Slashdot Mirror
NetBSD 1.6 Released
BSD Forums writes "The NetBSD Project is pleased to announce that release 1.6 of the NetBSD operating system is now available. NetBSD is widely known as the most portable operating system in the world. It currently supports fifty two different system architectures, all from a single source tree, and is always being ported to more. The NetBSD 1.6 release contains complete binary releases for thirty nine different system architectures. The thirteen remaining are not fully supported at this time and are thus not part of the binary distribution."
hubertf adds some important notes: "Many of the FTP Mirrors are now carrying the NetBSD 1.6 distribution.
Please try to use the NetBSD
FTP Mirror Site
closest to you. ... Czech,
German,
French,
Japanese,
Polish,
Portugese
,
Russian,
Spanish and
Swedish
language translations of the NetBSD 1.6 release announcement are
available." The NetBSD packages collection now includes over 3000 pieces of software, including KDE3, OpenOffice and many more of the usual suspects.
How does NetBSD relate to Linux?
Man, I was about to make a post (to the NetBSD foundation board election results story) wondering if 1.6 would make the front page or not... I guess it did, which is nice for a change.
I was just wondering, what's the difference between OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD? I have FreeBSD on one computer (just wanted to learn a new OS and I already have linux on a bunch of my computers). When I picked which BSD I wanted I just figured I'd go with FreeBSD since I hear about it alot. Now I'm beginning to wonder, what's the difference (really, I don't have a clue.) Sorry that this is a bit off topic I just don't want to be kicked from some #bsd channels for asking such a stupid question.
Nope, not even close.
Really? Linux 7.3? Did a wormhole open up somewhere in space and spit out a copy of Linux 7.3? Will people PLEASE stop reffering to Redhat (or mandrake, if there is a 7.3) 7.3 as "Linux 7.3"!!!! I'm in #linuxhelp on efnet alot, helping people, and it's driving me nuts that half the people think they have Linux .
/proc/version it should say something like Linux version 2.4.whatever. Dunno what redhat comes with.
The kernel version is the version of Linux you have, 7.3 is your distro version, things like this make me hate redhat, sure it introduces people to linux but it's mostly the wrong people. Also, you don't seriously belive that because this number is 1.6 and you have redhat 7.3 that redhat 7.3 is newer, do you? I really hope you were joking but then again some people are trully clueless. Anyway, if you don't belive me get into a shell and type less
I believe you have been trolled . . . .
It is time to take a deep breath, relax, and install NetBSD.
How does NetBSD compare with Linux in terms of:
Um, NetBSD has had nice init scripts at least since 1.5 (almost two years ago). When was the last time you used it?
/etc/rc.d/postfix reload
e.g.
With NetBSD 1.5 was introduced a new init system, allowing dynamic ordering of startup and shutdown scripts.
/etc/rc.d/script (start|stop).
You can also use
IMHO, Luke Mewburn's rc.d system (imported in FreeBSD-CURRENT recently, it will be the default init system for 5.0) is even superior to the old SysV system, which uses a static ordering and offers no dependancy handling.
Please, take your time to study how the NetBSD rc system works. It has all the advantages of sysV style init scritps, but none of the disadvantages. Let's say I install apache via the pkgsrc system. Now all I have to do is add apache=YES in my /etc/rc.conf file and the system will automagically start apache at boot time. Of course I can start or stop it manually should I have the need to do so with a simple /etc/rc.d/apache [start|stop]
FWIW, FreeBSD 5.0 will feature this same system, Gordon Tetlow and others are working on a port of NetBSD's script system to FreeBSD.
Not wanting to start a religious war and all that... but although NetBSD lists the Dreamcast as supported. the support is pretty poor: no sound, no lightgun, no rumblepak, no mouse, no X windows, no vmu. All of these are supported in LinuxDC.
But he does convey the biggest problem when people ask for help. They fail to realize unix systems are very modular and newbies give amazing detailed lists of irrelevant information. Like what does the kernel have to do with the mailing system?
