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."

7 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 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?".

    2. 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.

    3. 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.