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.
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
Keep in mind however that even if you have download a version of FreeBSD (maybe the same is true for Net) too soon, you can cvsup to the latest -RELEASE or -STABLE without much of a hassle; and 5.0-CURRENT if you want to be on the alpha/beta version edge.(Since I'm tracking -STABLE I don't need to download anything to upgrade; I already am running a system similar to 4.6.2 if not somewhat more cutting edge.)
Hmm, *BSD is releasing new versions. It must not be "dead" after all. ;-)
I believe they submitted 1.3 to Sun for certification, but it sounds like it takes a long time for Sun to accept a Java port. I think the Linux port also took a long for Sun to accept, but I do not know for certain.
Even better, here is a recent progress report: report
The secret to getting a story on slashdot is not being a "favorite son", it's to submit early, submit often, and don't whine when your story is rejected or scooped by someone else because that's what will happen to the majority of your submissions. BTW, thanks for the implied complement concerning my choice of handle. :-)
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?
It's a release to fix security problems, it isn't a major release with new nifty features. Unless you've been consequent with your patches (openssh, openssl, kqueue, ufs etc etc etc) there is no reason to upgrade. But if you want to have a checkpoint for your machines (i.e. a stable release without having to do all the patches each time you install something in the 4.6-series), this is a good start.
bash$
And your point is? Just like this posting, yours is nothing but an unnecessary flamebait.
Instead of working together we smash each others head in. Fun isn't it?
bash$
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?
My point was: /. to
* I know from earlier that FreeBSD-releases have been
announced by Slashdot when this announce was not
yet fully official.
* I found it quite amusing when I read, back then, a
comment from a FreeBSD developer, asking for
only post such stories again when they come, pgp signed,
from a developer.
* I wondered whether it was officially this time, that's
why I asked.
* I got a comment which showed me that it was - and
which author wondered about this NOT happening...
Furthermore I wrote about the OpenBSD release scheme,
to show that we don't have this kind of problems. My
post was not intended a flamebait in any way.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
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
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?
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.