Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD XP^H^H 4.5 available now
The_Rift was one of many who wrote in with this news: "The official mail has gone out to the FreeBSD-announce mailing list announcing the availability of Freebsd 4.5. Check your local mirrors for the ISOs.". The release notes have all the details, but take it from me -- this one is worth it just for the TCP/IP performance improvements by Matt Dillon and others. Kudos to Murray, Bruce, and the rest of the release engineering team.
Did you know that a simple name change could get more people to try FreeBSD, or at least get 'em interested in it.
FreeBDSM... Sure, they'd all be perferts, but hell... a user's a user.
Lame joke, I know. but I warned you.
I am a big, fluffy, cute, cuddly bunny. fear me.
and waste a lot of bandwidth in the process. cvsup is your friend.
I think you should try to install the FreeBSD-partition slice onto a primary partition. The partition contains all subslices, which the system is installed onto (/, /usr, /var etc.).
I have absolutely no experiences (XP :) with FreeBSD on laptops - the hardware acceleration for for instance X might be a problem (console should run fine).
Regards
-- Anders
I'm surprised to see that a new feature of that release is... syncookies. Doesn't Linux (and probably a lot of other OS) have that for years? Syn floods is a very old attack, and I can't understand why FreeBSD only implements syncookies now.
{{.sig}}
It turns out it is a good thing that 5.0-CURRENT was frozen, and they concentrated on 4.X STABLE. It means I dont have to worry about changing to a new 5.X branch.
It was kinda annoying that the FreeBSD guys obsoleted 3.X so quickly, they had only really just fixed the glaring issues with the ATA driver corruption problem and other important issues (that affected my use of FreeBSD 3.4 for fileserving) and then they went and obsoleted it.
If 4.X stays as the most current tree in STABLE for another year, hell, another 2 years, I for one will be happy. I dont see the 1-year cycle for major number increments as much really other than ticking over the most siginificant version-numbers. Stuff that gets MFC'd from CURRENT is usually good enough for STABLE, Look at Linus, he dosent feel a need to tick over the major version numbers for Linux. I'd stay with FreeBSD 4.x if it goes all the way to (say) 4.7 or 4.8.
Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random numbers is, of course, in a state of sin.-John von Neumann
Maybe I should really check out the FreeBSD FAQ & site & stuff, but hey, there's a lot of experts around here who can help me out, so I'll throw it in anyways:
;-)
Is it worthwhile for me to try FreeBSD now? I've already installed Win 95/98/2000, RedHat, Slackware,Suse,Debian & BeOS before and I still have an unfinished Linux from scratch install lurking around, but until now only Debian, Slack & Win 2000 stayed on long enough to make real use of them. ATM I'm running Debian w/KDE2.2 and I'm really happy with it, but hey, I still have a free 2Gig partition.
Can I run all apps/libs (or equivalents of the same quality) I use regularly now on FreeBSD? That would be KDE2.2, XMMS, OpenGL on GeForce2, MSN client, \LaTeX{}, Java1.2 a.o. Would It really bring me some extra performance/stability?
The whole FreeBSD approach does appeal to me, so I'm definitely interested in trying, but only if it has a real chance becoming my primary LILO partion
Someone tell me how to install this over a network, please.
The FreeBSD folks have already done this, in very plain language.
For myself, I'm doing a cvsup now as I write this. Make world gonna start to cooking tomorrow night. I'm probably about 2 weeks behind the release as I try to update fairly regularly with the latest stuff.
The really good part about this is that all that stuff that's been held back for release is now gonna start flowing back into the ports tree and src directories. Yummy!
