Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FreeBSD 5.2 RC2 Now Available

Posted by timothy on from the merry-eve dept.

Dan writes "FreeBSD Release Engineering Team's Scott Long announces the availability of FreeBSD 5.2 RC2 which fixes a number of bugs, specifically the one in which users experienced system panics during install and dynamic library problems in the 'fixit' environment. Scott is asking everyone to test this release over the holidays. You can download it from one of your preferred mirror sites." Update: 12/24 23:01 GMT by T : Dan writes with more info: "Scott Long has also laid out a roadmap for future FreeBSD 5.3 releases now that FreeBSD 5.2-RC2 is getting close to release quality."

12 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps this "bais" is due to the fact that Linux kernel panics are not news. However, kernel panics in BSD are so rare that when they occur they are indeed news.

  2. Again, -STABLE is _NOT_ the most stable. by dodell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I re-iterate. -STABLE is *NOT* the most stable branch. It is not comparable to 2.4 in Linux. For more information, please see http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/current-stable.htm l (which explains the -CURRENT and -STABLE branches as well as a bit about releng.)

    But yes, thanks to the developers who have been working on this. And thank heavens that it's the holiday season; now I'll finally have time to work on locks in the IPv6 stack (thanks Sam and Robert ;))

    --
    www.sitetronics.com/wordpress
  3. More like son-of-BSD by jhines · · Score: 4, Insightful

    BSD itself died, back at v4.4 when UCB stopped doing development itself. The body parts have been transplanted into computer systems all over, almost every system has some BSD code.

    The current BSD's are like the children of the original, taking on the family business.

    BSD is like the late, great, patriarch, whose portrait hangs on the wall, in the living room of the family mansion.

  4. Unpopular Freedom by Alethes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Allowing freedom includes allowing people to do things you don't necessarily agree with. I used to defend the GPL consistently, but I'm starting to feel like "Free as in Speech" should also include unpopular speech, and that's what the BSD license protects that the GPL does not.

    In the words of Theo de Raadt: ...software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.

    As opposed to the the GPL, which exists as Stallman's attempt to redefine "Free Software" as any software that suits his political ideology.

    The GPL as a strategy is fine, but to call it "freedom" is less than honest. Whose freedom is being protected by the GPL? The developers? Not really. The developers are only allowed to use the source as long as they conform to the RMS ideology that the work they do should benefit the collective and not necessarily just the individual who wrote the software. As for the users, what freedom do they gain by using GPL software over BSD licensed software? The freedom to use software that does not co-exist peacefully with others? The freedom to view the source code they don't understand or care to understand? Besides, the original BSD software always remains free as in speech and beer, even if the Hated Proprietary Software Vendor of the Week exercises their right to protect their own interests.

    I'm certain that I'll be moderated as a troll, but this something that I've been pondering quite a bit lately, and I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong.

    1. Re:Unpopular Freedom by Progman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Whose freedom is being protected by the GPL?

      The author's freedom. The author chooses the license under which he makes his software available, remember?

    2. Re:Unpopular Freedom by Alethes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The author's freedom is also protected by the Microsoft EULA and by copyright laws. I'm not convinced that the GPL provides any additional protection for the author. As a matter of fact, the GPL proponents would say otherwise -- that the author is giving up some of his freedoms provided by copyright so that somebody else can benefit from the source. The question is who benefits? My thinking is that it's developers who share the collectivist ideology that RMS calls "freedom". Which just makes me think "Freedom to do what?" or "Freedom from what?".

    3. Re:Unpopular Freedom by antiMStroll · · Score: 4, Insightful
      As opposed to the the GPL, which exists as Stallman's attempt to redefine "Free Software" as any software that suits his political ideology.

      A fairer perspective is that the BSD License and the GPL represent competing political ideologies, your assessment is a loaded one. Is the BSD a 'more free' license? Likely. Is it a better one for it? Debatable. 'More free' is not necessarily always better, crying 'fire' in a crowded theatre for example. From this non-developer's perspective, proprietary software will always live in conflict with OSS - SCO as another example - and the BSD license gives companies the means to do BSD harm. They take without giving. The GPL might be less free and, by forcing cooperation, the better for it and the future of the software under its wing.

    4. Re:Unpopular Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      really -- are you intentionally ignoring the obvious?

      they are free to use the code without otherwise arranging a license.

      smells like trolls around here

    5. Re:Unpopular Freedom by okmijnuhb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe that the GPL as written, benefits the *users* of free software, more than any.
      It assures that improved or modified code is cycled back into the community for their benefit, rather than locked away as some proprietary binary.

    6. Re:Unpopular Freedom by adiposity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with your analysis, in that using the GPL doesn't really give a great measure of "freedom" to any who choose to use the GPLed code. In reality, it imposes extreme limitations on the developers, much as a proprietary license does. For the end user, there really is no difference, IMO.

      The original developer loses nothing, of course, unless he/she foolishly assigns the copyright to the FSF, in which case the code becomes even LESS free, because then it is owned by a third party, and is only available under very strict licensing. Doing so simply helps the FSF grow its suite of free software that is only available under the GPL. I suppose it's a noble goal, but the fact is it is just another company with strict licensing rules, although they include the benefit of being open source.

      On the other hand, the BSD license doesn't guarantee much of anything for the developers, and it's sad in a way that it's so easy to use the code w/o giving anything to the coders. And I suppose that's where the GPL comes in; if you feel that your free contributions should only be available to those who are willing to make more free contributions, you should use it.

      There is no question that the BSD license is more "free" than the GPL. But there is the issue of whether the GPL perpetuates more (a greater amount of) "free" code overall than does BSD. I think the GPL is quite useful in that sense.

      -Dan

  5. Re:10 points to upset all the BSD Zealots: by smash · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I know I'm just feeding a troll... but in case anyone genuinely believes those points:

    1. You can play any game on it that runs on under linux, via linux emulation.
    2. Your grandma could use DOS, if set up properly
    3. Any gui used on linux works. Ships with KDE and gnome
    4. Documentation is far superior to linux (and thats based on my 7 yrs linux experience).
    5. Its far less fragmented than Linux.
    6. I'm running it on several x86 boxes right now, performing duties ranging from Ipsec gateways, to webservers, to desktops
    7. You can install most of the ports from packages. You do not need to know C - simply type "make install"
    8. USB was supported before Linux, just as one example from my comparatively limited (3 yrs) experience with BSD
    9. 2 words. Linux emulation. It works. VERY WELL.
    10. Sampling the population of my server room (1, 3 year old linux box, 4 BSD boxes, and 1 BSD box being built to replace the linux box), Linux is dying - not BSD :D

    11. On a more serious note - I'd recommend any Linux fan to give FreeBSD a shot. It took me a while to get my head around the whole philosphy behind the way things are done (just as I had to get used to Linux - its just "different" to most linux distros), but once you get used to it, its far more logical and consistant. Faster, in my experience, as well.

      Even if you decide to go back to Linux, knowing BSD will put you in a better position to understand the way other Unices work, as Linux is far less similar to them than BSD.

      My 2c.

      smash.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  6. PROOF OF BIASED MODERATION !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why was a post detaling problems with BSD modded down, but a post that praised BSD and made unfounded cheapshots at Linux modded up?

    And you guys wonder why you get trolled so much? Maybe if you folks weren't so uptight about your operating system and could have an honest discussion of the facts, you wouldn't be in this situation. But hey, you brought it upon yourselves.