FreeBSD 4.9 RC1 Ready For Testing

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FreeBSD 4.9 RC1 Ready For Testing

Posted by timothy on Wednesday October 1, 2003 @07:44AM from the asking-for-a-pounding dept.

wumpus188 writes "FreeBSD Release Eng. Team's Murray Stokely announces the availability of first release candidate for FreeBSD 4.9 (RC1). He is requesting everyone to download and test, including helping with finding bugs. As indicated in the Release Engineering Team's testing agenda, more testing should be done with PAE systems to test device compatibility and performance. In particular, active systems with 12 gigs of RAM or more should be thoroughly tested to make sure the various memory allocation algorithms in the kernel still scale properly."

48 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hmmm by scumbucket · 2003-10-01 07:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

I guess this means that BSD isn't dying after all.
Sorry, couldn't resist......

--
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
active systems with 12 gigs of RAM or more by Tumbleweed · 2003-10-01 07:52 · Score: 4, Funny

> In particular, active systems with 12 gigs of RAM or more should be thoroughly tested

Yes. Both of them. Sheesh.
1. Re:active systems with 12 gigs of RAM or more by konmaskisin · 2003-10-01 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  There's hundreds of BSD users with this equipment.
2. Re:active systems with 12 gigs of RAM or more by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-01 13:51 · Score: 0
  
  I thought there were only a hundred of BSD users.
3. Re:active systems with 12 gigs of RAM or more by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-01 14:20 · Score: 0
  
  I thought
  
  Go get the blood flow to your brain checked, because your brain isn't working.
  
  If it was, you wouldn't be thinking this:
  
  only a hundred of BSD users.
4. Re:active systems with 12 gigs of RAM or more by Tumbleweed · 2003-10-02 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  It was a joke, son. Laugh.
  
  (murderous Homer mode on) I...said...laugh... (off)
5. Re:active systems with 12 gigs of RAM or more by chadm1967 · 2003-10-03 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  Good one....... :-)
RC1 already? by aliquis · 2003-10-01 08:04 · Score: 1

If I remember things right I got mails every now and then with complains about how bad this and that worked from the freebsd mailinglists.
I usually don't read that many mailinglists so maybe that is common and no trouble but I wouldn't have belived they was considering a release already.
1. Re:RC1 already? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-01 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  Complaints about 4.9-PRERELEASE or 5.1-CURRENT?
2. Re:RC1 already? by __past__ · 2003-10-01 09:00 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It is still at least 1.5 months until 4.9 is released, according to the release schedule, and generally the FreeBSD team will accept delays in the interest of stability and not rush out something half-baked. 5.0 has been delayed more than one year, IIRC. During such a timeframe, certain other free Unix-like OSes change half of your supposedly stable kernel under your back and accidentally eat your file systems three times without bumping the minor version number.
  
  --
  Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
3. Re:RC1 already? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-04 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  FreeBSD suffers from a couple of serious process flaws -- it is an operating system which is truly at home neither in the open-source nor the proprietary markets primarily because, although the source is open, the development team is not. Furthermore the license allows proprietary software to "steal" source code and use it. The combination of these problems leads to a somewhat inferior OS.
  Now, Apache uses a BSD style license but they have an open development model which allows them to take advantage of a very large developer pool in order to stay ahead of their competition. In fact although proprietary versions of Apache exist which perform better than the official releases, SGI has put out some open source patches which generate even larger performance boosts. This is the reason why they have such a strong showing in terms of market share.
  BSD once had potential but the procedural problems they are experiencing hurt it when it comes to the market. I suspect that this is probably in part because the BSD teams are not interested in such things, and that is a shame... In fact, although I labeled it as an inferior OS, this is not due to lack of progress within BSD -- it has been progressing somewhat, but rather because all the improvements they make tend to be quickly copied by their competitors AND they lack the developer pool to stay ahead of this game (a problem which does not exist in the Linux or Apache communities, though for somewhat different reasons).
  I don't think that there is enough widespread support for BSD to save the operating system. What must be done is an opening up of the development process OR a GPL-style restriction on redistribution. In many ways I favor the former.
  Even in a worst case scenario, I don't see BSD completely dying. I think the developers are less into competition and more into a sort of idealized cooperation. As a result, even if BSD becomes more marginalized, I don't think that it will die outright. It will most likely outlive Netware, for example.
4.9 RC1 by secolactico · 2003-10-01 08:40 · Score: 1

Eh? I'm almost positive that I cvsup'ed to 4.9 RC1 a couple fo weeks ago (and for my non-production needs, it's pretty stable. It probably would be for my production needs but I'm still at 4.7 in those machines).

