Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 4.6.2 Released
MobyTurbo writes: "FreeBSD 4.6.2 has been released. It primarily cures a few security problems in the 4.6 release. If you are impatient it will be available at various mirrors, or upgrade your existing FreeBSD installation via cvsup, or support the FreeBSD project by purchasing it at a vendor that supports the FreeBSD project."
I'm been cvsuping all along and it has not given me any problem yet.
I remember about 4.6 being announced ten times or
so, and a reply from a developer to only post
announcements when they are pgp-signed from a
freebse developer.
nah, all not my stuff - we release on
December 1th
June 1th
of every year, and a bit earlier this year.
There is nothing to interpretate...
Yep, I'm a happy OpenBSD sysadmin and user.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
support the FreeBSD project by purchasing it at a vendor that supports the FreeBSD project.
Other vendors include DaemonNews/BSDMall, and Hinner EDV.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
..meanwhile, I'm downloading netbsd.
Given that this is only a (very) minor point release, I don't expect I'm missing too terribly much.
What ever happened to the Sun certified native JDK for FreeBSD??? I know about http://www.freebsd.org/java/, but where is native j2se1.4 for freebsd??? All the announcements sounded like January was the magic moment???
The Linux 2.4 kernel release was far more delayed than that, I don't see people saying it's dying.
Surf at -1, and you'll see plenty of people saying it. (wink)
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
look here, you bunch of un-skilled cluebag yankee shitbags, FreeBSD is not dying - It's where it's always been; the brunt horse serving your teeny porn on a 5 million hits per week pr0n server. Linux is an absolute diabolical pile of spadge. Linus Torvalds was just a punky student tramp who just wanted to get one over on Tannenbaum. Twats.
one word: google
Those people are jusr morons and linux wannabes, hate m$ linuxis the fscking best idiots. The *BSDs are by far not dying. FreeBSD and NetBSD grows for every month.
Oh. Personally Im a Redhat user...
The 4.6.1 release was announced as the next release, but it never happened. Why? If it is that much a PR blunder to admit that something went wrong, why still increase the version number?
Can you spell BSD as in OS-X??? Damn straight BSD isn't dead, far from it even, and it's bound to expand rapidly to overwhelm Linux's market share on the desktop AND low-end server if Apple play their cards right.
Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
You're right. BSD isn't dead.
_FreeBSD_ is dead however. It was murdered by its arrogant and greedy remaining "leadership".
Okay, it's time to put on my newbie hat, so flame away.
I'm testing out my first real FreeBSD installation on a colocated server, and I'm using the ports tree for installing just about everything. I'd like to be able to keep on top of the latest security releases and pretty much make sure I stay in line with all the -RELEASE releases. The problem is, I have no idea how to do this. It seems like most examples I see for using cvsup are for -STABLE or -CURRENT. There doesn't seem to be a nice guide for doing so on the FreeBSD site or on my system.
Will the example ports-supfile, as-is, do the trick? Or should I use a different supfile?
Does anyone have any pointers or advice?
Why only 2 CDs? Is it just an "upgrade CD"? 4.6 was 5 CDs.
Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of THESE!!!
And people wonder why OpenBSD is shunned. The users are as bad as the authors.
Someone start de Raadtdot and get these k1dd13s out of here.
Given the electronic Internet has no smell, it must be you. So, do us ALL a favor, bathe more often, M'ky?
Given the over year delay in the 2.4 Linux kernel (as controlled by one man, Linus) and the horrible fragmentation of Linux (over 180+ forks) the OS in trouble is GNULinux. Its great that UNIX software that runs on *Linux runs on FreeBSD, so as the shining star that is linux implodes into a black hole, the people on BSD won't be crushed.
Sun coun't get out of its own way to save its own sorry ass.
When Java 'runs everywhere' then I'll care about java.
OS-X has MACH microkernel, it DOES NOT have a BSD kernel! When will you get it? It only has some BSD utilities.
