Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FreeBSD 4.6

Posted by michael on from the daemonettes dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes "FreeBSD 4.6 is out! The announcement is out, and so are the release notes. Have fun, and thanks to the FreeBSD team!" The announcement has all the mirror information, etc.

51 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. Re:*BSD is dying by aic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't Apple's Mac OSX a BSD unix?

  2. Great to hear it... by Meat+Blaster · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It looks like they took care of the handful of things that were causing me a lot of problems. Not only that, but I'm rather intrigued by this bit:

    Selected network drivers now implement a semi-polling mode, which makes systems much more resilient to attacks and overloads.

    A partial defense against IP DoS attacks?

    Another thing that looks really cool is that reboot now takes a flag to tell it which kernel to reboot to. Isn't this cool? Granted, most of the time on my Linux system I'm at the console when I do a reboot, so I can just pick it from GRUB, but for remote reboots this could be quite handy. And they've eliminated the deal with the odd legit TCP SYN packet from crashing the box to boot. In a nutshell, it's time to start downloading...

    1. Re:Great to hear it... by cbcbcb · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you use lilo you can use lilo -R to select which kernel to boot.

  3. Re:software for BSD by Janon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Much Free Software from linux compiles fine on BSD, if that isn't what you meen by being a programmer. Otherwise, you can mount your linux system under /usr/compat/linux, add linux_enable="YES" to /etc/rc.conf and run your linux binaries as they are.

    --

    And poke her, with the soft cushions!!!

  4. Re:Been there... by Leimy · · Score: 2

    not possible.. I updated last night and built it. This morning I updated it again. Now it actually says FreeBSD 4.6 RELEASE not RC #0.

  5. Re:Great! by Leimy · · Score: 2, Informative

    November 25th.

  6. semi-polling mode by sigxcpu · · Score: 5, Informative

    AFAIK selected polling mode means that after an interupt the driver switches to poling mode to avoid the interrupt overhead.
    Some of Donald Becker's linux driver have this feature.
    This improves system stabillity and responsivenes under high nework loads, and avoides the so called 'livelock' where the system isn't hung but it is wasting so much time doing interupt handling that it can't do anything else.
    This is a GOOD THING but it won't help much against DDOS

    --
    As of Postgres v6.2, time travel is no longer supported.
    1. Re:semi-polling mode by Espen+Skoglund · · Score: 2

      Get a grip. Polling always require less resources than interrupts. It's only a matter of choosing when to do the polling (i.e., when there is something to be polled). Of course, for slow devices like keyboards, polling does not really make that much sense, but the poster was talking about using polling under high network loads. Using interruptions really is costly. Not only do you have the direct cost of the interruption (stalling pipes, switching context, etc.), but interruptions can also induce indirect overhead by cache invalidations, etc. Take a look at the Soft Timers stuff for a good example of how to use polling.

    2. Re:semi-polling mode by bluGill · · Score: 3, Informative

      It always has. However the catch is that when there is no data to read polling still uses resources. So if 99% of the time there is data to read you are better off polling for it. If most of the time there is no data you are better off with the interupt overhead.

      I know one product that gets around this by having the interupt handler never exit until there is no data, so if you are streaming data in they stay in the interupt handler, often for as much as 20 seconds at a time. Of course this means you can't do any other processing on the system, but that is okay for their application. There are many other ways around this, but you have to know your application to try them.

  7. Re:Been there... by flynn_nrg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The fact that the mini iso as already there doesn't mean it had been officially released. A new version of FreeBSD is not officially out until the announcement is made. This is necessary because isos and files need to be mirrored before the load spike comes. For the rest of us, we just cvsup and don't really worry when it comes :-)

    flynn@kajsa# uname -a
    FreeBSD kajsa.energyhq.tk 4.6-STABLE FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE #0: Sun Jun 16 14:08:54 CEST 2002 root@kajsa.energyhq.tk:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/KAJSA i386

  8. Re:software for BSD by elbuddha · · Score: 4, Informative


    # cd /usr/ports/emulators/linux_base
    # make install
    # echo 'linux_enable="YES"' >> /etc/rc.conf

    Note that if you choose linux binary compatibility during installation, the above is done for you.