I've been sitting waiting for the FreeBSD Sparc port for way too long. Not this is not a Sparc-64 or UltraSparc. I have about a metric ton of SparcStation 5 machines that desperately need release from the old old version of NetBSD that runs on them. If 1.6 is good enough, it's quite possible I can release the anger I have over FreeBSD and not join the Dark Side. Whew.
Yeah yeah, and somehow it managed not to be dead, with all the dying it's been doing.
:)
Also, I guess I would qualify OS X as a *BSD, no? It doesn't seem to be dying.
OpenBSD is the one that can't do SMP.
FreeBSD is the one Mac users and fags (usually one in the same) flock to.
Heh. NetBSD actually has a surprising number of ports- or 'packages,' as they call both make skeletons for source builds and binary tarballs; I just installed NetBSD (and upgraded today, whee) for my own sick reasons, and was surprised to discover how much software was available; the 'pkgsrc' tree works not only on every NetBSD architecture, but Solaris and Darwin as well- rather surprising, coming from FreeBSD. It also has sane update/upgrade targets, something FreeBSD's only just copied with portupgrade.
/usr/pkg, or a configurable path (/usr/local/pkg would really make more sense), freeing up /usr/local/bin and the like for sysadmin tweaking. FreeBSD users will know what a mess /usr/local/bin becomes with a reasonable load of software, and how annoying it'd be to install a homebuilt binary there and forget about it.
;)
.. 4.7, 4-STABLE) with features getting rolled back and forth between those trees and the development sources; major architectural changes are saved for version jumps, as seen in the huge improvements between 3.x and 4.x, and the introduction of KSE and SMPng for 5.x)
The nice thing is that NetBSD installs package files to
NetBSD also tends to attract features from all-comers, meaning it gets some nifty stuff- USB support, new filesystems, various RAID features first. It also means NetBSD users end up risking stability with these first.
As OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD, neither have SMP just yet. OpenBSD is "the one you install if you want a reasonable guarantee of security for the first hours of configuration." Now that all BSD distros have adopted some of the basic tenets of the OpenBSD mindset- turning off unnecessary services in the base install- it's less of an issue, but even with the recent OpenSSH holes, there's something to be said for the audited kernel and userland. OpenBSD is what you run on your router/NAT/VPN-service box, don't bother with it as a desktop unless you Need To Be L33t. (It does make a good learner's system, given its relative adherence to simplicity, but that's supposed to be NetBSD's department, and it probably would be less painful.)
FreeBSD is 'the one everyone uses.' It's a descendent of 386BSD, the first post-AT&T-lawsuit project to take a stab at a free BSD distribution. (NetBSD followed shortly, and the release of new sources brought both to the same underpinnings.) Today, it's a mishmash of features from the other two, but while NetBSD's goal is "Run on Everything, Try out Everything," and OpenBSD's is "Secure by Default," FreeBSD tries (with varying success) to be a sort of stable and predictable platform for the average user. Given the 386BSD history, x86 has always been the platform of choice, and the kernel features some tweaks in that direction which the other BSDs may have missed. It's the One That Supports SMP, and The One That Will Support SMP Much Better with the upcoming release of 5.0.
Each BSD works on a different development cycle, and each's kernel evolves with the distribution, rather than separately. NetBSD goes on a two-year cycle, if I understand correctly, with each release branch frozen immediately (barring security patches, which can occasionally inspire point releases, as seen with 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3); OpenBSD sticks to a release every 6 months- 3.0 was just 'what happened after 2.9.' FreeBSD forks on major version numbers, running an evolving -STABLE branch (4.0, 4.1
Darwin is the bastard child maintained by Apple, using a Mach kernel, FreeBSD userland, NetBSD pkgsrc, and whatever else is deemed to best suit OS X. It's 'fun' for a certain class of developer, but the mention of Mach should prove it's best left to the insane. If you'd want Darwin, you may as well buy a Mac and enjoy the benefits of the Quartz graphics system.
It runs on Playstation 2 and Dreamcast... when will it run on the X-Box? (:
Oh ya, and can you make a beowulf cluster of NetBSD boxes?
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
Oh no! It's dead! Sky is falling and so forth... Shut up.
s200.org - visit it (me), love it (me).
man, that troll's old. can't you even come up with new material?
Ugh. How nasty. Different files all doing different things, with no connection amongst them. Nothing more fun than having 95-99 all in order and needing to insert an important function before 97 but after 96. What's wrong with just putting it in a single file?
/etc/rc* approach.
/etc/rc.d/ before) is beyond me.
Not to criticize linux and others that take this approach, but there is something to be said for the simplicity of the
On BSD (as on linux):
apachectl start/stop/restart/graceful works.
ndc start/stop/reload/restart works.]
etc, etc.
Why you need a script to wrap around that (that you have to type
Peace,
DH
I am one, and I hate seeing that mistake over and over again. If you can, please correct that.
Thank you.
whatever you do -- linux isn't the answer.
I think Jobs had the right idea when he picked Mach as the basis for NeXTStep: he wanted a kernel that looked like UNIX from the outside but that was much more componentized than the UNIX kernels of the time, or BSD/Linux today. I don't know whether Mach/Darwin is the best choice for that, but in general, I think it's where open source needs to go.
After all, we don't recompile Bash or dynamically load libraries into Bash every time someone comes out with a new command line program. We shouldn't have to do that either for a new file system type, networking protocol, or driver. And expending much time on a BSD/Linux rivalry isn't going to address such issues.
I just figured it out!
...Is that they are actually written by BSD users themselves, in an effort to keep lamoid linux users from making statements on their mailing lists like:
/*" fix my problem
:-) Hope I'm not giving away your secret!
The Secret to BSD Trolls!
- FreeBSD is my favorite linux distro!
- How do I copy stuff under BSD? I tried clicking
all over the place, but I don't see a cursor or
anything.
- I know the install was completely self
explanatory and all, but I really prefer
Mandrake/Redhat's GUI installation. Can you
give me pointers on porting it? Oh yeah, I want
that little penguin, errr, i mean daemon screen
on boot too. Who needs kernel messages?
- When I try to build a port, and it says
checksum mismatch, how do I override it?
- OpenBSD is elite. No one can hack me! Oh yeah.
I also forgot my root password, can someone
help? My IP is x.x.x.x...
- I just installed NetBSD on my { insert old or
obscure hardware here }, but I can't play Doom
under an i386 emulator running linux emulation
of wine. Why?
- How will running "rm -rf
again?
Keep up the good work, guys!
Peace,
DH
Yeehaw! Time to lose some karma!
there are lot's of security changes all around over the code.
for example select() overflows and unsafe signal handlers. nobody cares about this, but the OpenBSD developers. since this work is preventive, nobody on the media reflects it (only exploitable vulnerabilities get to the media). you should track source-changes for a while to notice the difference.
As far as command line syntax - it's so similar you could go from linux to NetBSD for a look around the OS without blinking much - certainly less of a change than jumping from linux to say, a windows command prompt :).
It's worth taking a peek at - I think that knowing two similar but different OS's fairly well is near as important as knowing one single one inside out.
a grrl & her server
It's official; Netcraft confirms: "*BSD is dying" trolls are dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered "*BSD is dying" trolls community when IDC confirmed that "*BSD is dying" trolls market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that "*BSD is dying" trolls has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. "*BSD is dying" trolls are collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict "*BSD is dying" trolls's future. The hand writing is on the wall: "*BSD is dying" trolls faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for "*BSD is dying" trolls because "*BSD is dying" trolls are dying. Things are looking very bad for "*BSD is dying" trolls. As many of us are already aware, "*BSD is dying" trolls continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
All major surveys show that "*BSD is dying" trolls has steadily declined in market share. "*BSD is dying" trolls are very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If "*BSD is dying" trolls are to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. "*BSD is dying" trolls continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, "*BSD is dying" trolls are dead.