What's wrong with FreeBSD's SMP support?
They probably meant to say OpenBSD, which to my knowledge still doesn't offer SMP support.
Personally, I think FreeBSD is thing to run on a server. Leave Linux at home.
Here's a good question for all you FreeBSD guru's, semi-guru's, and people smarter than I. I installed my current FreeBSD machine with FreeBSD 4.4 a year or two ago, and have been cvsup'ing and make buildworld'ing to keep -stable. When I did the installation, I chose to install XFree86 3.3.6, and so it does not show up in /var/db/pkg. Now I want to remove 3.3.6 from the system and install XFree86 4.2.0 from ports. Finally for the question....
/var/db/pkg?
How can I remove XFree86 3.3.6 from FreeBSD 4.2.6 since there is no entry in
rm -rf /usr/X11R6 /etc/X11
As the prevoius answer stated, remove /usr/X11R6 and /etc/X11 and /etc/XF86Config.
/usr/X11. I just tested this (will give you a few unimportant errors), but YMMV:
/bin/sh or bash) /var/db/pkg /usr/X11R6' $i/+CONTENTS; then echo $i;fi;done > ${HOME}/packagelist
/usr/ports/x11/XFree86-4, and reinstall the ports/packages you need.
But be sure to also remove all ports that might have installed stuff under
(use some bourne shell, like
cd
for i in *; do if grep -q '^@cwd
Then remove those packages in ~/packagelist
After this, just install
HTH
thank you, perhaps this should be documented and added to either the faq or handbook too?
"Can you spell BSD as in OS-X???" You fucking LAMER!!! Do you fucking idiot really believe it's FreeBSD OS in macs?? Muahhahhahhah! OS-X runs on MACH microkernel and it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with FreeBSD's monolithic kernel. How stupid can a person be. You are the ultimate lamer, congratulations!
list the relative advantages and disadvantages of so called "microkernel" operating systems against ones based on a standard "monolithic" kernel. Your answers should include specific examples. Discuss issues of security, performance, ease of reengineering, etc.
make world takes so long on my k6, this is a kewl way to get those fixes quickly.
Where do you want to be, What are you doing to get there.
Big Lock.
The other 3 CDs contain optional packages and ports. You can use the ports tree installed off the install CD (disc-1) to download only the ports you need.
Translation: the kernel functions aren't very well SMPized. When the kernel needs to do something, it locks out ALL the other threads, rather than just locking the subset of resources it needs. Fixing this is a major feature of 5.0
I have been able to reproduce on 3 different machines that an upgrade from 4.6 Stable to 4.6.2 causes the system to become unstable after doing the installworld, installworld dies, you are unable to do a mergemaster due to out of memory problems and I have ended up rebuilding all three of the boxes off of 4.6 stable.
Of course it's company policy never to, imply ownership in the event of a dildo... always use the indefinite article a d
FreeBSD is really DEAD!! DEAD!!
Its nice to see all those so called FrogBSD users
crawling from their slimy holes saying that FrogBSD
will conquer the world bla bla..
If there is one thing that FreeBSD is not then it must be alive.
If there is NetBSD or OpenBSD why wolud you go for FreeBSD anyway?
Happy OpenBSD & Linux user.
Then why does the OS-X faq from Apple state: "that apart from a few architectural difference (such as our use of the Mach kernel), we try to keep Darwin as compatible as possible with FreeBSD (our BSD reference platform)." Or from OSnews: At its heart Mac OS X is a descendant of FreeBSD. The Apple engineers used FreeBSD as a blueprint for OS X.
Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
It does not show up because it is a distribution, which is different from a package and different from a port, intuitive, huh?
/usr/X11R6 out of the way instead of removing it, just in case.
Get your source media, and do tar tzvf on the archives you installed (Xbin.tgz, Xcfg.tgz), and remove those files.
I usually move
chris@xanadu:~$ whatis /.