    For some things (vmware) you may need to add linprocfs to /etc/fstab.

    linux_base comes with rpm, et al. Rarely, you may need to copy some shared libraries from a linux box to the the appropriate directories under /usr/compat/linux/

    Really, its easy. The FreeBSD handbook does a good job of explaining.

  9. Alright, by GldisAter · · Score: 3, Funny

    We are now accepting bets on whether or not Slashdot announces 4.7 before it is actually released and by how many days.

  10. figures by jhines · · Score: 4, Funny

    I installed 4.5 yesterday. Sigh.

    1. Re:figures by AilleCat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Time to learn how to use cvsup

      then cd /usr/src
      make buildworld
      make buildkernel
      make installkernel
      reboot
      make installworld
      mergemaster

      then optional: reboot again

      :)

      --
      FreeBSD The Power to Serve
    2. Re:figures by White+Shadow · · Score: 2

      Heh, fortunately, upgrading FreeBSD is pretty painless (at least, in my experience). Simply upgrade the source code in /usr/src (I recommend using CVSUP), then type "make buildworld && make installworld" while in /usr/src. More detailed instructions can be found in the handbook.

    3. Re:figures by stripes · · Score: 2
      Simply upgrade the source code in /usr/src (I recommend using CVSUP), then type "make buildworld && make installworld" while in /usr/src.

      Er....do not forget to run mergemaster before you reboot. It will help you adjust anything in /etc that needs changing without destroying everything you had altered before. Or better yet, as the previous poster suggests, read the upgrade part of the handbook.

    4. Re:figures by Fweeky · · Score: 2

      Personally I use:

      mv /usr/obj /usr/obj.old
      cd /usr/src
      make update
      mergemaster -C
      make buildworld
      make buildkernel
      make installkernel
      make installworld
      reboot

      Although this is just a single user server. mergemaster -C is important with major changes because rc knobs can change occasionally; e.g. sendmail_enable has spawned a lot of friends for all the other daemons it runs.

  11. Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers? by korpiq · · Score: 4, Interesting


    My frustration grew last year proportionally with the time it took to make Linux 2.4 stable enough for production server use. It still makes me a bit nervous and I have decided to go for *BSD in future where possible.

    However, since Linux got most of the hype, most *nix desktop stuff especially from commercial side like game companies is targeted for it. So it makes sense to use it on the desktop. Just keep your data on the servers ;)

    More experienced administrators: do you support this kind of dualism?

    --

    I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
    1. Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers? by White+Shadow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, I use FreeBSD for both desktop and server. I admit that I originally made this decision based on my familiarity with FreeBSD and I was a bit apprehensive, but I've found it to be just as good for everything I do. My original concern was hardware support (getting XFree86 4.x to work properly and firewire support), but it hasn't been a problem. Over the past couple weeks, I've successfully installed one of the 4.6 pre-releases on my laptop, including the firewire cd-rom drive and internal wireless card. Tangentially, I must say that networking with FreeBSD is incredibly easy, I was amazed at how little effort it took to get the wireless card up and running.

      I think FreeBSD works fine on the desktop, but then again, I don't really play games. I use all the same software as linux folks such as galeon, gaim, enlightenment, kde, etc

    2. Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers? by stripes · · Score: 3, Informative
      However, since Linux got most of the hype, most *nix desktop stuff especially from commercial side like game companies is targeted for it. So it makes sense to use it on the desktop. Just keep your data on the servers ;)

      I have about 15 years of experiance with BSD systems (I'm counting SunOS 3, SunOS 4, and AOS as BSD systems). That kind of made my shy away from Linux systems and their vaguely Sys5 flavor...but not forever. About a year ago I bought a machine to run Linux on. I used it as a desktop on and off for about 11 months, and then finally put FreeBSD on it. Now my only Linux is my TiVo (and...um...my emergency backup TiVo).

      All of the desktop stuff I ever ran under Linux was already running on my older FreeBSD machines, and I never really liked the Linux package managment.

      That's not to say Linux is crap, or FreeBSD is a better desktop machine...just that FreeBSD makes a fine desktop, and if you are talking about yourself, supporting one is easier then supporting both. I would say to everyone else out there that has only run BSD systems, give Linux a whirl sometime. The things I didn't like about it are definitly not the things I thought I would dislike. And to those of you that never gave BSD a shot? Go for it.

      (besides if you want a real desktop Unix...we all know OSX is the way to go... plus, finally full hardware support for laptop Unix! and a sub-second unsusspend from sleep...)

      More experienced administrators: do you support this kind of dualism?

      I use to do Unix support for a University. We went from only having 68000 Suns to having SPARCs, DEC-MIPS, IBM RTs, and some other things while I was there (i.e. one of to four or five). Adding support for the second one is a giant pain...but if you do it right adding the next three isn't bad.

    3. Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers? by Arandir · · Score: 2

      I'm using FreeBSD at home on my desktop, and at work on my workstation. I'm not using it as a server at all since I don't have a need for a server. I'm running Xfree86-4.2.0 with DRM, KDE-3.0.1, Mozilla, Xmms, Wine, etc. FreeBSD has an excellent Linux compatibility mode, so most Linux commercial software will run just fine.

      Benefits: easy upgradability, customization and optimization via source code.

      Drawbacks: you have to wait until the bleeding stops before the bleeding edge stuff is ported over.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    4. Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers? by Bishop · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have used FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and various Linux distros on i386 hardware. In my experience Linux and FreeBSD are excellent on the desktop, and FreeBSD and OpenBSD are excellent on servers.

      I find that the default install (without X) of both FreeBSD and OpenBSD has "everything I want in a server and nothing more." The ports system is there for the few extras you may want (like bash). Basically the defaults for the ports system and the install are sane. When I want a server I install *BSD get it running and forget about it. Usually I install OpenBSD as the install is easier, and it is slightly smaller.

      No linux distro gives you this. I love Debian but it is suffereing from bloat. That and the default Debian install isen't good enough, because there isen't a true default. Something about giving the user choice. I don't need choice on my servers. I want an install that has been tested and works. Slackware dosen't have a ports/package system like FreeBSD. Again I want packages that has been tested and work. Slackware also has a hideous config. Editing all those files in /etc/rc.d/ is not the way to go. Use OpenBSD and you will understand. Gentoo is interesting. I just started useing it. It has promise, but it needs an easier install. It also needs a better default install. I like it and will continue to use it, but not on my servers. You really have to sit down and use FreeBSD or OpenBSD for a while before you will understand how lacking Linux distros are when it comes to servers.

      For the desktop I have been useing Debian. I don't care too much about the bloat on the desktop and 'apt-get install package-name' is great. When it came to a desktop shoot out between Debian and FreeBSD, Debian/Linux won becuase ALSA supports my Trident 4D-NX sound card better then FreeBSD. In my experience Linux often supports uncommon bits of hardware better then FreeBSD. There isen't a native Mozilla for OpenBSD, so I haven't really used OpenBSD on the desktop.

      For firewalls I have not used FreeBSD, only OpenBSD. OpenBSD has one of the best packet filters out there. It is easy to configure, and works. FreeBSD has something very similar. Recently I have been useing Linux as a firewall due to some funky stuff you can do with equalcost routeing, QOS, and bandwidth shapeing. If you don't need these features then OpenBSD is best. Linux can do some packet bashing that rivals Cisco routers. Unfortunately these features are largely undocumented.