Fact: "*BSD is dying" trolls are dying.
My javastation's are once again obsolete... time to upgrade.
I've met different Newbies than yours are.
Most of the time, all I get is "My Linux does not work" or "I want a Webserver"... *sigh*
--- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
For Intels, FreeBSD is probably the best choice, speaking of performance.
NetBSD is cool because it runs on almost anything with a decent CPU inside (Sparc, Toaster, Mower...) I plan on using it for my NAT/FW on an almost obsolete SparcStation 5 and for a SSH-only Mailmachine on an even obsoleter (but still cute) Sparc IPX.
Speaking of OpenBSD I still believe that a reasonable admin can achieve as much a secure system with Free- and NetBSD or a Linux as he could with OpenBSD.
Mostly, the choice is of your BSD is rather ideological than technical. As is with choosing a Linux Distribution. (For example, I quite like Slackware because of it's BSDish approach to Linux.)
--- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
If you have S96first and S97third, and you need to to install second somewhere, you can call it either S96second or S97second, and it will run when you want it to. This 96 97 comparison thing doesn't stop at the numbers, the whole file name is compared.
/etc/init.d be quicker?
/etc/init.d (or more accurately /eTABinTAB) is a lot less hassle than to install a new service (or take it away) in the middle of your bootscript. Can you test your boot scripts without rebooting? What happens if there is a problem halfway through and the script craps out?
Ok, so apachectl and ndc have been written. Is there an equivalent for each and every service that you might want to run? If there is, then why do you have to have to wrap a script around them in order to run them at boot? If not, how is the junior admin going to know the correct way to stop or start something? Well, they could read the script, but wouldn't a quick nose around
To be honest typing an
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
I think that NetBSD is possibly the best system for a newbie who really _wants_ to learn Unix, if only because it's so bare-boned that you have to figure out the whole thing to get any work done.
My first experience with it was on an old Quadra 700 Macintosh, which I installed NetBSD 1.4.something on to try and get used to using a command line. Outside of the sun boxen at the college I attended, I hadn't used a shell prompt before, but I wanted to figure out how to get things done before OS X came out.
Well, NetBSD isn't what I'd call "user friendly," especially the installer for the Mac68k port. But I managed to figure it out, and by bothering the hell out of the local Linux and Solaris geeks, I managed to get everything up and running properly.
By the time OS X came out, I wasn't prepared to give up the BSDs I've come to appreciate - so I've got a NetBSD box, one for OpenBSD, and one for FreeBSD on my network. They're all hand-configured to the purposes I need them for. And all that time meant that I have a much better grasp of how my systems fit together than any of the l33t haX0rs at work with their Mandrake installs and their deep fear of the command line.
In short, if you want to learn a particular distros tools, install some flavor of Linux and use the administration stuff that comes with it. But if you want knowledge that bridges between Unix variants, give NetBSD a shot. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
--saint
You're stupid !
BSD is not dying at all !
Why would you say that ??
wtf.n0x.org
TedU recently posted in comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc the answer to this question:
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
As restrictions come in to play for new hardware, ( drm, etc ) NetBSD will slowly begin to play a very important role keeping old 'unencumbered' hardware alive. ( and freedom ).
Is it just me, or does all the BSD news around here get more then its share of idiot trolls?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I've been wondering about the BSD trolls lately. I mean when you see a BSD article nowdays, the first post is always some non-value fp. Remember back when the BSD trolls always had like the first 6 or 7 posts? Not only that it seems like they just aren't trying anymore. Where whill Slashdot's heritage be when the BSD trolls are gone? Can you imagine a Slashdot without them? It's important that we assist these trolls in order to perserve all that is Slashdot. When a BSD troll posts, pat him on the head and tell him to believe whatever he wants (despite the evidence to the contrary). Save the trolls before it's too late!