--
No sig
1. Re:4.9 RC1 by ffsnjb · 2003-10-01 10:14 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Your kernel is probably tagged as 4.9-PRERELEASE, as all of mine are.
  
  --
  "Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
2. Re:4.9 RC1 by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2003-10-02 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'm at 4.9 PRE as well. Is there a way to track 4.8, but get enhancements as well as security changes, but not move to 4.9 until its actually released?
3. Re:4.9 RC1 by Strog · 2003-10-02 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  RELENG_4 gets you the 4-Stable branch and you'll get all enhancements and security fixes. It will also get you 4.9PRE and briefly 4.9-RELEASE when it gets to that. RELENG_4_8 will get you 4.8-RELEASE plus security patches.
  
  It sounds like you already have what you want. If you don't want uname to say 4.9PRE then hack /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh to say what you want and you'll have it all. :P
4. Re:4.9 RC1 by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2003-10-02 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, lots of info. Does RELENG_4_8 get any updates besides security fixes?
  
  I'm not really worried about uname as much as stability. Not sure how 4.9-PRE compares in stability to tracking RELENG_4_8.
5. Re:4.9 RC1 by phoenix_rizzen · 2003-10-02 05:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  RELENG_4 tracks -stable. This is a moving target and isn't always stable or usable. All new developments in the 4.x branch are made here, and all new releases in the 4.x branch are tagged from here.
  
  RELENG_4_X tracks 4.X + security fixes. Security fixes and super-major bug fixes are the only things that get added to this branch. No new features will be added here.
  
  RELENG_4_X_Y_RELEASE will get you 4.X.Y release, the same code as is put on the CDs.
6. Re:4.9 RC1 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-03 10:24 · Score: 0
  Although it is true that FreeBSD is dying, there are some helpful steps you can take ease your sorrow,
  
  deal with the inevitable.
  
  grieve for your loss.
  
  move on.
  Never let your emotions get mixed up with something as silly as a computer operating system. It isn't healthy. So FreeBSD fails. Big whoop. Deal with it and move on.
  Hope this helps.
Re:My prelim bug report by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-01 10:59 · Score: 2, Funny

No wonder. You are so stupid to look for a pulse on a computer.

Better check your own pulse on your neck. Seems you lack blood flow to the brain.
OK , maybe this is a stupid question but.... by Viol8 · 2003-10-01 20:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is the 5.x series stable enough yet to use in a serious enviroment or should I stick to 4.x for
the time being? Even though I use FreeBSD (though admittedly only as a backup OS to Linux) I'm confused by their release policy. At what minor
version increment do current release branches become stable or are we supposed to just hope for the best?
If 5.0 was as unstable as I've heard in certain situations why was it ever released , why don't they just do the same as the linux kernel
team and keep releasing beta versions until things seem ok?
1. Re:OK , maybe this is a stupid question but.... by joaobranco · 2003-10-01 21:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If you want stability, use STABLE releases, (4.8, 4.9 in a few days/weeks).
  
  If you want the bleeding edge, you can try CURRENT (HEAD, 5.1). But they call it bleeding edge, because you might cut yourself, you know.
  
  That said, I am using a 5-CURRENT machine to write this. I haven't had major troubles with this. But, if you aren't the kind of person who would use a odd-numbered kernel in linux, you should stick with STABLE releases. I have all my production machines in STABLE, I only use CURRENT in my "expendable" machines (like my own workstation).
  
  There is information on which branch is STABLE - Production (at this moment its last release was 4.8, soon will be 4.9) and which branch is CURRENT - Technology Preview (at this moment, the last release was 5.1, will be 5.2 in a while) on the freebsd home page (www.freebsd.org).
2. Re:OK , maybe this is a stupid question but.... by Viol8 · 2003-10-01 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  Any ETA of when 5.x will become STABLE? Since I like the new features but I can't put up with a flakey server.
3. Re:OK , maybe this is a stupid question but.... by platipusrc · 2003-10-02 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  5.1-RELEASE isn't flaky really, but the stable release branch will probably come about at either 5.2 or 5.3, depending on what the FreeBSD team decides.
  
  My workstation running 5.1 was up for 60 days no problem. Only reason it went down was because of the nvidia kernel module, which you probably wouldn't be using on a production machine anyway.
  
  --
  And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
4. Re:OK , maybe this is a stupid question but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:08 · Score: 0
  
  why don't they just do the same as the linux kernel
  team and keep releasing beta versions until things seem ok?
  