      Lack of documentation is ofcourse the worst part of Linux. FreeBSD and OpenBSD have lots documentation that is kept up to date. Linux dosen't.

      FreeBSD and OpenBSD are better then any Linux distrobution for servers. These *BSD systems are well thought out and mature products. OpenBSD has a slight edge due to its easier install. On the desktop I think it is a tie. FreeBSD is excellent, but lacks a few of the bells and wistles you will find on a Linux destop. In particular some hardware is better supported under Linux. On the other hand Linux distors suffer from bloat and are not as well thought out as FreeBSD. OpenBSD makes an excellent firewall. Linux makes a good hybrid firewall/router. If I had to choose just one I would install FreeBSD everywhere.

    5. Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers? by Arandir · · Score: 2

      Of course it's not perfect. I've found "Linux" programs that won't run under any distro but Redhat...

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    6. Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers? by guacamole · · Score: 2

      Since we have to support hundreds of Linux desktops (redhat), we prefer to use Linux also on the servers, at very least on the ones that do things like NFS and NIS service for the Linux machines. If you -have- to use Linux on the desktops, it might be a good idea to keep Linux on the servers too because of the KISS principle. Your environment will be more simple, less training will be required for newbie staff, etc. We haven't run into major problems with this approach. YMCV of course.

    7. Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers? by lamontg · · Score: 3, Interesting
      More experienced administrators: do you support this kind of dualism?

      I'd support it if the ISVs did.

      I'm 1 of 8 admins that take care of appx 600 Linux boxes (projected to grow to 1,000 Linux boxes by the end of the year). We run software by BEA and Tibco on our machines (and probably other packages I'm not as familiar with, but those are the major two). We're interested in Oracle on top of Linux.

      Unfortunately, there's no ISV support for FreeBSD and while I'd *LOVE* to choose FreeBSD over Linux I can't do it for business reasons. Unfortunately this also leads to choose me to avoid FreeBSD even for ISV-free machines at work. The pool of System Engineers that we've got is more familiar with Linux than FreeBSD, and there's no way to guarantee than an ISV product won't be needed on any given machine in the future.

      And unfortunately when I'm talking about Linux ISV support I'm necessarily talking about RedHat ISV support. I really wish that either SuSE or FreeBSD would be supported by ISVs. RedHat is just flatly the worst Unix distribution in the world. They still insist on release kernels that have VMs which are substantially more fucked up than the vanilla one. Isn't it about time to simply recognize that the only guy in the Linux community who understands how to write a stable VM works for SuSE and move on?

      Unfortunately, what I care about most in a Unix OS is (in order):

      1. ISV support
      2. 12-18 month release cycle
      3. Three supported versions of distro (yes, that means you have to support a distribution for 3-5 years)
      4. Hardware product testing matrix and good QA

      I can get this out of Solaris. The only Linux distribution which comes close to this is RedHat and they really need to work on the third point and don't even come close to the fourth point (Intel hardware makes testing matrices difficult...)

      And I'd like to emphasize how important that third point is. With 1,000 machines and 8 people we can't handle upgrading all those machines every 6-9 months. "Release Early, Release Often" is an open source lie.

      If you're just building basic infrastructure, I'd agree that FreeBSD is the way to go over Linux. The one caveat to that is if you're using heavy SMP machines like 6-way boxes (like we do). Then you need to wait for FreeBSD 5.x for the SMP support (and every indication is that it will cream Linux's SMP support after it gets stabilized).

    8. Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers? by Bishop · · Score: 2

      A 12MB Debian system is hardly useable.

      As for bloat: exim requires libldap. That is just one example. The Debian config has also become a little top heavy.

      My main Debain complaint is the lack of a good useable default install. Instead Debian is the "linux for everyone." This is an admirable goal, but not very usefull for servers.

