FreeBSD 4.6

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.

Comments

Great to hear it...

[Meat Blaster]

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...

Re:software for BSD

[Janon]

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.

semi-polling mode

[sigxcpu]

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

Re:semi-polling mode

[bluGill]

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.

Re:software for BSD

[elbuddha]

# 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.

Alright,

[GldisAter]

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

figures

[jhines]

I installed 4.5 yesterday. Sigh.

Re:figures

[AilleCat]

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

:)

Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers?

[korpiq]

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?

Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers?

[White Shadow]

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

Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers?

[stripes]

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.

Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers?

[Bishop]

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.

Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers?

[lamontg]

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).

Re:It's a titty

[alfredo]

No, BSD is not dead. Try OSX.

Lilo...

[wowbagger]

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.

Re:*BSD is dying

[larry bagina]

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.

IF my ISP

[LennyDotCom]

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

Re:IF my ISP

[greygent]

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.