/.: nothing appropriate.
To any trolls underneath this post that are actually interested in whats really under the hood of OS-X...
Yes, OS X is heavily based on Mach, but it's not a "pure" microkernel. A pure microkernel only abstracts the hardware, everything else is in userland "servers". In a microkernel UNIX, you'd have the UNIX API as a server, and your app would have to pass messages through the kernel to make syscalls. Check GNU/Debian, this may be an example of it, UNIX server running under the HURD mk. Maybe also mkLinux, the old linux for macs. Check these, I'm not sure, too late/tired to do real research.
The problem with this, is UNIX doesn't run well this way. UNIX is designed monolithic, and microkernel implementations just add an extra layer. The message passing slows you down, thats why Microsoft dropped the GUI subsystem into the kernel in going from 3.51 to 4.0, speedup. Anyways, since the base of OS X is UNIX they put this in the kernel to speed things up. The microkernel handles the hardware, and running old MacOS at kernel level handles prettty much everything else.
As an aside, the UNIX part of the core is a hybrid. Apple started with NetBSD (better cross platform?) but added a lot of 3.x FreeBSD cause they liked it so much. An apple employee (forgot which, see above comment on being late) has commit access to the FreeBSD cvs tree. The next major rev of the kernel is rumored to be freebsd 4 series.
To any trolls underneath this post that are actually interested in whats really under the hood of OS-X...
If they are interested in what it is, they should stear clear from your explanation.
Yes, OS X is heavily based on Mach, but it's not a "pure" microkernel.
No, Mach is not a "pure" microkernel. And OS-X isn't a ukernel at all, it's an OS. AFAIK, Darwin provides the kernel functionality using a single-server on a microkernel. OS-X runs on top of Darwin, and provides most of the userland functions (GUI, most notably).
Check GNU/Debian
That would be GNU running on Debian, as GNU/Linux is GNU running on Linux? I think you mean Debian GNU/Hurd or GNU, though your description of what it is suggests that as far as microkernels go, you don't know shit from rusty ice-cream.
UNIX server running under the HURD mk
First point, a server runs on top of an 'mk', not under it.
The Hurd (not HURD, Hurd or whatever) is actually a number of servers running on a microkernel (at the moment GnuMach, but also L4 projects exist). Contrary to Darwin and MkLinux which are mono-server implementations (ie one large server running on a ukernel), the Hurd has a number of servers running on a ukernel that attempt to provide POSIX functionality. The Hurd is simply not UNIX (as in GNU is not UNIX). As you correctly point out, monoserver implementations of microkernels don't add a great deal of anything except hardware abstraction compared with a monolithic UNIX kernel. The hardware abstraction was the reason why Apple initially liked MkLinux, as it allowed Linux to run on their machines without them having to give away precious info about how they worked.
These are just the blatant mistakes, I'll leave people who aren't too tired, late or lazy to do real research to fine tune this and the other stuff.
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
I understand that BSD is licensed quite differently than linux, but come on folks, aren't they just duplicating functionality? wouldn't it be better if they (the BSD developers) tried to help out linux with it's security???? both oses do similar things, why not let the linux guys worry about new features and let the BSD guys worry about the security for the linux kernel.
From what I hear though linux servers get hacked a lot, a properly managed firewall through iptables or ipfw will keep out 99% of the bad guys (I'm sure there will be some of you who say `well this is what BSD is for - the other 1%' and that is fine, but given enough time i'm sure that linux people will eventually get down to security and fix up their boxes just as well as BSD)
Also: does anyone here see a parallel between what happened 30 years ago and what is happening now, you started to have all these little little branches from the main [proprietary] system, but now there is a difference, linux is free and is licensed as such, why not have all the best people from all (OpenBSD, NETBSD, freeBSD, etc. etc.) help linux out w/ security. I mean linux is supported on many more platforms that the above BSDs and will continue to be so into the future.