      Use OpenBSD for a few months and you will understand

    9. Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers? by Bishop · · Score: 2

      IIRC FreeBSD did this as well, during the install

      True enough. I just did a FreeBSD install and it was a little different then I remember. I guess most of what I have written only applies to OpenBSD now.

      Also what do you mean by top heavy concerning the config files?

      One of the beauties of OpenBSD is the /etc/rc.conf file. It is a file of sh parameters that are sourced by the rc scripts at boot time. In it you have config options for most of the major services that you would run. For example if I want sendmail to run with "-q30m -bd" (run queue every 30mins, listen on port 25) I set these options in /etc/rc.conf. Contrast this with Debian where I have to edit /etc/init.d/sendmail. If a new version of sendmail comes out then I have to manually compare my version of /etc/init.d/sendmail with the package maintainers. I would rather not do that.

      There are other options in /etc/rc.conf as well. Such as running xdm or not. Instead of one file Debian has a whole lot of other little config files. Such as the stuff in /etc/default.

      While I am thinking about it another irritation I had with Debian was that if I installed a server Debian would insist on running the server. In particular Portmap and NFSD. I wanted these installed on my firewall as sometimes it was convinient to mount some nfs shares. But in general I did not want to run these services. Yet every time they were upgraded dpkg would try to restart them. Very annoying.

      As I stated above I do use Debian on the desktop (as in right now). I don't mind as much that there are some mystery processes running and that the config files are a little harder to manage. I have console access I can tweek things if needed. On a server I want a default install that is ready to go and just works. For those cases I am useing OpenBSD. Ofcourse if I had a dual proc machine I would run Debian/Linux.

    10. Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers? by korpiq · · Score: 2


      Thanks, this was exactly the kind of first-person experience I was hoping to get.

      (* goes off to put together some boxes and start learning *)

      --

      I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
  12. Re:*BSD is dying by zaren · · Score: 2

    You are correct. Mac OS X is built around Darwin, which is partly based on FreeBSD. See http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ for more details. Darwin is also available for x86-compatible computers, so it's not a Mac-only thing.
    -----
    Darwin is an evolutionary OS...

    --
    Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
  13. Re:It's a titty by alfredo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, BSD is not dead. Try OSX.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  14. Re:*BSD is dying by alfredo · · Score: 2

    Love it. Got Gnome running along with Aqua. Maybe KDE3 someday soon.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  15. Re:Mac OS X is not really BSD. by rtaylor · · Score: 2

    What does price or freedom have to do with anything?

    BSDi certainly wasn't free, but it sure was BSD and in some cases was well worth the price.

    Thats like saying, "Thats not bread because it doesn't have a hard brown crust on it". You just haven't been paying attention to the breads which don't brown.

    --
    Rod Taylor
  16. Lilo... by wowbagger · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you use LILO, you can specify the kernel to reboot by:

    lilo -R
    reboot.

    I have an "exp" config in my LILO, for experimental kernels before I move them off probation. So, when I have done my build and install, I just type
    lilo -R exp && reboot
    and there I go.

    I don't know if Grub has anything similar.

    --
    www.eFax.com are spammers
    1. Re:Lilo... by Bishop · · Score: 2

      Switch to grub. It is an advanced boot loader. Grub understands the linux filesystems so it will find your kernel at boot time. Unlike lilo grub dosen't have to be run every time you install a new kernel. Grub has a command line interface so you can easily load any kernel on your hard drive.

      I see no reason to continue to use lilo. Except if you are in a very tight disk space situation such as embeded linux. In these cases every byte countes, and the ~150kB of grub might be a problem.

  17. Re:*BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It will, however, run Linux software! Here's how:

    # cd /usr/ports/emulators/linux_base
    # make install
    # echo 'linux_enable="YES"' >> /etc/rc.conf

    Note that if you choose linux binary compatibility during installation, the above is done for you.