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
Someone tell me how to install this over a network, please.
you need two floppies
kern.flp and mfsroot.flp
boot with them and choose a few menu items and it's off
all detailed at the freeBSD homepages of course
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
For the record, logical partitions are a fictional creation of Microsoft and are extremely scary, unnecessary things which you should probably avoid when using a sane operating system. You can have up to four primary partitions -- extended partitions and "logical drives" exist to expand that. The (sane) idea was that, if you used your first three partitions and expansion to more was imminent or necessary, you'd throw an extended partition in the fourth and put as many logical drives in it as you needed. You know, hda1-4 ... then your logical drives are hda5 and up.
It's a nice idea but since MS-DOS you've only been allowed to make one primary partition, and after that you're forced to put in an extended partition and logical drives. Most operating systems need to be installed on a primary, so your best bet would be using the operating system in question to set up the partition table. Last I checked even XP won't let you add more than one primary partition, but I could be wrong.
I've had the same problem with Intel Solaris. Bleh.
at last!!!1
now no fucking about with linux emulated Java
maybe now I can get java in Konqueror to work
and I know it's not new but maybe you linux heads might've missed it.
FreeBSD now has a third party script that will auto-update any ports you've installed.
cvs update to the lates ports list and run portupgrade -ra and ALL of your port instaleld software will be updated to the latest version and dependencies resolved and reset (and a tool pkgdb will do some pre upgrade checks)
It's great. I'm going on about it because I'm so impressed with it.
FreeBSD rocks
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
try open bsd. I am running it on my nat firewall (cable) and it runs in very modest settings. (I am running on a p100 w/32 megs ram and base install was 60 megs). You can install it from floppy disk over ISDN in an afternoon. (Look at the web site www.openbsd.org for install howto).
FreeBSD get Slashdotted? What, you think they're hosting on Windows or something?
Move along unfunny troll, move along.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
I have been running an ISDN gateway with FreeBSD 4.2 on an AMD 5x86-133 which is roughly comparable to your Pentium 90 for some time. It works perfectly well. Compiling the operating system takes a bit long, but that's not much of a surprise.
ISDN support under FreeBSD is very convenient. It uses the isdn4bsd system, which is integrated into recent versions of FreeBSD. In my opinion, it's superior to Linux, partly because configuration is easier and partly because ituses user-mode ppp by default instead of kernel-based systems which are usually more difficult to configure and maintain. You have to see if your ISDN card is supported. Most passive cards are. Check the ISDN section of the FreeBSD handbook.
There is absolutely no reason to panic.
An OpenBSD example can help you how FreeBSD scales for your biz.
A Pentium 120 with 48 MB RAM and a total 62 MB installation. 3 legged bastion host, making NAT for 130 WEB and ICQ maniac clients, protecting the DMZ with a heavy loaded Web server inside (2 requests per second). Making stateful inspection for the DMZ.
The only part expensive is the ethernet cards used in this box. Intel Pro100S, 51$ +VAT each (here in Turkiye).
ISDN support for {Free|Net|Open}BSD is really sophisticated. It's hard to experience problems.
Regards...
Should I, as a pretty experienced (Kernel compiling, configuration /etc) Linux User, give it a try?
I heard a lots of good things about FreeBSD, but how big are the differences to Linux (installation)?
X
Boycot? Blackout? Subscriptions?
I don't care!
To be honest, if you are just using workstation apps, and not really using it for anything like a nat box, or the 'server in the closet tha never gets turned off' , it's probably not worth your time. The nice thing about playing with it, you get a feel of something different, which is a good thing. Linux ,, redhat, is not the end-all be-all of server configurations.
;-)
I had a freebsd box sitting my in closet for about 18 months, until I got bored with it and install openbsd. BUT, I don't really do any xwindows stuff on it.. basically web serving, outgoing email gatway, nat, proxy, and the place where I build my Python programs and scripts.
I guess to summarize my experience, *BSD is not a workstation supliment, but more a compliment. It will sit there and do it's job without much headache. Thats good enough for me
Not all of the sites have the full set of files (yet), I had to hunt around a bit to find the '4.5-install.iso'.
Don't trust my math on transfer speeds?
