
:)
I mean no flame, but if you're as knowledgeable as you claim to be... the current available docs would be enough. I mean, there's even a sample device driver to start yourself on.
When you email technical lists, with very vague questions, you get bad answers...
'tis the nature of geeks
My reply to post #2239121 violated the lameness filter. Something about postsubj compression filter. That lameness filter is, well... lame.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Quite frankly, that sounds like a very poor design. If you are changing your internal APIs so often and don't have a good abstraction layer in place for basic driver work, then you're shooting yourself in the foot. The internal APIs being in a "constant state of flux" shows that you need to get your heads out of the implementation detail, step back, and do some actual design work first.
A good OS should have clean interfaces for writing drivers that anyone can support. You should be ashamed that it requires an "expert" in the system to write one of the most commmonly needed contributions to the system.
I've written Linux device drivers as part of a class, including block and character devices with full /dev support and /proc filesystem support for configuring the devices. The Linux device driver model is so simple and easy to use that you can teach a class with a new, more complex driver as a biweekly assignment. It was basically a trivial task once you read through a little documentation. What is so wrong with FreeBSD that you can't simply do that?
Funny, if it wasn't an elite "boys club" on the list and if the kernel APIs were well designed, then you should be able to politely point someone to a HOWTO, FAQ, or book. Instead, snobbery and insults fly when it's really your own shoddy workmanship that is at fault.
Drivers are import to system adoption. Driver writing should be the low-level entry to kernel hacking for your OS. It's a good way to see who can code well and to enhance your system. Of course, if neither of these are your goal, then don't be whine when the supposedly "inferior" Linux kernel leads them to a higher mindshare in the developer community.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Fact: Jordan Hubbard did not leave the project - he simply changed employers. He is still the FreeBSD Release Engineer, and still active member of the CORE team.
Fact: FreeBSD-Current (5.x branch) has so many changes that pushing back the switch of Current to Stable does not mean that features from Current won't be MFC'd back to Stable during the course of the year. It just means the whole of it won't.
Assuming this is some sort of "writing on the wall" of FreeBSD's demise is incredibly short-sighted. If you truly have been involved in FreeBSD for 6 years, I would expect you to know better. The 4.x branch was delayed many times due to the amount of changes to various subsystems - some of which were then MFC'd to the then 3.x-Stable branch.
Passing FUD about the GPL beating BSD is just further evidence of your troll.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
I'd rather see a product delayed because it's "not how they want it" when it ships, rather than see it Rushed Out the Door.
:-)
Classic Examples of ROD Products: Windows, Red Hat, PS2, and the Ford Pinto
Which PROVES 1 out of 4 Rushed Products "Blow up" on the consumer (pinto anyone?).
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Aw fuck man are you telling me all the Ports I have running on Darwin right now don't really work? You're a life saver, I don't know what would have happened if someone didn't come along to tell me that my software was tricking me. It's good to know all those man pages talking about BSD Unix are fakes. Phew. In a world of bad apples you're a dumb piece of shit.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
As for the kernel API being in a constant state of flux, I believe that the poster didn't mean it that litterally. Sure, some things do change over time, but I find most of the stuff to be very clear and well documented (note, I'm not a FreeBSD kernel hacker/developer). I also find the newbus scheme a very compelling infrastructure for driver development.
Apparently, what happened was that those
developers worked on things other than SMPng,
they didn't leave the project. So there are lots
of other new things, but the SMPng work needs
more dedication. Go figure.
It seems that this newbus bit may add a level of nice abstraction like that of the Linux kernel. It's good to see steps being taken in this direction. Hopefully, there will be more open-minded people willing to assist interested parties learn this interface.
What bothered me was the usual snobbery about it not being their "place" to help newbies learn how to write drivers. The whole API being in flux issue is mostly a red herring since they could simply request that the person submit their drivers against a frozen architecture, such as the FreeBSD 4.X branches -- unless these too are in a "constant state of flux." I mean, big deal -- the Linux driver models were quite different between 1.2 & 2.0 and between 2.0 and 2.2. That doesn't mean that people were turned away from submitting new drivers under the older stable tree during the 1.3 & 2.1 development cycles.
If they have a good interface, then they should really have documentation to help people add system support for the stable branches. I mean, really, the main "expert" developers shouldn't be bothering themselves with device driver writing. For one thing, it requires them to take time away from their usual projects to learn the interface for a new piece of hardware -- which should be the hardest part of writing a driver under a good architecture. Device driver writing is exactly what newbies should be doing. The kernel interfaces should be a trivial matter -- let the newbies worry about learning the actual hardware while the main developers work on more important core issues.
What bothers me is that this guy is. You can see his name all over FreeBSD mailing lists and code fixes. A quick search turns up that he's been a committer to the FreeBSD source tree since June 1999. This guy is in on things, and he's displaying this level of snobbery towards new developers. What a great way to gain mindshare! They're squandering a great resource.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Well, gee, if all 10,000 users contributed just $1 each, there wouldn't be a problem, would there?
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
I quite _did_ mean that I run, and develop on, -CURRENT, and it is in a definite constant state of flux. There are many huge architectural design changes. Go read the -CURRENT mailing list for examples.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman