Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FreeBSD 5.0 Developer Preview #1 Released

Posted by timothy on from the excellent-smithers dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes: "The FreeBSD developers just announced the release of an official snapshot of the upcoming FreeBSD 5.0 which should be expected in November. Time to try out amazing new feature like background fsck, FFS snapshots, KSC, devfs, SMPng and many more. Check the Release Notes for detailed information." Read on for a list of ISO mirrors, too.

Thanks to AEtherSPOON, you can spare the main servers and use one of these FTP mirrors to grab the ISO:

56 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. Freebsd 5.0 DP1 by Jeff+Probst · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do any of the linux distros have a beta release program as excellent as FreeBSD's?

    1. Re:Freebsd 5.0 DP1 by BRTB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, at any time you want you can download a snapshot of Slackware's current tree, which is the development happening in realtime... probably can't get any faster beta releases then that ;)

    2. Re:Freebsd 5.0 DP1 by essdodson · · Score: 1

      The same is possible and has always been possible for FreeBSD. You can grab the entire source tree whenever you choose, then build your own system. If this doesn't suit you then snapshots are made daily, just not an ISO. There's really no point in building a 650MB image daily when there are better methods for keeping up to date.

      Perhaps next time please look into things before boasting that Slackware does something that FreeBSD doesn't.

      --
      scott
    3. Re:Freebsd 5.0 DP1 by BRTB · · Score: 1
      brtb: Well, at any time you want you can download a snapshot of Slackware's current tree, which is the development happening in realtime... probably can't get any faster beta releases then that ;)

      essdodson: Perhaps next time please look into things before boasting that Slackware does something that FreeBSD doesn't.

      ::looks:: now where did I say something against FreeBSD? I was just responding to the original poster who asked...

      Jeff Probst: Do any of the linux distros have a beta release program as excellent as FreeBSD's?

      Sure I was saying good things about Slackware, but I didn't mean to imply that FreeBSD didn't have similar development methods; if I did I apologize, that wasn't intended.

  2. background fsck by mjed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds interesting, but fsck isn't something you should run in the background. I mean, do you really want to be writing to the disk at the same time you're checking for errors? Maybe it's just my parinoia. If the developers pull this off safely and with no or barely any noticable slowdown, my hat is off to them.

    --
    I'm a repairman in an imperfect world.
    1. Re:background fsck by ChadN · · Score: 5, Informative

      The design of the BSD file system, when using "softwrites", is specifically engineered to handle this. It does require a rather sophisticated fsck (and one that is aware of how softwrites works). On the other hand, this also removes some of the complexity of the file system (which is not to say it isn't tricky code, but tricky in a different way from, say, a journaled filesystem)

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    2. Re:background fsck by Aniquel · · Score: 2, Informative

      To quote: "fsck(8) now has support for foreground (-F) and background (-B) checks. Traditionally, fsck(8) is invoked before the filesystems are mounted and all checks are done to completion at that time. If background checking is available, fsck(8) is invoked twice. It is first invoked at the traditional time, before the filesystems are mounted, with the -F flag to do checking on all the filesystems that cannot do background checking. It is then invoked a second time, after the system has completed going multiuser, with the -B flag to do checking on all the filesystems that can do background checking. Unlike the foreground checking, the background checking is started asynchronously so that other system activity can proceed even on the filesystems that are being checked. Boot-time enabling of this feature is controlled by the background_fsck option in rc.conf(5)."

    3. Re:background fsck by mosch · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Sounds to me like you don't understand how the BSD filesystem works. While Linux has started implementing journaling filesystems in order to get better recoverability, BSD used a different technique. It shifts the filesystem from valid state to valid state, in a manner where the only error that can occur due to a crash is a harmless wasted inode, wasting a little disk space. This can be cleaned up with a fsck.

      Because the only error that can exist on a UFS filesystem with SoftUpdates enabled is this wasted space, there's no problem running the fsck as a background process.

    4. Re:background fsck by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Informative

      > Come back up immediately after an unclean shutdown, but have a background task sucking up IO bandwidth for an hour or three.

      FFS fsck's quite fast, actually. As for sucking up IO; background fsck can be ran at a higher nice value.

      IO operations for niced tasks are reduced in favour of other tasks competing for IO; so, you *could* have fsck running for hours if your system's doing a lot of IO and fsck is running at a nice of +20, but you're unlikely to notice it on anything but an accurate IO benchmark.

      See Running "fsck" in the Background, section 7.

  3. Dropping 80386 from default kernel: Good Idea by finite_automaton · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I would say that it is about time that both *BSD and Linux look at dropping support for 80386 chips from the default kernel.

    From the FreeBSB-5.0/DP1 release notes:

    Support for the 80386 processor has been removed from the GENERIC kernel, as this code seriously pessimizes performance on other IA32 processors. The I386_CPU kernel option to support the 80386 processor is now mutually exclusive with support for other IA32 processors; this should slightly improve performance on the 80386 due to the elimination of runtime processor type checks.
    Supporting 386 chips is a good idea, but it should not be the default. I would like to be certain that the kernel that I build is taking advatage of the new features that my processor offers.
    1. Re:Dropping 80386 from default kernel: Good Idea by castlan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just because a kernel supports the Intel 80386 CPU doesn't mean that later x86 processors can't leverage their advances with the same kernel. It seems that you didn't fully register the last phrase in your blockquote. When a kernel supports advanced instructions, CPUs with lesser instruction sets must run tests to see which instructions are supported, and which they need to ignore. This significantly slows down the relatively underpowered 386 class CPUs, while post-Pentium grade CPUs hardly notice anything.

      The trouble isn't that advanced instruction sets aren't utilized, but that there is no streamlined kernel for 386s that doesn't waste their precious time. Let me fictionalize a dramatization:
      "Are you superscalar?"
      "no"
      "Do you grok MMX?"
      "no"
      "Have you heard of SSE?"
      "huh?"
      "Do you have the Pentium Floating point Bug?"
      "The what?"
      "Do you mind if I waste another 16,000,000 cycles asking you rhetorical questions?"
      "no - at least not until I get my I386_CPU optimized kernel, so that I can make every kHz count!"

      Support for i386 chips in the generic kernel should definitely be the default, even if it did mean that the advanced features in the latest CPUs couldn't be fully exploited. For one thing, you need to ship the lowest common denominator so that the lower boxes can even run in the first place. Not to mention that it is much more sensible to ask a Terahertz Sexium w/Frobnitz CPU to recompile a kernel than a piddling 16MHz 80386 with a whopping 8MiB RAM. By the time the poor thing grinds out a useable vanilla kernel, your latest generation system is starting its third bout of "make world".

      It's called perspective... not everybody can track the latest revision of every hardware component. Some systems actually have uptimes higher than your IQ. (Hmm, was that last bit an insult? better think about it...)

      -castlan

    2. Re:Dropping 80386 from default kernel: Good Idea by Icy · · Score: 1

      You have to ask youself, who would be using an outdated i386 and at the same time keeping current with FreeBSD? You can pick up Pentium Is or old 486s for next to nothing. They are not asking you to "track the latest revision of every hardware component", but instead keep within the last say 8 years. If you have the time to track the latest FreeBSD release, then you have time to throw together a new box. If you have special needs for using an i386 box and nothing else will work, then make world on another computer and install over nfs. There are just so few running an i386, why kill performance for the whole? I never use the GENERIC kernel, but those new to FreeBSD (like the dumbass writers who do their non scientific benchmarking) use GENERIC and their performance suffers. Building a new kernel is easy, but many do not know how.

      P.S. Having high uptime just shows that you have a lazy admin and a system with exploits.

    3. Re:Dropping 80386 from default kernel: Good Idea by castlan · · Score: 1

      I confess the last bit was trollish, using loaded words like uptime and IQ to draw out goats - I was hoping for something tastier than lazy exploits, but kudos on the temperance. In deference, if the none of the significant updates are kernel related, then there is no reason to bring down the system. I suppose 3-5 months covers (in days) the mean IQ of any general populace. Perhaps that is enough time to uncover a corruption related issue in the kernel worthy of a power cycle.

      Yes, I actually agree with the general thrust of your post. I am just against artificial obsolesence of hardware, even if there is an abundance of superior alternatives available. If landfill material can instead be tools, then that is a Good Thing. Cutting 386 support while retaining i486, or even up to Pentium Pro support, will not make a dent on any "real world" benchmarks, much less "kill performance". To gain any performance worth noting, you need at minimum a custom kernel. Damn the dumbasses and their toy benchmarks, is that the influence that should shape a genuinely useful system? If a company's oversized paperweight can be usefull to a non-profit interest, then is .05% of 2 Million KHz really a more significant consideration?

      Expedient "out-of-box" support for maximal hardware should be a primary goal, even a stand alone 386 if it is feasible. Once any P4 is running, a simple kernel recompile would be almost insignificant anyway... the userland is a significant part of the performance equation. If you want the ignorant "journalist" to see the glory of FreeBSD via their myopic benchmark, the answer is to have make world a part of the standard install for all performance oriented systems. If you still need to impress the writer who can't be bothered to select the "high performance install" option, then have the installer automate the make world on all hardware more recent than the Foo86. This is the Right Thing To Do in any case, and without the high-end performance strawman, there is no reason to drop older hardware support in current releases. The unfortunate alternative is the start of a very bad precedent, and each successive generation would be easier to cut. Where exactly would the line be drawn? At the Intel shareholders meeting? When it comes to technology, the slope is in-deed very slippery.

      Also, keep in mind that older hardware can still be useful for maintaining performance as a reference point. When 4.0 outruns 5.0, then perhaps it would be a good time to hunt down whatever code bloat has been introduced. If this drag was not the foreseen result of an engineered tradeoff to gain scalability, then the 386 has performed a valuable service as the whistle-blower. Flexibility is an asset, and shouldn't be pissed away.

    4. Re:Dropping 80386 from default kernel: Good Idea by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except generic code that runs on any i386-i686 is going to be less optimizable and more verbose than code that runs only on i486-i686.

      386 lacks certain instructions (e.g. cmpxchg); the compiler's not going to do a CPU check every time such an instruction will be useful, it'll just choose a solution that works everywhere, and you can be sure code that's good for a 16MHz 80386 that's just pulled the series out of 16bit hell is not going to be good for a 1600MHz Pentium 4 that doesn't even impliment the instruction set natively.

      Besides which, anyone running i386 level hardware is hardly going to be interested in any of the new stuff in 5.0; they're probably still running 2.x, 3.x or maybe 4.x.

    5. Re:Dropping 80386 from default kernel: Good Idea by Icy · · Score: 1

      After thinking about this for a while, I realize that having i368 support would not be that bad. Having it install on the most hardware is most likely the best option.

      What I would like to see is a option after sysinstall has finished up to build a custom kernel if sys was installed. Maybe it could take the information from dmesg and set itself up to be optimized for your processor and maybe even remove hardware not on your system. I doubt I would ever use it, but a new user may. And it would save them the time of searching through LINT. I have always wondered if a loaded module would be slower then if it were compiled in the kernel. I usually compile everything I need in, so running a higher securelevel won't stop me from loading what I need.

      Your make world idea in the install sounds great. I wonder if doing a make world with CPUTYPE=iXXX or CFLAGS options in make.conf would increase performance by any further distance. I will have to see. I have not done a make world in a while :)

    6. Re:Dropping 80386 from default kernel: Good Idea by realdpk · · Score: 2

      Almost nobody should be using the GENERIC kernel by default anyways. The only reason to do that is if you don't understand the kernel config file (which is, admittedly, not an easy thing to grasp for newbies).

      The GENERIC kernel ought to boot just about everything, IMO, simply because it is "generic".

  4. Trollbot? by fm6 · · Score: 1

    OK, this post shows up every time we get a BSD story. Does somebody have a bot posting them automatically or what? Is it the same person who does that strange "Steven King is Dead" bot? And what's the point?

    1. Re:Trollbot? by fm6 · · Score: 2, Offtopic

      Hey, I've already died twice. No biggie.

  5. Re:This is shamelssly offtopic, but.... by questionlp · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Actually... the tension is between NetBSD and OpenBSD. Theo deRaadt "forked" the NetBSD code and created OpenBSD. I used to have a link that discusses the reasons for the split as well as some comments made by Theo.

    As far as I know of... there isn't any noticeable tension between OpenBSD and FreeBSD... but of course, I don't pay attention to the politics; I just use what is best for each situation.

  6. Re:Almost there, buddy by questionlp · · Score: 1

    Sorry about that... :(

  7. Re:This is shamelssly offtopic, but.... by jeffy124 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the story told to my OS class was that Theo for whatever reason split from either Free or NetBSD to OpenBSD. For a while, the two were pretty much the same. Then someone r00t3d Theo's machine. Thus OpenBSD took on the task of being the most secure OS out there, and I think they've done a pretty good job, particularly in their development practices that encourage finding bugs and getting things right the first time.

    --
    The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
  8. Re:This is shamelssly offtopic, but.... by jeffy124 · · Score: 1

    oh one more thing -- i dont vouch for the accuaracy of my post, as it's hearsay from a prof who also heard it via hearsay.

    --
    The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
  9. FFS Snapshots? by adolf · · Score: 2

    Anyone know how the snapshot feature is supposed to work, or have any experiences with it that they'd like to relay?

    It sounds similar, if not identical, to what an ISP of mine used around 1994-1995 (and perhaps still do). They had a NetApps filer for their users' home directories, which provided a few .snapshot directories.

    Inside of .snapshot were the ghosts of ~ past. Which was -very- nice when you changed or deleted something and then change your mind about it hours, days, or weeks later. One could go back in time, and retrieve any of several periodic revisions of anything which had been modified.

    Incidentally, the aforementioned shell box was also running FreeBSD, although a much earlier incarnation than that being discussed here.

    --
    Kid-proof tablet..
  10. Re:This is shamelssly offtopic, but.... by someonehasmyname · · Score: 1

    Okay, Theo left NetBSD and formed OpenBSD. I'm not sure, but I think Theo is kind of a jerk.. Similar to some people's views of Bernstein. =) OpenBSD is *not* the most secure OS. They claim this because they "audit" all their code. That's why we still find off-by-one bugs is openssh, etc. Yah, right. If it's audited, their auditers suck worse than their programmers. The FreeBSD volunteers are *VERY* hardworking individuals. Consider Linus maintaining the Linux kernel source, and all of the userland apps. The *entire* OS. That's an awful lot of work. Not to say that Theo's crew doesn't work hard, but they're *way* behind FreeBSD. OpenBSD doesn't even support SMP yet.

    --
    Common sense is not so common.
  11. Re:This is shamelssly offtopic, but.... by Tuzanor · · Score: 4, Informative
    Theo was the maintainter of NetBSDs SPARC port. For whatever reason, (it really depends who you ask. NetBSD guys says Theo was a dick, the people who sided with Theo say that one guy had a problem with him and blew everything way out of proportion) Theo was kicked out. Later Theo grabbed what he could of NetBSD and forked it into OpenBSD.

    You are right on Theo getting rooted. This sufficiently propelled the OpenBSD team into the security first approach that has made them so famous.

  12. Re:Almost there, buddy by Tuzanor · · Score: 3, Informative

    Thats not the real Theo. Its really spelled Theo de Raadt, not DeRaadt. Its just some troll who likes to think he acts like him.

  13. Re:This is shamelssly offtopic, but.... by Tuzanor · · Score: 2

    OpenBSD doesn't support SMP for security reasons and for reasons of simple practicality. Most users of OpenBSD use it for firewalling and such. No need for SMP there. If you really need to crunch seti@home that badly, then by all means use free or linux.

  14. Freebsd 5.0 with 367 days of uptime by AWrinkler · · Score: 1

    We pulled a snapshot of FreeBSD 5.0 a year ago.
    Here's a few tid bits:
    uname -v
    FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #0; Mon Oct 30 20:41:51 EST 2000
    root@servername_here:/var/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC

    uptime
    1:55PM up 367 days, 2:31, 1 user, load averages: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00

    Running flat out since it's only compile from cvs.

  15. Re:This is shamelssly offtopic, but.... by someonehasmyname · · Score: 1

    No, I've read a few interviews where Theo stated that he hasn't added SMP support because he has no dual or quad motherboards lying around... Do people on Pricewatch not ship to Canada, or is he *that* broke?

    --
    Common sense is not so common.
  16. Re:Available on CD by batobin · · Score: 1

    I'll wait until the final copy is out before I buy it. Something deep inside me just refuses to buy beta software.

  17. Re:Almost there, buddy by gruntvald · · Score: 1

    uh, you might want to fix your personal website then, troll-ass. Folks, don't reply to this bogus loser ... do your research.

  18. Re:This is shamelssly offtopic, but.... by castlan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Right, it wasn't Tara, but IPF. OpenBSD didn't end up killing Tara...er, IPF, but disowning it. But that was mostly IPFs fault. So then IPFs twin sister PF showed up claiming to be the rightful heiress to the OpenBSD fortunes, and now IPF is forced to hang around the FreeBSD family much more then ever, which is making their local firewall jealous.

    Then in a big suprise, IPF comes back from her romping aroung NetBSD, FreeBSD and the red-light district of commercial Unix to deliver a bastard child... er, fork, of OpenBSD 3.0, and the Twin Suns of OpenBSD are silently duking it out through their invisible firewalls with divergent syntax. FreeBSD slips SMP into NetBSDs drink, and then, stay tuned for next weeks episode of "As Make World Tunes"...

    I think this post clearly indicates that it is my bedtime. Theo vs. NetBSD's remainder is old dead news. IPF wasn't as "Free (libre)" as the BSD community had assumed, and when Mr. IPF held this over Theo deGUUYs's head, deGUUY had a schitzoid reaction and hacked it out of OBSD. The remainder of the BSD community has more important things to worry about, OBSD embraced and extended a Free IPF alternative in time for the 3.0 release, and again OpenBSD has taken the high road.

    Theo is an unfairly maligned jerk who maintains a Free OS with uncompromizing values, where NetBSD and FreeBSD don't mind "bending the(ir) rules" now and then. He is most definitely not a software visionary, who rather believes that a 30 year old security model is the best choice for today's global internetwork of secure systems - because that way there are no surprises. The FreeBSD guys are hardworking arbitrary freeware oligarcho-capitalist volunteers just trying to keep thier releases regular.

    Darren Reed helped OpenBSD become what it is today, just as Theo de Raadt helped NetBSD become what it was, but both groups parted ways. IPF feels like a second class citizen without OpenBSD, so Mr Reed forked his own openbsd30.ipfilter.org, but IPF plays nice with most Unices. PF is now the OBSD Chosen One. Soap Operas should be criminalized. Support FreeBSD; but pay for OpenBSD, for when the shit hits the fan. Better safe than sorry, better secure than friendly. Computers don't need hugs. Oh, and Soap Operas need to be outlawed. Not to mention criminalized. Save Tara - she's a hottie.

  19. Re:Available on CD by Lazaru5 · · Score: 1

    Uh, so don't buy it?

    It's called it _Free_BSD for a reason.

    --

    --
    My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
  20. Re:This is shamelssly offtopic, but.... by castlan · · Score: 1

    Not having SMP, he doesn't need SMP. If somebody needs SMP badly enough, then they can send SMP Sparcs and Alphas to Sweden They have plenty of work to do witout expending their meager resources on hardware that nobody seems to care much about yet WRT OpenBSD. I am sure that by the time NetBSD has SMP running, OpenBSD will be able to use the FreeBSD source to get their own multiproc flavor brewing. I don't imagine he's as wealthy as Torvalds or Jobs, so de Raadt should probably pinch his pennies.

  21. Re:gcc 3.x by Fweeky · · Score: 2

    > so FreeBSD 5.0 won't be using gcc3?

    It will. It's just in it's own branch at the moment while everything's adapted to gcc3's new warnings stuff, IA-64 and the other new architectures gcc3 is needed for (IA-64, etc).

  22. Re:man! by JohanV · · Score: 1

    Cable rules?

    RETR 5.0-DP1-install.iso
    150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 5.0-DP1-install.iso (675971072 bytes).
    Received 675971072 bytes in 258.6 secs, (25.03 Mbps), transfer succeeded
    226 Transfer complete.

    Fiber to the Dormitory rules!!!

  23. Threads by teambpsi · · Score: 2

    "The kernel is now aware of the concept that there are smaller units of scheduling than a process (but only one thread per process is allowed at this time)."

    The one feature I've been waiting for the most isn't quite there -- kernel-land threads.

    Still though, I'd rather have it right than 'ready'.

    besides, I'm relieved that I can continue to listen to my euro trance shoutcast stream uninterrupted by ISO image downloads ;)

    --

    Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
    1. Re:Threads by shlong · · Score: 2

      The one feature I've been waiting for the most isn't quite there -- kernel-land threads.

      I'm not sure what you mean here. Threads that exist entirely in the kernel have existed for some time now. If you're talking about kernel-scheduled userland threads, then yes, they are not quite there yet. Note that this is different than linux threads, which are just forked processes that happen to share the same address space. FreeBSD can do that too, and in fact has a 'linux-threads' package.

      --
      Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
    2. Re:Threads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What he means is: kernel-land threads as opposed to user-land threads. Kernel threads are independently schedulable (the scheduler deals with threads not processes), user threads run in one process and take turns executing within that process's cpu allocation (timeslice) using a library to switch stacks and do partial context switches. User threads are not seen by the kernel and are not independently schedulable by the kernel. I.e. if one user-land thread blocks, none of the user-land threads in that process will run since the kernel only schedules the process, even if these threads are capable of running. Also, within a single process, user-land threads cannot execute in parallel on SMP machines while kernel-land threads can.

      Threads that exists in the kernel are probably currently implemented in a way similar to linux's clone and FreeBSD's rfork(): they are probably really processes sharing the kernel address space.

  24. Re:This is shamelssly offtopic, but.... by Strog · · Score: 1
    I've seen some of Theo's responses to the SMP questions and he seems a little indifferent about it. He seems to think it is a good idea but doesn't see it as big of a need as other things. There are some OpenBSD developers working on it for x86, alpha, sparc and ppc if I recall correctly.

    Most users of OpenBSD use it for firewalling and such. No need for SMP there.

    While this is generally true, not everyone's firewall is connected to DSL/Cable connection (mine is though). Dynamic rulesets, VPN, IPSEC and a host of other options can get real CPU intensive and SMP could be helpful in those situations. I've also seen some articles about OpenBSD video render farms. You really have to impressed with OpenBSD to lock into single CPU render farms or have some floor space to spare.

  25. Re:Available on CD by bmah · · Score: 1

    Certainly, that's your right. But the proceeds from the CD-ROM sales (from whichever company is selling them) help fund development.

  26. Obvious question: why? by rsidd · · Score: 1

    It's certainly impressive and all, but -- if you aren't interested in recompiling it, playing with it, keeping track of its progress, possibly helping out with development/debugging -- why are you using -current at all? Was there some crucial feature which you needed and couldn't find in -stable?

    1. Re:Obvious question: why? by AWrinkler · · Score: 1

      Certainly was - SNAPSHOTS.

      We wanted to see how it worked. As usual, it works well.

      And Seti@home needed snapshot backups as well;-)...not

  27. Re:man! by MattBurke · · Score: 1

    ncftp ...reeBSD/ISO-IMAGES-i386 > get 5.0-DP1-install.iso
    5.0-DP1-install.iso: 644.66 MB 7.11 MB/s

    100Mbit to the desktop baby :D
    (and yes, this was from a WAN link not LAN)

    working for an isp does have its distinct advantages :)

  28. Re:Available on CD by batobin · · Score: 1

    Yeah dude, that's exactly my point.

    I never said or implied that the only way I'd try it would be if I bought it. I was merely telling the original poster why I wasn't planning on buying PR1.

    Calm down man.

  29. Re:Available on CD by batobin · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I suppose you're right. It's more of a donation than a purchase.

  30. SoftUpdates, Not softwrites by sirket · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sigh, at least get the name right, even if you have no id ea how the technology works.

    -sirket

  31. OK, that's scary. by fm6 · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    The above post is actually interesting and informative, despite its 2 am prose. Even more scary is that it's an ontopic response to my thoroughly offtopic post, modded down twice, and correctly so. Not counting the inevitable and meaningless "underrated". Rob, you really should get rid of "underrated" and "overrated".

    I like Tara too, and not just because she's the most interesting Lesbian to appear on prime time for quite a while. But she's doomed. It's all Amber's fault. Amber is multi-talented and sexy. Especially sexy when she's singing or incanting. But she isn't sexy in a Hollywood way. No character played by her can survive for long.

  32. Ooops -- and Constructive Moderation Suggestions by castlan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Please replace "an unfairly maligned jerk" with "a fairly thouroughly maligned jerk" in my grandparentparent post. Bed is a poor substitute for Slashdot, but despite the nasty aftertaste, bed leaves less of a hang over.

    I would be willing to forgive Tara if she relented in contribution to the virus (read: pollution) of emotional radicalization propeganda, better known as "Soap Operas". I understand that many young and foolish actresses can get caught up in it, just as many naive talents get stuck in pornography, or even prostitution. Unfortunately, the product of the Soap Opera is far more insidious than pornography, and that makes it more dangerous to human society. Please, at least graduate to a weekly cable TV series if broadcast TV is out of your reach. Even pornography would be a more honest living. But take responsibility for your actions, and GET OUT of the hysteria glamourization industry.

    Please, consider Sarah Michelle Gellar a role model. She escaped, and is a very productive part of the entertainment of the human race. Soaps are not even "romantically morbid", they are proactively morbid.

    ...

    As I see it, Slashdot is useful for entertaining and occasionially enlightening information and opinion. I depend on moderation for topics that I find marginally interesting, but for precious few topics I am willing to trudge through all 300 posts looking for the gems that might get overlooked that relate to significant interests of mine. I am willing to participate in moderation to serve others that find similar value from Slashdot, with the understanding that those who come before me can provide a similar service.

    In this light, I find that "overrated", and especially "underrated" can be valueable, as not all posts fall into easily defined categoties of usefulness, but one shold still be able to say "Hey, you really should have a look at this!" On the other hand, I strongly feel that "offtopic" is a damaging moderation, if only that it serves as double duty against "crapfloods" and similar classes of senseless babble. Sometimes poor topics, like poor grapes, can produce the finest wines in offtopics posts that have more value than the topic from whence they were born. I truly wish that a distinct CRAPFLOOD-style mod were implemented to complement the overused "offtopic" moderation. It would provide much greater value than the "insightful/informative/interesting" triumvrate. Thus, if I were feeling uninspired, I could remove the penalty from OFFTOPIC for a more diverse, less rigidly structed Slashdor experience. When time becomes valueable once again, I can restore the offtopic penalty. Even better, I could assign a double penaly to CRAPFLOOD - I would never do that to TROLL as I would miss out on some oo Slashdot's best posts.

    TROLLs are posts that engourage responses, and as such have value, even if they tend to be inflammatory or offtopic. BSD is Dead should be handled by REDUNDANT. Screenwidening posts and garbage characters could easily be caught by the CRAPFLOOD label, which would allow a realaxation in the "lameness filter" resulting in less frustration for posters. If these measures were implemented properly and used successfully, I might not be against removing OVERRATED. UNDERRATED is important as long as TROLL carries a penalty.

  33. Tara and Offtopic by fm6 · · Score: 2
    It's pointless to tell Amber Benson to emulate Sarah Geller. They're very different people on many levels. Not the least of which is the difference in body types. Sarah has that underfed look that Hollywood considers mandatory for sex symbols. Amber does not. Not fair, but that's the way it is.

    I don't follow your anti-Offtopic argument at all. If you're going to have descriptive upmods and downmods (not an idea I'm in love with, but Rob seems attached to it). then "offtopic" is the most widely applicable one. Even if we didn't have spam, crapfloods, and trolls, "offtopic" would still describe a lot of posts. Every online discussion is subject to topic drift. Our current conversation is a prime example! If a moderator notices this post, it will probably get downmodded as "Offtopic". I have absolutely no problem with that.

    Perhaps your dislike of "Offtopic" has to do with the usual concern with "unfair" downmods and consequent loss of Karma. Now, a lot of bad downmods bother me, but I think too many Slashdotters are pathologically obsessed with this issue. Having a clever post be slightly less visible is unfair, but it's not the end of the world. And if you're a reasonably good Slashdot citizen, you have a enough karma to spare for a few downmods now and then.

    I can't help but observe that the people who are most vehement and obsessive about "unfair" downmods are the ones with the least to say. They have a few thoughts that they themselves are in love with, and can't understand why most other users are unappreciative. Such folks need to do a little growing up.

  34. Improvements regarding the OFFTOPIC moderation by castlan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The less I know about soaps, the less I retch. I was kidding when I pretended that I knew who she was, as an intro to my over the top soap-style dramatization ("slipped SMP into their drink"). I was referring to how Sarah is no longer in a daytime soap, so I no longer hold hostility to her, and forgive her for her shady past. I hope that Amber is not held back for not being emaciated if she is talented, but I was really bluffing about the whole thing. Really, I'm sorry for bringing any of this up.
    ----------
    I hope you aren't insinuating that I fit into the category you caracterized in your last paragraph; earlier in this thread you complimented one of my posts! I won't pretend that I don't enjoy a slight thrill or even validation when one of my posts is modded up to 5, but that is not at all why I use Slashdot. Sometimes I feel compelled to post useful info to to correct misinformation about subject that I feel fairly knowledgeable about. Enough knowledgeable people use slashdot that occasionally I find surprising posts that enlighten me, broadening my horizons, or at least provide new directions for further research. The Moderation system is a valueable part of this system. I don't care about my personal karma; I care that useful or just interesting posts stand out from inane crap or abusive noise. I don't mean MY posts, I mean other posts, so that I can see them when I browse at +2, +3, or +4, depending on how piqued my interest in the subject is. Unless I am intimately interested in a topic or moderating, I'm not willing to slog through at -1 just to find the hidden gem that hasn't been revealed. I actually depend on the moderation system to work for me.

    I am sorry that my post wasn't clear... what was is that made it hard to uderstand? was it just too long? I have been accused of being too "long winded" on slashdot in the past. If that's the case, just stop reading here, thanks.

    I don't see slashdot as a concise news site. I guess I treat it as a collection of perspectives, but with a lower bar for entry than, e.g., Kuroshin - and IMHO, Slashdot scales better. I don't dislike OFFTOPIC because I don't want to lose my precious karma, I already have my +1 bonus, as you can see, and if I really cared, I could post anonymously to protect my little stash. I dislike OFFTOPIC when it obscures somebody else's post that I find interesting. The very nature of the beast is that the discussion will stray from the story - On today's Star Wars article, there was a post describing how Pulp Fiction is a blatant Rip-off of a previous Japanese movie. This is completely off-topic, but that is not a bad thing - I find this more interesting than the original story. Now I have to rent "City on Fire" to see the jewel heist that is only alluded to in Resevoir Dogs, and I am looking forward to this. This illustrates my point that OFFTOPIC is against the spirit of the site, and OFFTOPIC could be destigmatized by introducing another tag - one which more accurately describe content free posts.

    You claimed that your earlier post was marked OFFTOPIC twice, and rightly so. I am not going to argue against that, of course it was offtopic. But you posted it in the first place, and my eye was caught by the gruesome visage of the phrase soap opera. This compelled me to post, but I was not the only one - obviously many people were interested enough in your post to respond. Responses to your post were moderated up as interesting. Don't you get it yet?!? Obviously, your off topic post was valueable.

    The dillema here is that many posts in this thread are both "offtopic" and valueable, which introduces a double standard. Similarly there are mony "trolls" that deservingly reach level 5 moderation. I usually want to see those "interesting" posts that are "offtopic" or "trolls", while sometimes I don't. The answer is another moderation category, which can distinguish posts that are clearly "content free" as opposed to just containing content that is "inflammatory" or "digressive".

    Do you understand? Your post was OFFTOPIC, sure, but it is also valueable to at least 13 posters, two moderators, and yourself - not for "karma", but for discussion! I LIKE OFFTOPIC POSTS when I am looking to kill time. That is where I find the value in Slashdot - in the community and their communication.

    Check out your preferences. The only "upmods" and "downmods" are OVERRATED and UNDERRATED. Everything else is configurable. That is why descriptive mods are a great idea. I can have FUNNY be a downmod if I am looking for pertinent information, while neutralizing REDUNDANT penalties and double raising INFORMATIVE and INSIGHTFUL. If I am looking to entertain myself with diverse perspectives, I can raise FLAMEBAIT, TROLL and OFFTOPIC - unless these are being used to negate FP and nonsequiter racist diatribes. Perhaps OVERRATED would be best for these style posts, but even you called for the elimination of that tag. Some tag along the lines of "useless, content-free, noise, crapflood" would solve this problem nicely.

  35. What about background defragmentation? by doc+modulo · · Score: 1

    I hate defragmenting my drive every so often. Computers should be able to run indefinitely on their own!

    Does FreeBSD or any other OS already have background defragmenting that does not cause danger to the files on disk with regard to crashes?

    We are going to need a background defragmenter anyway as soon as non-volatile ram is here (like MRAM). Or doesn't RAM (HEAP?) fragment in the first place?

    I'm no expert but I've never heard of it. And I do think it's a basic necessity.

    Can anyone please tell me if background defragmenting of HD or RAM is already here or not?
    And if not, please tell me if you think we'll see something like this anytime soon.

    thanks.

    --
    - -- Truth addict for life.
    1. Re:What about background defragmentation? by bmah · · Score: 2, Informative

      FFS (the filesystem used by the BSDs) is designed not to require defragmenting, not in the sense of Microsoft FAT-type filesystems. (FFS uses different algorithms for laying the data out on disk, which I unfortunately can't explain well enough to be of use.) So it's kind of a non-issue here.

      RAM fragmentation: "Fragmentation" is a vastly over-used word in the computer world. As applied to filesystems, it means a suboptimal layout of disk blocks on the disk, therefore requiring lots of seeks to read/write the data blocks. RAM disks are random access, and it generally takes the same amount of time to grab a disk block from a RAM disk no matter where it is. The word "fragmentation" can be applied to memory but in a different context that what you cited.

  36. ALL AT THE SAME TIME, without THINKING by OsamaBinLogin · · Score: 1

    >Does FreeBSD or any other OS already have background
    > defragmenting that does not cause danger to the files on
    > disk with regard to crashes?

    Here's these freebsd guys, they work hard and produce yet another amazing trick. Then you go and ask for something completely different.

    On the other hand, yeah, you're right. Unconscious defrags, that would be ultra cool. DEAR FILESYSTEM PEOPLE: WE WANT IT ALL. ALL AT THE SAME TIME, without THINKING.

    Personally, I want my laptop to be able to crash, in the middle of building software, and it's no big deal. Recently I had the battery run out while building, and the root partition wouldn't fsck anymore. Wasted!! (suse 7.1 running 2.2.18; build partition was ReiserFS, root partition was ext2. I'm sure other linux's are ==ly suspect.) I cleaned thoroughly and reinstalled (root is now ReiserFS).

    Not what you would call consumer friendly.

    Extra credit: after rebooting, resume the make, from where it left off.
    :-)

    --
    Marketing-driven companies end up over-marketing their products. Engineering-driven companies end up over-engineering
  37. And it came to pass... by fm6 · · Score: 2
    I have this friend. She's extremely attractive, and she has a webcam. She's also a very interesting person. So of course, she gets a ton of email from total strangers.

    Funny thing is, she actually reads a lot of it. But she gets very impatient if she gets a long message whose basic point is not terribly obvious. I think she's sort of offended at the assumption that she has an infinite amount of spare time, or at least an amount of spare time equal to that of each of her correspondents multiplied by the total correspondent count.

    Her word for lengthy email is "biblical". Rather appropriate.

    All of which is my way of saying -- could you boil that down a bit?

  38. Re:Freebsd 5.0 DP1 (SNAPSHOT ISO's) by jaseuk · · Score: 1

    er,

    from: http://snapshots.jp.freebsd.org/

    ftp://snapshots.jp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snaps ho ts/i386/ISO-IMAGES/

    Burn it, and you can install latest FreeBSD by CD-ROM. These images are updated every 06:00 GMT (about an hour to finish). All CD-ROM images are "bootable"; you can install FreeBSD without floppies.

    Bootonly" CD-ROM is only 3 megabytes, contains CD-ROM boot image and some installation documents. No ordinary distributions are not in this CD-ROM image. You can fetch whole distribution via network or other media.

    "Live" CD-ROM is a bootable (single-user mode) live filesystem. All FreeBSD base distributions are extracted to this. You may want to use this image instead of fixit.flp, since all commands are available. CAUTION:I don't know why, but 5-current kernel can't mount CD-ROM for root filesystem. As a result, live-current.iso boots fine but that's all (if you have any other filesystems for root). Of course you can use live-current.iso as a live filesystem CD-ROM (mount and browse/copy files).

    "Duplex" CD-ROM contains both 4-stable and 5-current distribution. No kidding you... when it boots, you can select which version of FreeBSD to install. Maybe suitable your freebsd-users-group event :-)
    ----
    Jason