How nice of you to make blanket statements of how BSD sucks and Linux is better, without providing one single point to support that!
Just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean you're right.
y3ah mang, y0u g0tz t0 k33p up-t0-dat3 to b3 c00l, c0s 1f my fr13ndz s33 m3 n0t runn1ng leenucks 2.5.56.6765.65 with the mo5t un5table f1l3sys5tem 1n th3 w0rld th3y m1ght k1ck m3 0ut 0f 0ur h4ck3r^H^H^H^H^H^H leenucks u5er gr0up!
OpenBSD has been running on Sparcstations for years...works fine, installs easily enough. Try it!
Actually, SMP on i386 is still on a CVS branch--if you download the released 1.6, it'll only use one of the processors. However, 1.6 does support SMP on some architectures, such as alpha, vax, and sparc. And PowerMacs will have SMP support in the next release.
I hate to state the obvious, but what matters is your shell, not the OS. I managed to get bash (and the standard GNU console tools) on my Solaris, AIX, and IRIX accounts, and it's not easy to tell which one I'm on a lot of the time. That's why the hostname's in the prompt ;) But if I have to use ksh or csh I notice the difference pretty quickly, regardless of OS.
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
i don't know, i just keep hoping for a funnier troll.
perhaps some day you lunixes will learn to innovate instead of copying.
Well, you reveal here just how far behind the times your thinking is. The new Linux standard FS is ext3. Even your vaunted "Softupdates" which always seems to get brought up everytime the subject of journalling filesystems comes up can't touch ext3's full data journalling. (Can Softupdates make the same guarantees as a synchronously mounted filesystem without the performance penalty?) Even ext3's default data=ordered mode can make better guarantees with better performance. And then there's the whole (fine grained) SMP thing, the fact that Linux vm is now getting ready to catch up with and pass xBSD and, and, and...
;-)
BSD may not be dying, but it is certainly falling behind. How can it not? With the BSD license, anything that goes into BSD can be copied if desired, modified and put into Linux (or Windows) or whatever. I'm not saying that the BSD license is bad, but this is a consequence of it. xBSD was the king of Free unixes for years and Linux has come from way behind and passed it up in many areas and is about to pass it up in the rest.
Ever wonder why Linux gets all the press and no one outside of Unix circles even knows what BSD is? Is it some foul conspiracy? Or is there, perhaps, a valid reason?
Sorry for the rant, but seeing BSD mud slung at an area where Linux is now undeniably superior to the BSD's (and where BSD's lead was always rather dubious) irritates me just a bit.
And the best bit is... I'm British! Yep, you could quite happily vote some random British hacker to be President of the US, couldn't you? Let's face it, I could hardly make a worse job than the present incumbent...
Yes, of course, press is absolutely what it's all about. Definately not freedom of code, or stability. It's definately all about getting an article in USA Today, and making sure Microsoft can't use your "free" GPL'd code.
Also, BSD is hardly dying, seeing how it's a key part of OS X, and since OS X and Apple isn't going to die any time soon, well, you do the math.
I also would like to see your case as to how Linux is "undeniably superior to the BSD's." I have yet to see anything Linux can do that you can't do in BSD, or anything you can do better in Linux than you can do in BSD.
Quite spreading your linux zealot FUD.
Yep, probably. Give me a note of your email addy and I'll see if I can get you an application form.
Ummm, if you have a junior admin who doesn't know how to HUP a process (or for that matter, read a man page), may gods of luck bless you a thousand times over, because you will surely need it.
> no connection amongst them. Nothing more fun than
> having 95-99 all in order and needing to insert an
> important function before 97 but after 96.
Agreed, using numbers to order startsup scripts is clumsy and awkward at best, which is why NetBSD's startup scripts use a cleaner method: rc manpage
NetBSD eggs, sausage, bacon, and ham. Delicious ham. Roll on, eggs! Roll on, sausage, roll on, ham!