(Yes, that transfer went via a proxy firewall)I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Part of 'secure by default' is that the base install omits a lot of fluff- this makes for quicker installs, and a smaller footprint.
One nice option for a firewall, there are plenty of cheap 64MB 'IDE FLASH ATA' devices showing up on Ebay, etc. These look like a laptop drive, work with any IDE controller, have no moving parts.Compared to FreeBSD, there are drawbacks, the most glaring being the lack of SMP support.
Also, OpenBSD's installation process can be intimidating the first few times through. Where Free makes it easy, Open makes you think about disk partitioning and other low-level issues.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
I had just finished the first ISO.
I was about the finish the second ISO (96%)
and I had 3-5% on each of the third and fourth ISO's
and then they release 4.5... damnit...
*deletes 1+ gb of data, and begins again*
And this is all at a top of 15KB/s. And I can assure you it never got that high.
Computational Madness in a round package.
Also, OpenBSD's installation process can be intimidating the first few times through. Where Free makes it easy, Open makes you think about disk partitioning and other low-level issues.
Without sounding like an elitist, (which I am clearly or qualified to be), though the instalation was a bit awkward, it was direct and forward. After getting it installed, it was VERY easy to setup the configuration. All you really have to do is follow the instructions on the website. I had a machine setup in 2 hours (downloads and all w/floppy based install), after never touching the distro before thats not bad. Within 3 hours (and another helpful howto) I had the box hardened. Before the end of a long working day I had a VERY impressive set of rules setup to block various types of traffic, I understdood the difference between a stateless and statefull firewall and most importantly I understand why all the rules in my PF config where there.
I just find it nice knowing that there OBSD crew is working overtime to help me sleep better at night. At this stage in my career, if I am using and deploying open source solutions.. my judgment and credibility is on the line. I can't blame it on Scott or Bill if something goes wrong.
Cheers
Next -> OSX ;-)
Linus doesn't actually *DO* anything worth bumping up the numbers.
2.x aout
3.x elf
4.x cam
5.x new smp
Linux - 2.4 - the kernel of pain
What will 2.5 be? The kernel of torment?
Then 2.7 The kernel of icy death?
3.0 The Kernel of eternal buring flesh?
@.8 could just be the kernel of itchy rash.
This interview with Robert Watson describes many of the new 4.5-RELEASE features, and talks about how they relate to the much more advanced work in 5.0. He also talks about how the Linux development targets relate to those in FreeBSD, and says he reads linux-kernel regularly. It
sounds like 5.0 should be incredible.
and for those of us without the geek knowledge, I've set a smaller distribution, based on NetBSD, up as a firewall at www.dubbele.com.
Yes, logical partitions are fictitional. So are all partitions. They're just conventions on how to share sections of the disk. Come to think of it -- files are fictitional, so are jpegs. etc.
Or did you just mean to suggest that the name logical partition is somehow less valid than logical drive.
Regardless of how problematic you view this system to be, it is the normal way of slicing the disk up into more than four chunks that can be shared among many operating systems on the x86 platform. You don't have to like it, but you'd think FreeBSD -- which is native to x86 -- would support it.
-josh
Well, we already have Transmeta calling their OS Midori Linux -- a blatant reference to Fetish Diva Midori.
Geeks? Perverts? Who'da thought!?!
-Mark
I had thought it was announced that the new Sun Authorized JDK was supposed to be in this release, but I find no information on the readme or the site?
According to the release notes:3 86 .html:
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.5R/relnotes-i
2.3.2 Ports/Packages Collection
Due to delays in the certification process, native JDK support for FreeBSD will be released shortly after 4.5-RELEASE. An announcement will be made on the FreeBSD Web site, as well as the FreeBSD announcements mailing list , when the distribution is available.
I was running 4.3 until last night, when for some odd reason I decided to upgrade to 4.4. I ran cvsup manually to make sure I had the latest sources, ran "make world", then this morning I compiled a new kernel and rebooted.
Whaddaya know, it booted up as "4.5-STABLE" instead of "4.4-STABLE". Talk about pleasant surprises... I guess if I read my email before rebooting I would have known.
........the real Jordan Hubbard is user #3999, http://slashdot.org/~jkh/.
At least there we get to have a little fun with it (find the Seebach/Crispin flamewar at dejanews [search for "popcorn" in title]), but not here.
Coldn't we add "funny" to fair and unfair for meta-moderation categories?
While we're add it, let's add "-1, twit" as a moderation option, as well as "-1, just plain wrong" . . .
hawk
I generally install from the three disks (there's an optional fixit.flp with lots of programs on it) by choosing an absolute minimal configuration, installing the cvsup package, then "make update" in
hawk
hawk
hawk
For those of you who missed the (as yet un-modded) AC above, this comment isn't the real Jordan Hubbard, and is thoroughly deserving of any Troll moderations it recieves.
It's a pretty damn good troll, though. Well crafted and subtle.
|>
Here be Dragons
"... I have absolutely no experiences (XP :) ..."
XP stand for experimental.
as in Microsoft Windows eXPerimental.
You....don't get out much, do you?
Rule number 1: If you need to explain the joke, especially in this crowd, it's probably not nearly as funny as you think it is.
Rule number 2: If you feel the need to send us the same joke again, at least make it original!
bad example:
XP stands for unknown(as in X) Piracy.
It's been a long time.
frankly the installer on 4.4 was buggy to say the least.
It's not so much buggy as it is non-intuitive. Unlike the Linux installers I've seen, it doesn't provide a good step by step wizard for what things you do next. I guess you could call that buggy, but it's not like it doesn't work.
Robert Watson recently commented on this in an interview on OS News. There's apparently work being done now to get a more straight forward, and quite possibly pertier, installer up and ready for FreeBSD 5.0.
It's actually a great interview, worthy of it's own thread.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
About the time when Palm Pilots were taking off. Every manager and anyone important enough in our company started using them. Every meeting consisted of higher ups scribbling away on their Palms or reading email, avant-go, etc.
Well as a joke, I borrowed an etch-a-sketch and in the middle of a meeting. I pulled it out of my briefcase with the straightest face I could put on. Ignoring everyone, I started scribbling with it and the meeting just fell apart from there. The person speaking tried to ignore it and contine but the laughter from the rest was overwhelming.
I don't usually reply to trolls, but I haven't got anything better to do that I cba doing atm :P
/ ?cvsroot=netbsd), much improved random data generation, and a lot of other things that'll only really interest geeks.
> Well, what the hell do expect from an obsolete,
> ancient code base which is developed in a
> closed fashion?
Linus and friends approves patches to the kernel, does that make it's development model closed?
Having the core team approve commits to the base OS is no different to any other open source project, and just serves to keep the base system as high quality as possible.
As for old, since when has maturity been a bad thing for Unix?
> (Yeah, it "supports" SMP. As in, when one CPU
> is running, the other is locked idle. And vice-
> versa.
FreeBSD's current SMP support scales poorly because the kernel is based around a "Giant" lock, which prevents multiple CPU's from entering most of the kernel at the same time. However, except on systems where the kernel itself is heavily loaded, and/or on systems with lots of CPU's (4 or more), it's not a major problem.
FreeBSD 5, due out at the end of the year, will have Giant mostly removed, as well as things like kernel preemption and advanced userland threading. It'll scale as well as if not better than Linux.
It'll also have a new startup system based on NetBSD's (have a look at it, it's pretty cool - http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/basesrc/etc
http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/index.html
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
> Contrary to popular belief, the ports system is
> a steaming pile of horse crap. It offers little
> or no flexibility in regards to how packages
> are built,
Most ports include all the options you need as make defines. If you need more, you can copy the makefile and edit it to your hearts content, and maybe type "send-pr" and submit a patch. Or you can just compile from bog standard source and have the rest of the ports tree use it because they look for libs, binaries and executables, not packages.