  I would hope the FreeBSD team would have higher standards than that!
  
  I'd say go read about The kernel of pain but it seems it has been removed.
5. Re:OK , maybe this is a stupid question but.... by __past__ · 2003-10-02 04:21 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Don't hold your breath. The current estimated release date for 5.3, which will become RELENG_5, is march 2004.
  Personally, I plan to switch when 5.2 is released, though. Mostly for the filesystem snapshots and background fsck. I too use FBSD 5 on my personal workstation and have scince 5.0-RELEASE, without any problems, so I don't worry too much.
  
  --
  Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
6. Re:OK , maybe this is a stupid question but.... by Viol8 · 2003-10-03 03:06 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Well given the amount of bugs in 5.0, apparently not!
7. Re:OK , maybe this is a stupid question but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-03 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  Well given the amount of bugs in 5.0, apparently not!
  
  Geee, lets see.
  
  5.0 is CURRENT == may have bugs.
  
  The Linux 2.2.X kernel series was 'production quality' - or so the claim was.
  
  4+ remote root exploits in the 2.2 series kernel.
  
  Now, exactly HOW did you arrive at your 'conclusion' about comparing 5.0 to Linux 2.2?
8. Re:OK , maybe this is a stupid question but.... by rayvd · 2003-10-04 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I don't know what you'll be using the server, but we have a 5.1 box processing about 5000 messages a day (virtual domains, MySQL, SpamAssassin and Anomy Sanitizer). It gets a fair bit of load and I have had zero issues with it whatsoever.
  
  5000 messages a day is fairly light by a lot of standards though, so that is all I can speak to.
9. Re:OK , maybe this is a stupid question but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-04 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  5000 or 50000. It does make a difference because it doesn't scale linearaly.
Re:*BSD is dying by penguinstorm · 2003-10-02 08:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

wow - this is a brave comment to make, especially hiding behind the mask that is 'anonymous coward'.

There's ample ammunition for the argument that FreeBSD is dead, but there's equally ample ammunition to support the view that FreeBSD development is strong. Given that it sits at the core of Apple's OS X, there is substantial opportunity to gain from this.

I think that the death of FreeBSD as an OS is premature: the death of commercial releases may be real.

I vastly prefer messing around with FreeBSD: faster, more stable and equally productive when compared to most Linux releases.

And Red Hat? Well, they've done a great job commercializing the thing, but does anybody actually like using it? It's a compromise - albeit a good one for some purposes. If I were installing desktops, it'd probably be my FreeOS of choice.

--
Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
Re:*BSD is dying by Viol8 · 2003-10-03 03:03 · Score: 1

You must be new here. The BSD is dying troll have been around for ever it seems. I'm not sure if he thinks he's being funny, annoying or he's got a gripe
against BSD itself. Either way he needs to seek help IMO.
Margialized operating systems by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-03 10:31 · Score: 0

Margialized operating systems require you to jump through more hoops to get things accomplished.

Yea, like that RedHat Linux stuff. 7.0 required you to upgrade the compiler just so the kernel would compile.
4.9 is coming along nicely by puzzled · 2003-10-07 13:13 · Score: 1

The OpenSSH/OpenSSL bugs are mostly ironed out, watch for bind9.2.4 in /usr/ports/dns - a new subdirectory, and other than that it looks ready to go - I've been pushing it on my intel DNS/ssh/qmail boxes since a few weeks after code freeze and its been very, very, very stable.

--
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Gray Niggards by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 14:58 · Score: 0

The Gray Niggard Association of America (GNAA) is the group that represents the world's Gray Niggard population as well as those colorful, spendthrift patrons that support it. Its mission is to foster a drab and penny-pinching climate that destroys and undermines our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the gray niggards that comprise the most vibrant national gray niggard conglomerate in the world. GNAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate pro-gray propaganda and books full of money-saving tips produced and sold in the United States.

We strongly urge you to join the GNAA and support our cause. Gray Niggards everywhere need your help!

BE NIGGARDLY!

BE GRAY!

JOIN THE GNAA!!

Join #GNAA on the EFNet IRC Network today! (irc.goatse.cx, irc.justice.gov, irc.slashdot.org)

\-posted by GNAA member Slash Dot
4.9 is sweet by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-13 20:12 · Score: 0

I've had 4.9 in production use since I cvsup'd a box with 4.8 on it...it is indeed very sweet.

Client deciding to switch to FreeBSD during an upgrade cycle, partially due to fear of SCO FUD (if they're right, they don't want to buy a $700 license for a new linux box, when a new FreeBSD box will be free for the OS either way).