FreeBSD 5.1 Review and BSD Roundup

securitas writes "Both eWEEK's review of FreeBSD 5.1 and ExtremeTech's BSD overview and roundup (single page) will be of interest to BSDers and anyone else who wants to explore their open source OS options. The review of FreeBSD 5.1 says it lacks the stability of v4.8 but adds features that some may find useful (for example, more processor architectures are supported) so it shouldn't be considered for critical deployments yet. And the BSD round-up speaks for itself."

Comments

I tried it, I liked it

[_narf_]

A lot more polish than the 5.0 release.

Also a lot more of the new stuff on by default.

Re:I tried it, I liked it

[_narf_]

Speaking of hardware issues, VMWare doesn't like some of the ways FreeBSD performs some operations now. You need to recompile the kernel with an option to disable use of CMPXCHG to get it to run ok.

Basically it'll just keeeep sloooowiing doooown.

But you can fudge through the install easily enough by suspending/resuming the VM, which will bring it back to speed. You need to do it a few times mind you as it keeps slowing down. :/

Re:I tried it, I liked it

[craig2787]

I checked the website, and there is no indication that any more code came from Poland in this release than 5.0.

I'm not sure I get the analogy

[Surak]

One might well be justified in calling BSD the "Mr. Chips" of operating systems. In the final scene of the classic movie "Goodbye, Mr. Chips", a doctor remarks that it is a shame that the title character -- a masterful schoolteacher now on his death bed -- has never had children. Referring to the many youngsters whose lives he had helped to shape, Mr. Chips replies that he has indeed had children... thousands of them.

I'm not sure I get the analogy, but I *think* he just said *BSD is dying. ;)

I always recommend FreeBSD

[Jack Wagner]

As a long time IT professional I recommend FreeBSD all the time. I'll go into meetings where people are just crying for me to help them gain synergy by decreasing their TCO while at the same time increasing their ROI, yet these people look like a deer caught in the headlights when I flat out tell them that the only way to do that is by looking at taking the next step to the next level by integrating their asset management supply side relationships into leveraged content delivery paradigms, with an eye towards aligning their collaborative relationship initiatives towards common goals and the first step in that direction is to move to an OS that has Olog(n)performance, namely FreeBSD.

I've been able to do this in the past with a a few Fortune 500 companies by implementing a strict B2C affinity marketing plan which relies heavily on E-mediation performance metrics, something that not everyone is willing to go through.

In short, don't even come to me with questions about your Value chain collaborative commerce unless you're willing to pay the piper and upgrade to FreeBSD because this is not your daddy's economy and you'll get nowhere by running legacy operating systems. Times have changed and unless you're willing to change with them you'll be left behind wondering what the hell happened to all your profits.

Warmest regards,

--Jack

Sounds familiar...

[goldspider]

"The review of FreeBSD 5.1 says it lacks the stability of v4.8 but adds features that some may find useful so it shouldn't be considered for critical deployments yet."

Isn't this what has been said about Windows for quite some time?

Well duh....

[Alan Hicks]

The review of FreeBSD 5.1 says it lacks the stability of v4.8

That's why it's 5.1-CURRENT and not 5.1-STABLE. That's like saying version 2.5.60 of the linux kernel lacks the stability of version 2.4.21.

Re:Well duh....

[phoenix_rizzen]

It's still part of the -CURRENT branch, though. The -STABLE branch is still 4.x.

The 5.x codebase will not be made -STABLE until at least 5.2 or 5.3.

-RELEASE is nothing more than a snapshot of *either* -CURRENT or -STABLE.

Flash 'n' Trash

[SavoWood]

I started reading the article, and found the summation of why I prefer BSD.

...the BSDs have always been the choice of system administrators who cared more about integrity, security, and reliability, than sizzle and flash.

the article itself is sort of flamebait by itself.

[ketamine-bp]

the article is way too pro-BSD to be said, and is comparing apple (linux, kernel sense) with oranges (BSD, distribution-sense).

Though being a BSD-user (OpenBSD server & MacOSX desktop), I feel uneasy to read all those, esp. the 'linux-copy-bsd' phrase.

Sorry, but YFI

[usotsuki]

...I highly recomment [sic] FreeBSD...it is a very nice and good UNIX.

Sorry, but YFI. From the FreeBSD docs:

...in a copyright sense BSD is very definitely not UNIX

One detail that the lawsuit did clarify is the naming: in the 1980s, BSD was known as ``BSD UNIX''. With the elimination of the last vestige of AT&T code from BSD, it also lost the right to the name UNIX. Thus you will see references in book titles to ``the 4.3BSD UNIX operating system'' and ``the 4.4BSD operating system''.

So what is really the difference between, say, Debian Linux and FreeBSD? For the average user, the difference is surprisingly small: Both are UNIX-like operating systems. (Emphasis mine.)

-uso.

SMP & MT Progress

[rapiere]

Good objective articles despite extremetech's review is more than 8 months old now. Interested slashdot readers can look at the progress of fine grained SMP and advanced multi-threading system (KSE), two features which made me try this great operating system.

5.1 is not in the stable branch yet, but 5.2/3 show great promises.

Re:mac problems

[Lysol]

Dude, first off, that's an old machine.

Second, it's pretty well known the old finders were not multitasking. Or at least, not preemptive. I always wondered about formatting a floppy, copying a file while trying to do something as well. But a lot of people I've seen use Macs are happy doing one thing at a time.

Others have claimed Macs were/are superior because they tend to just work. For a long time they came with sound on board, networking, video, Scsi, and in GUI usability terms were far ahead of Windows pre-95.

