Updated FreeBSD Release Schedule

Serin K Medusa writes: "The folks over at FreeBSD.org have put up a new 'roadmap' detailing the plan of action for the remainder of the year. In particular, check out the plans for a 5.0 preview and expected dates for 4.6. Interesting reading if you're following -CURRENT."

Comments

Well planned release

[lamj]

It seems to me that FreeBSD is more well planned than Linux in terms of project management(This is not Linux bashing). When a development project gets bigger, it takes a lot more planning as a group effort than one man's decision, there maybe something for Linux development team to learn. I agree that it is hard to find the balance because most of us like Linux for some advanced new feature but there's got to be better planning and announcement system to let user know what to expect.
I would really appreciate if Linux kernel set stable checkpoint to indicate "This is a stable kernel" instead of 2.4 series trial and error approach.

...and it shows.

[pschmied]

FreeBSD feels like a real quality product. The installer, and the overall level of "spit shine" is better than I've seen anywhere else (Windows, Solaris, Linux, QNX).

The packages/ports collection rocks. Software works as documented. Documentation exists.

I can't wait to see all the goodies planned for FreeBSD-5.

Anyone who is interested in UNIX should check it out. It is one of the very "cleanest" implimentations out there, and it also happens to perform quite well.

Go ahead download the .iso (or buy from Daemon News). The install doesn't take long (6 minutes boot to finish on my 1.0ghz Athlon).

-Peter

Re:It's Interesting to Me...

[PhotoGuy]

3)FreeBSD was a good enough OS to have Apple base their new flagship OS (MacOSX) on it. (I don't see them planning to make a Linux based MacOS)

I think this has a lot more to do with the licensing. No commercial vendor in their right mind would base their custom OS with value-added proprietary extensions, upon an OS that places such heavy dependencies upon the GPL license. (The term GNU/Linux just makes me shudder.)

The FreeBSD license doesn't preclude commercialization, which makes it far, far, far, more appealing for putting on commercial users' desktops.

Of course, the rock solid stability, better planned releases, centralized control, yadda, yadda, yadda, are no doubt factors that made it more appealing than Linux as a base. But even if those things were all equal, the GPL alone would have prevented Apple from basing OS X upon Linux.

Similarly, I'm working on two projects that will be commercialized; I'm using FreeBSD as the base, and sleeping well knowing that I won't have any licensing grief down the road. Linux and it's supporting utilities are just too fraught with GPL restrictions; if the core technology of Linux were leaps and bounds above FreeBSD, it would be more of a dilemma. But in terms of the kernel and core utilities, they really are neck and neck. I make my living creating this value-added code, I can't afford to give the source away for my modifications or extensions, and live off of services or whatever. (And the zealots will no doubt scream "if you don't like the GPL, don't use software that uses it!" Well, despite the kneejerk reaction that might be, that's exactly the right advice in my case, I'll use FreeBSD.)

I do think it's a shame for Linux, though. If Linux didn't have this restriction, and had four or five offshoots of commercialization, I think it'd be taken a lot more seriously on the desktop. With the release of OS/X, BSD really did leapfrog Linux in terms of popular acceptance on the desktop. Linux might have been the beneficiary of this, if it were more BSD-like in its licensing. And FreeBSD seem to be gaining even more momentum every day.

In any case, choice is good. I love Linux, but I choose BSD. :-)

-me