Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FreeBSD 4.8 RC2 / i386 Now Available

Posted by michael on from the better-than-ezra dept.

Dan writes "FreeBSD Release Engg. Team's Murray Stokely announces the availability of FreeBSD 4.8 RC2 for i386, he says that the alpha build is in progress. You can download 4.8 RC2 mini iso, install iso's, etc. from FreeBSD ftp site or from one of the mirror sites."

25 comments

  1. I'm sure there will be confusion, so... by cbiffle · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just to explain, for any who aren't familiar with the FreeBSD release process:

    FreeBSD 4.8 will be the latest release from the FreeBSD 4-STABLE branch. This could also be thought of for the time being as the -STABLE branch, as there is not yet a 5-STABLE. A lot of the goodies from 5.0 (5-CURRENT) have been merged-from-current (MFC'd) into 4.8, including Firewire and bugfixes. It's GCC2-based, and I run it on my laptop with much luck, though it lacks a lot of the ACPI goodness in 5.

    5.0 is a release from 5-CURRENT. Just as they did with 4.0 before, it is released before there is a formal -STABLE branch, which is expected to appear somewhere around 5.1 or 5.2. I use it on all my workstations, and it flies -- GCC3-based, with new kernel magic that has (at least for me) dramatically improved responsiveness.

    Which is no small feat, since my FreeBSD/KDE desktops consistently outperform my equivalent Linux machines in terms of, say, running two makes while playing a song over NFS with no skips. (These are k6-2 machines, one with FreeBSD5, one with Gentoo.)

    The 4.0 branch will continue to be developed well into the lifetime of 5, just as 3.0 was before it. (Development on 3-STABLE only recently slowed down; it benefited from most of the bugfixes in 4 that didn't break compatibility.)

    My suggestions to someone wanting to run FreeBSD right now? If it's a production machine, I'd stick to 4.7 or 4.8, simply because the ability to track the -STABLE branch with cvsup is really nice. Also, if you're not comfortable with updating your sources and recompiling your world periodically, stick to 4.x; since 5.0 doesn't yet have a controlled -STABLE branch, it will occasionally have broken features, though this has only happened to me once.
    On the other hand, if you have a recent machine, need good ACPI support, or want to see what all the fuss is about, try 5.0. I use it with great success -- just be warned, you may have to recompile things every so often until it goes -STABLE.

    Happy BSDing!

    1. Re:I'm sure there will be confusion, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Which is no small feat, since my FreeBSD/KDE desktops consistently outperform my equivalent Linux machines in terms of, say, running two makes while playing a song over NFS with no skips.

      How about a fair comparison? You shouldn't be using such as an old Linux kernel. Next time, please try something a little more modern like Linux 2.5.65 (which has many kernel latency and scheduling improvements) before you start posting about stuff which you know nothing about.

    2. Re:I'm sure there will be confusion, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Next time, please try something a little more modern like Linux 2.5.65

      How do you know he wasn't?

      But then I've never really cracked the Linux upgrade from source thing. My FreeBSD upgrades consist of three commands, a long wait, and a reboot - a complete non-event. Last time one of the guys in the office needed to upgrade a Linux box all the office Linux gurus had to lend a hand for 2 days.

      So perhaps your "the kernel is out of date" assumption is a valid one.

    3. Re:I'm sure there will be confusion, so... by bluGill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me know when linux 2.6 kernels are out. Until then I will leave the development kernels off my main desktop. Just like I leave the development freebsd kernels off my desktop.

      Nothing wrong with keeping up to date with the latest and greatest, but it ins't tested, and if it breaks report it and someone will fix it. Run something considered stable and there is a much better chance that nothing will break. Nothing breaking is critically important when you update from the net, and your net connection is through the machine you are updateing.

  2. 5.0 works for me as well. by zulux · · Score: 1

    5.0 is suposed to be a bleading-edge technology release.

    Given that, 5.0 has been working wonderfully as a Samba server for the last two weeks at two sites.

    --

    Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  3. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    using unstable code for a samba server seems asinine unless you have some sort of esoteric feature requirement

    1. Re:why? by TilJ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Like NT ACL support?

      --
      "The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
  4. c�l by BortQ · · Score: 1

    I think it's great that there are still multiple open-source OSes being developed. Competition helps everybody get better.

    --

    A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
  5. Am I a troll? by kwerle · · Score: 1

    Sigh.

    Wake me when they ship a modern JDK. No, not a buildable patchwork from sources, patches, and linux emulation bootstrapping - a real binary JDK.

    1. Re:Am I a troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake me when they ship a modern JDK. No, not a buildable patchwork from sources, patches, and linux emulation bootstrapping - a real binary JDK.


      Provided you will only do that
      make; make installl
      once in a year or so, i dont think there is much
      of a problem not having a "real" binary jdk.

      In the meantime dont get used to be afraid
      of compilations, since
      - you might forget how to recompile your lovely linux kernel
      - even worse you might start considering MSoft.
    2. Re:Am I a troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hmmmm...

      http://bsd.slashdot.org/bsd/03/03/07/1458220.shtml ?tid=108

      1.4 is in beta right now, and 1.3 has been available for some time. In short, yes you are a troll and it is only the moderators who don't see otherwise.

    3. Re:Am I a troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.4 is in beta right now,

      Source. Bootstrap. Build your own.

      and 1.3 has been available for some time

      In the same format, or under linux emu.

      Bzzt - thanks for playing!!!

    4. Re:Am I a troll? by kwerle · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Provided you will only do that
      make; make installl
      once in a year or so, i dont think there is much
      of a problem not having a "real" binary jdk.

      N*M, where N is the number of machines I have, and M is the number of FreeBSD + Java updates in a year. That is not acceptible.

      In the meantime dont get used to be afraid
      of compilations, since
      - you might forget how to recompile your lovely linux kernel

      I get no joy from building kernels, and FreeBSD wants me to do this too often already.

      - even worse you might start considering MSoft.

      Actually, I'm migrating toward OSX...

  6. For dear Average Joe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just consider this:

    Right now you have America and Iraq.
    Back then you had America and USSR and Iraq.
    Now ofcourse USSR is dead.

    Wasnt it better back then??

    Think about it for a while Joe.

    1. Re:For dear Average Joe by captainfugacity · · Score: 1

      In soviet russia you don't invade iraq to buy oil...iraq sells oil to YOU!!!!