Granted, Apple has a monopoly on their OS and hardware, but there's a reason for that; they believe that the whole computer should be package, not a bunch of parts. I was not much of a Mac fan until I bought my first Titanium Powerbook. After that, my Mac has replaced my Linux and Win desktops. I still love Linux and Intel hardware, but there is something to be said about plug and play that works - even for geeks.

So yah, you're right, you're using a shitty browser on a old slow Mac. But why does it have to get to the point of calling people fanatics all the time. I'm sure all the Windoze, BSD, etc.., people speak highly of Linux zealots complaining about any OS that doesn't have skinnable everything and doesn't run on the shittiest hardware invented.

I'd still buy a Mac for my parents in a hearbeat even though they 'like' Windoze. That said, my mom runs a online store off a Gentoo box I built her, so..

Re:Actually...

[mjmalone]

It's a bit different. FreeBSD is stating outright that this is not *AS* stable as 4.8-STABLE. I'm sure it is a much more stable OS than anything MS has to offer. They are merely stating that they are still working out kinks in the software and are warning people before hand not to be surprised if an issue arises. When was the last time MS released an OS upgrade and said "well, this OS isn't as stable as the last one, but we will release some service packs in a few month and those who are running mission critical applications should wait until these are released before upgrading."

One thing in the ET article...

[gatesh8r]

When code is licensed under the GNU General Public License or GPL (as is Linux), the license effectively eliminates any financial rewards anyone -- whether an individual or a corporation -- might hope to gain from improving upon it. It does this by compelling an author who uses any part of the code to give up the right to charge a license fee for the finished product.

There is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from selling GPL'ed software. In fact, the FSF says to go right ahead and do so if you want. What the GPL of course DOES guarantee is that the software can't become proprietary at any point, whereas the BSDs can be.

News?

[panda]

It's amazing what passes for "news" around here!

I use FreeBSD, and upgraded to 5.1 from 4.7 about a week after 5.1 was released. Though I did have some issues with X and DRI, I got it working with not much effort. (About 20 minutes of searching the web turned up some instructions that directed me to set ForcePCIMode on in my drivers section of XF86Config.)

Though 5.1 is a new technology release and so not as stable or as fast as 4.8, it is still quite stable and quite fast at most everything I do. I've had no problems with doing my usual work, and some "weird" behavior in or two apps actually went away when recompiled on 5.1 versus 4.7.

That said, I haven't gotten YMessenger to work, and I've been too lazy to try fixing it myself. (It just appears to need to be relinked against a certain lib, and I haven't bothered to find out which one that is.)

Generally, I've not had any trouble running Linux apps under emulation, either.

All my Java 1.4 stuff works, too.

I know that anecdotal evidence proves nothing, but I just thought I'd weigh in with a mostly positive experience of someone who has been a FreeBSD user for quite some time.

Yes, I also use GNU/Linux, too. In fact, I have two machines running GNU/Linux at home, only 1 running FreeBSD, and one other running OpenBSD. Though I may switch one of the GNU/Linux machines to FreeBSD in the near future (maybe after 5-STABLE is branched).

FreeBSD = top quality

[koinu]

I am using FreeBSD stable since over a year now on my Intel-PC. I noticed I have everything I need here.

The best is, my PC is a regular desktop PC. I can watch DVDs and TV, listen to Oggs, burn CDs, chat and now I am writing this comment. :)

I have uninstalled Debian. I don't need it, because FreeBSD has got the best Linux emulation in the world. I can even play regular 3D-accelerated games with top frame rates.

I don't understand why people are bitching about FreeBSD. It is easy and even trivial to use. You can install it in many different ways. Experts mostly use minimal installs or even the floppy install.

You can choose between packages or ports, whatever you wish. There are 9000 software ports and they compile without problems. A simple 'make install' in the proper directory is enough to fetch dependencies and install the package. Most of them are pre-configured in a a way which is appropriate for many users. Before and after installation you will get further hints what to do and how to use a port.

The manpages are good. You get examples and a centralized configuration file. I don't need to mention the possibilities if you want to use FreeBSD as a firewall. And the VM is top quality! Heavy load is no problem. You can still listen to your MP3 or watch an AVI while dd'ing a harddisk.

FreeBSD is my favorite OS.

Re:X problems

[xA40D]

(Nvidia driver incompatable)

Hmmm, I thought Inspiron's had ATI RAGE Mobility M4 graphics. Running X on mine at 640x480 was real easy, as was 800x600. I will admit that getting native resolution is a pain, but such issues are really down to the XFree86 Project, not the OS.

Slight errors in syntax when using ports

So the OS is at fault when you tell it to do something stoopid? You can only make such mistakes if you is root, and the world and his dog know that being root is DANGEROUS! I once fooked a Linux box when I accidentally did an rm-rf /dev but blaming the OS for my mistake would be churlish.

The configuration system doesn't allow for small changes easily

Right. And the SysV rc[0-6].d system is intuitive is it? I've always found BSD OSs much easier to reconfigure. The new RC subsystem has made this even easier.

like getting rid of an IP

ifconfig fxp1 inet 192.168.9.1 delete

Then delete the relevant line from /etc/rc.conf if it's permanemt

Linux now has: autohardware detection, good drivers, sample configs for virtually every system

As does FreeBSD.

lots and lots and lots of documentation.

Yes. And most of it is out of date crap. I picked FreeBSD because finding useful Linux documentation proved so tiresome.

How is BSD "friendlier"?

Because the core team concentrate on doing things in a thoughtful, considered, and logical way; with major changes being implemented gradually and then only after a full peer review; and versioning system that makes sense.

Oh yes, we also don't spawn a new distro every time somebody decides they want to do stuff their own way.