> and has a nasty habit of installing
> unecassary dependencies.
Such as? It's certainly nowhere near as bad as Debian, where the entire packages system is so complex and interdependent that it needs to go through years of testing before a release is concidered stable.
> For an example, try compiling PostgreSQL on a
> non-XFree FreeBSD machine from the ports tree.
> Notice how it insists on installing XFree86.
It used to want TK, which would want the XFree libs. That's no longer the case.
> You can't pass it any configure script options > like --without-xfree or ---don't build-
> retarded-gui.
For most people flags like -DWITHOUT_X11 etc are good enough. Otherwise scratch your itch and send-pr.
> Even with RPMs I can do that. In the end, you
> usually just wind up downloading the tarball
> and compiling it yourself, which seems to
> defeat the purpouse of a Ports/ Package
> Managment system entierly.
Making your own ports is trivial, pr's usually get resolved in a couple of days, and installing from source interacts with the ports system far better than any RPM/DEB system I've seen.
Frankly it sounds like you haven't tried it in a while. Sure, it's nowhere near perfect, but what is? Certainly not a binary package system with fragile dep issues and completely unaudited sources.
is there also hot Neve Campbell on Denise Richards TCP/IP action? then it really might be time to switch...
sic transit gloria mundi
There's a hardware compatibility list in the ISO. HARDWARE.TXT in the root directory gives it to you. Or: Here's the link.
Recently, they've started producing an HTML version of HARDWARE.TXT as well. Look for HARDWARE.HTM on the ISO.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
I have FreeBSD 4.3 on a little x86 pizzabox that will eventually become my firewall and Web server. I'd like to upgrade to 4.5. Everyone I meet says, "just run cvsup and recompile the world."
Er, uh... Well, first of all, cvsup doesn't appear to be installed by default (why the heck not if it's so integral to keeping the system up to date?). Second, "recompiling the world" seems like a fairly drastic and space-hungry step, particularly since I installed binary packages in the first place (and presuming that actual recompilation is involved). And third, all the docs I could find on FreeBSD.org are rather thin (and even way out of date) on this process.
Is there a HOWTO or a step-by-step tutorial for FreeBSD newbies to become conversant with cvsup, the ports tree, and upgrading packages?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
One thing I really like about the Solaris 8 installer is they've gone back to the pure command line, no more 'Press F1 to continue`.
Not only is a command line a lot faster at low baud rates than a full-screen TUI, but the scrollback history is of infinite value to figure out where you went wrong when things start to go all wahoonie-shaped.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
I think C# takes the best of Java and adds a lot of goodies that many of us appreciate. Implementing C# for BSD or Linux is a matter of implementing an ECMA standard, just like ECMAScript (and unlike Java). I'd love to have a C# for GCC.
.Net is going to be standardized, though, so it may have to be cloned. I hope that happens because I really like what I see of .Net and I REALLY don't want to use a Windows server.
I'm not sure how much of
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
The installer has always gone through a step-by-step installation as long as you choose the basic (or beginner, or whatever it is. I make world to upgrade and infrequently do a fresh install.)
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
1. Fast boot ups
/usr/ports/foo/bar.) You use the pkg_* tools. Ok, so it's not one single 'pkg_tool' command that does it all, but is it really that difficult to type 'pkg_delete' as opposed to 'pkg_add'?
Boots as fast as Linux and faster than Windows.
2. Ease of use
It's as easy to use as any Unix. Get over it.
3. Better setup interface (auto probe of PC hardware, setup hardware, if no drivers for hardware install modem or NIC and download drivers via cvsup and complete setup using xserver)
I don't know what you're talking about here. The GENERIC kernel, which is the one installed has support for all network cards already. A modem is just a serial device and doesn't need 'drivers'. All your typical PC hardware is also supported in GENERIC. That's why it's called 'GENERIC'.