    For some things (vmware) you may need to add linprocfs to /etc/fstab.

    linux_base comes with rpm, et al. Rarely, you may need to copy some shared libraries from a linux box to the the appropriate directories under /usr/compat/linux/

  18. Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers? - why not. by Wouter+Van+Hemel · · Score: 2, Interesting


    I like linux, but if I can choose freely, there is nothing I would pick over a *bsd, most likely freebsd.

    There is no linux distribution that is as mature and aimed for servers. Don't even start talking about the bloated linux 'server' editions... A minimal bsd install, the latest versions of the services you really need compiled by hand and optimized, and you're set.

    Mind though: I really don't think there's such a big difference between freebsd and linux, each has its pro's and con's... It really doesn't matter that much. Just use the right tools for the job, it's all opensource anyway.

    And you can build a very minimal Linux distro yourself too, if you want... It's all about freedom, if you want linux on workstations (because that's what most distro's aim at) and freebsd on servers, you do that. And it'll work.

    I wish the 'x is better than y'-people would just shut up and use 'x' in silence. Or contribute, if they really have too much time and energy anyway.

  19. Re:FreeBSD sucks by Leimy · · Score: 2

    So why did you read the article... why did you bother to comment? Everything you wrote smells of asshole.

  20. Bad day bad day! by AndroidCat · · Score: 2
    Well I certainly picked the wrong day to install FreeBSD! The FTP site was jammed, so I surfed over to Slashdot and .. D'OH! New release ..

    And I was looking forward to adding a 486/66 to my RC5 efforts! :^) (Hey, I need something to plug all my old ISA cards into.)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  21. Re:*BSD is dying by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Funny
    Love it. Got Gnome running along with Aqua. Maybe KDE3 someday soon.

    Me too! Then I replaced the leather seats in my bmw with naugahyde.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  22. figures by BreakWindows · · Score: 2

    I just installed 5.0 yesterday. Sigh.

  23. IF my ISP by LennyDotCom · · Score: 3, Funny

    If my ISP charged by the MB for downloads I would be pissed that I downloaded 4.5 yesterday

    --
    http://Lenny.com
    1. Re:IF my ISP by greygent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probably not as pissed as the FreeBSD folks would be because you're wasting their precious bandwidth by downloading successive ISO images, instead of learning how to use CVSUP, or buying CD's.

  24. Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers? - why not. by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

    Good point. I use linux for my workstation and home servers. But when I ran an ISP, I used freebsd for my servers. I needed the stable uptime my bsd servers gave me. This was a few years ago, when linux was young. I have noticed my ISP and web hosting company both use linux. (Speakeasy and Bestwebhosting). They both have great uptimes with large loads. But all my friends who run ISPs still use freebsd or solaris.

    Need to look past the FUD about any OS, and try it, make up your own mind.

    The only problem I have with Bsd is broken ports, but I read on Openbsds site, they are going to do a full ports audit this year.

    Not a BSD problem, but Nvidia only releases linux drivers, which are much faster than the stock bsd/linux drivers.

  25. Re:warning: corrupt ISOs --[FIX]-- by sar · · Score: 2, Informative

    I had the same problem, even burned 4 copies of disc1 from a couple different mirrors, and I saw a suggestion from a while back about how to fix it. The fix involved adding a line to /boot/loader.conf, which is kinda hard to do on a cd boot. So, I tried the next step, setting the variable at boot time, and it worked.

    At the bootloader prompt (Hit enter to continue or any other key for prompt), type:

    set hw.ata.atapi_dma=1
    boot

    and it should install fine. Also, once installed and booted to it, before you try to read from a cd, add the line without 'set' to the /boot/loader.conf and all will be well. This is just a workaround, I think its something to do w/ the ata driver and some cdroms, but I could be wrong. All I know is it works, and others have had success w/ that fix.

    btw, do you have a AOpen 52x also?

    --
    .
  26. hu, I didn't know there was a sever version of XP by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

    This is just another odd inconsistency in this guys posting. Unless of course the server only servers less then 10 clients at a time. :-)

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  27. I wonder what happened to FreeBSD 5.0 by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

    I am planning to buy an smp system sometime this summer. I am eagerly awaiting FreeBSD 5 because of much better smp, Java, as well as some beta .net support that Microsoft is porting. I got into *bsd after I needed to install nat and linux looked just horrible and cryptic in regards to setting IP rules. Openbsd and Freebsd are so much easy to administer in regards to this and much more secure by default when you install them. RedHat is a joke. Anyway I heard FreeBSD 5 was suppose to come out last January so I have been waiting to buy my new system. My isp is putting a 3 gig transfer cap later this summer so I need it before August. After that I will switch to dial up. I believe 3 gig is maybe a 3 to 4 hour download at the most for a dam whole month! Boy, I hope they finish soon so I do not have to spend a lot of money buying the cd's.

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
    1. Re:I wonder what happened to FreeBSD 5.0 by pancrace · · Score: 2, Informative

      Coming in November. Look at the release schedule.

      --
      I don't have a .sig
    2. Re:I wonder what happened to FreeBSD 5.0 by SteelX · · Score: 2

      But buying the cd's helps the FreeBSD project, and really isn't that expensive.

      That depends on where you come from. Of course, $39.95 isn't that expensive in North America, but in many other places in the world, $39.95 is a huge deal. For example, where I come from, $39.95 would be more than $150 in local currency.

  28. Re:Been there... by Leimy · · Score: 2

    time machine then?... Like i said... I got stable yesterday from CVSup and it wasn't 4.6 RELEASE... it still said RC #0. Unless you know some source tree I don't and did things in a non-standard way then you didn't have 4.6 RELEASE.

  29. Re:Mach? by Drishmung · · Score: 2, Informative
    Did you find this link? It gives a good overview of what is going on from a Unix perspective. Some useful quotes:
    Part of the history of Mac OS X goes back to Berkeley Software Distributions (BSD) UNIX of the early seventies. Specifically, it is based in part on BSD 4.4 Lite. On a system level, many of the design decisions are made to align with BSD-style UNIX systems. Many of the libraries are derived from NetBSD (http://www.netbsd.org/), while many of the utilities are from FreeBSD (http://www.freebsd.org/). For future development, Mac OS X has adopted FreeBSD as a reference code base for BSD technology. Work is ongoing to more closely synchronize all BSD tools and libraries with the FreeBSD-stable branch.
    Although Mac OS X must credit BSD for most of the underlying levels of the operating system, Mac OS X also owes a major debt to Mach. The kernel is heavily influenced in its design philosophy by Carnegie Mellon's Mach project. The kernel is not a pure microkernel implementation though since the address space is shared with BSD processes.

    The Mac OS X kernel (also known as XNU) is a monolithic kernel (unlike Mach, but like Linux and xBSD) with Mach and BSD sitting side-by-side.

    Mach handles memory management, IPC and device drivers. BSD handles users and permissions, the network stack, the virtual file system and POSIX.

    Once outside the kernel it's much more BSD like, with a large dollop of NeXT-isms thrown in. Most of the CLI and utilities are BSD like. Mac OS X tends to use OpenBSD for networking. (As an aside, Mac OS 8-9's OpenTransport is streams based, like Solaris. In fact, written by Mentat who wrote the NetWare and Solaris stacks too).

    The chief gotcha may be that Mach handles I/O. The BSD /dev tree is there, but putting devices into the tree is done dynamically by Mach. In other words, you can't make use of any BSD device drivers.

    --
    Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
  30. Re:Been there... by Leimy · · Score: 2

    Ok... i am just stating the fact that *after* the announcement I have in /usr/src/UPDATING the fact that it was 4.6. not before. I also got some additional code updated but it was for some part of the kernel I wasn't concerned with [PCCARD or something]. It may have been *very close* to RELEASE but I still have doubts that its exactly the same :).

    At least we aren't fighting over BSD dying :).