4. One standard/exclusive window manager
This isn't a FreeBSD issue but a Unix/X one. It's the same situation on Linux.
5. One tool for window manager configuration.
If you mean to choose between wm's then this would seem to conflict with #4. If you mean to configure options for which ever wm you use, this already exists. GNOME and KDE (which are desktop environments more than window managers. GNOME runs on top of WindowMaker, Blackbox, Enlightenment, etc....), WindowMaker, etc all have their own window manager config tools.
And, like #4, this isn't a FreeBSD issue. Talk to your local window manager development team. Or hell, do it yourself.
6. One tool for driver/software tracking and installation/removals.
CVS baby (at least for the first part.) FreeBSD isn't a package based system so with the exception of 3rd party software (via Packages or the Ports Collection) What You See Is What You Get. You add and remove drivers by either recompiling your kernel or removing kernel modules that you've added. (In fact, build a very slim kernel and you can do nearly all via modules.)
As for 3rd party Packages that you've installed (Installed Ports essentially become registered Packages. In fact Packages are themselves made from Ports via 'make package' in
7. One tool for system administration
Several such tools exist. Myself, I like vi(m).
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Certainly I could. There was nothing in my responses that was the least bit fanatical. I also wasn't defending anything or being apologetic in any way. Logic was present in every response.
#1. Sure, instant boot would be great.
#2. FreeBSD is as easy a Unix as any. This is not a biased or narrow view. I know full well that Unix isn't terribly user-friendly. I don't have to put a disclaimer in every single comment to cover my ass just so I don't offend ACs such as yourself.
#3. The question itself indicated an unfamiliarity with FreeBSD's support for hardware. Since no setup for specific hardware is actually required for installs. The context of the question implied this. This type of question often comes up when users do new installs because of the visual Kernel Config (boot -c followed by 'visual' at the config prompt will get you back into it on a running system) which would LOGICally fit within this context. The inexperienced new user is often confused by this screen and proceeds to deactivate every device they think they don't need. In fact, this screen can be skipped completely. The 'conflicts' indicated at the top are not real but only those that _could_ exist if you actually _had_ every device that was listed. If you skip it (I always do), the kernel automatically probes for everything (which I believe is what was asked for?). That (like I originally said) is what GENERIC is for. There's no chance that there'd be 'no drivers for hardware' because they already exist. Removing items from this 'setup interface' is actually the opposite of #3's request.
Of course LOGIC is not perfect. I could just have misunderstood #3, but that's only human, and not not a symptom of narrow visions or fanatiscism.
#4 and #5. Too obvious.
#6 also demonstrates some misunderstandings on the part of the poster. My answer is factual.
#7. There _ARE_ several such applications. There was a company with one at BSDCon 2000 but it's name escapes me. I suppose I could go out of my way and look it up (or find the sample CD I got) but then, so could you.
Of course, I don't know that it was you, but the tone of your response would indicate that it was. That, or you're just another fanatic with a narrow vision who sees evil and conspiracy where none exist. You have erred.
If I actually read comments on many Linux stories and saw an equally misinformed comment I would respond in kind in much the same way I did this one. My goal was only to inform the uninformed, nothing more. You should learn to relax.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Slashdot community when recently IDC confirmed that "*BSD is dying" trolls account for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all posters. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that "*BSD is dying" trolls have lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict their future. The hand writing is on the wall: "*BSD is dying" trolls face a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for them because "*BSD is dying" trolls are dying. Things are looking very bad.
All major surveys show that "*BSD is dying" trolls have steadily declined in market share. They are very sick and their long term survival prospects are very dim. If they are to survive at all it will be among the "hot grits" dabblers. "*BSD is dying" trolling continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, it is dead.
Fact: "*BSD is dying" trolling is dead