Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 5.2 Released
James writes "Freebsd 5.2 is released. FTP mirrors. Release notes
This is another step towards 5-STABLE. Many improvements in this release, including ATA and networking enhancements." Patrick Jensen also points out that this is the first stable release with AMD64 support. You can also see the official announcement if you so desire.
Gentoo, Mandrake and RedHat crashed. Couldn't test SuSE because you can't download their 64-bit Linux.
Although they advise against using the FreeBSD 5 line in production servers, our company went ahead & did it anyway because we needed a gigabit ethernet driver that was only in FreeBSD 5 not 4.
Our site gets a million hits a day on a completely db-driven website. Both the Apache webserver and the two replicated MySQL servers on the backend are all running FreeBSD 5, and have been for months now.
No problems at all. Rock-solid. Good ol' FreeBSD.
I'm running 4.9-R on my Thinkpad X40. I tried 5.2-RC2 about 2 months ago, and it was an utter nightmare. Wouldn't boot correctly, or if it did, it froze within a few minutes. Loads of errors, too.
Looks like I'll give it another try--5.x supports OpenBSD's pf and the Thinkpad wifi card (supposedly.)
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
I'm happy with my Linux system right now. It supports all my hardware and gives me a nice desktop. Why, beyond standard geek curiosity, should I switch to *BSD? I've used OpenBSD a bit and the ports system seemed kinda cool, though not as simple or powerful as my distribution's package manager. Where's the big advantage for me? Performance? Philosophy? In my very limited and anecdotal experience, Linux has seemed much faster than OpenBSD. I'd ideally like to try one of the free BSDs, but I'm having trouble convincing myself that there's really a point. (This is not intended as a troll. Really, I just want to know.)
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Nothing is stopping you from installing 5.8 and making all other applcaitions use it with a simple "use.perl port". That wasn't too hard now was it?
It doesnt install default with perl, its an option you can choose at installation time. So dont choose it (its not default) and install 5.8 from the ports collection or download precompiled package. No harder than this.
I'm pretty sure that you can get the latest and greatest Perl distribution in the ports. As of 5.0, Perl was removed from the base installation, so it's not like you could mess anything up by installing it via ports.
This news hasn't even hit the freebsd site or bsdforums yet. I checked this morning.
I'm overdue for an upgrade, I've got 5.0 running on my main desktop machine. I just love how easy it is to administer and how well documented everything is compared to Linux.
I haven't tried the Linux 2.6 kernel yet, mostly because there's no reason for me to not use FreeBSD. X, Fvwm, and Gnome apps run flawlessly, and the ports system is fantastic.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
Ever hear of the ports collection? The reason perl was moved out of the base install (aside from the fact that it's pretty big nowdays) and into ports is because some people didn't like having an older version of perl around. Now you can keep perl up to date as you want it
/usr/ports/lang/perl5.8
cd
make install clean
tada, you now have perl 5.8
As of 8:53 AM EST, the annoucement page does not have it listed and the
freebsd-announce mailing list has not mentioned it.
This means that it is not yet released.
Dinivin
If one reads the previous reports, there is a good reason why they have moved Perl into the ports tree rather than keeping as part of the default installation.
My company uses FreeBSD 5 on half of our desktop machines in the office. All the PCs for customer service and general-purpose use are all running:
The fonts are anti-aliased and beautiful. I find it easier on the eyes than Windows or OS X.
It only takes us about an hour to set up a whole new ready-to-go office desktop PC for the office, using FreeBSD ports. And we LOVE that all boxes' apps are kept automatically updated every night using the portupgrade scripts.
If you're thinking of dabbling with FreeBSD as a desktop I can highly recommend it.
In fact I'm typing this on my Gateway laptop with FreeBSD 4.9 right now. Here are some FreeBSD laptop compatibility lists if you want to see if yours will work.
I just had a sudden realisation that although I consider myself a free software enthusiast, I am ashamed to say that I know *nothing* about FreeBSD at all! Well, I remember reading about where the codebase came from, once upon a time, but that's about it. Perhaps someone could give me an executive summary to stem this clueless feeling...
:) Zealots, do your worst!
Who uses it? How exactly is it licensed? How is it maintained and managed? Are there different distros as for Linux? Do any companies provide FreeBSD-based solutions, or is it just for hobbyists? What can it run on? Should *I* consider running it, and why?
I appreciate that I *could* go looking for all this information and piece the story together myself, but hell, it's easier this way.
These sigs are more interesting tha
Agree.
Time is an important factor. I think the BSDs are great for internet servers, though I don't see how they're any more secure than a properly set up Mandrake system. Yes, I use Mandrake, not because I'm a n00b, but because Suse cost me at least a month of downtime over the past year. I need my systems, to get actual work done.
Though I'm glad the BSDs are there, for my purposes Linux just works.
Campaign finance reform is national security.
One thing I really like about Mac OS X is the increasing number of Unix-derived packages that are available through projects such as fink. Fink uses the venerable apt-get system, derived from Debian, to manage the installation, maintenance and upgrading of traditional Unix packages into the MacOS environment. A neat tool, no doubt.
I'm no BSD expert, but I believed that the *BSD systems came with their own packaging system, namely the 'ports' system. But therein lies the question: if Mac OS X is derived from a FreeBSD kernel, why is the premier system for managing open source software packages derived from Debian's apt-get? Would any regular BSD users care to comment? apt-get sure is convenient, but can these 'ports' make things even easier? Should BSD user mount a campaign on Apple's discussion boards to get these 'ports' included with the Developer's Package of the next release of Mac OS X? Apple is quite the innovator in ports after all, being a pioneer of both USB and FireWire. BSD ports could be another feather in their technical cap.
I look forward to the responses of the BSD community. Mac OS X, powered by FreeBSD, is a really rockin' platform!!
Folks,
/. has once again jumped the gun.
/. has pre-announced the release and people got bad code.
The mirrors are still updating. While 5.X is imminent,
In the past, we of the FreeBSD Project have started distributing an image to our mirrors and then recalled it when a last-minute bug is discovered. IIRC, at least once
Please do not grab this image thinking that it's FreeBSD 5.2! It won't be out until Scott Long says that it ready and available, and he has the right to nix this image up until the time he makes that announcement.
mwlucas at the obvious domain name
The world doesn't need two sets of free *nix clones. The world needs ONE great *nix clone.
No, the world needs many *nix clones. It helps move things and sometimes things move in the wrong direction (i.e. IBM/DEC's answer to SysV). OpenBSD pushes the security in ways that the bloatware distros can't but the bloatware helps get more people comfortable with the *nix systems.
I would like to see a distory using the Linux kernel and most of the BSD tools just to see how it would evlolve.
he quote on the bottom of this page is "Death is a spirit leaving a body, sort of like a shell leaving the nut behind. -- Erma Bombeck"
anyone know how well PowerPC is supported?
CYNIC, n.
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Hey, this is kinda funny... w00t!
"The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
And they say old timers left /. because of trolls ;)
The IT section color scheme sucks.
So: Why didn't you put your name on it?
Put identity in the browser.
Finks has no association with Apple. There is a ports in the works. Its called DarwinPorts.
Doesn't have nearly as many packages as Fink does however.
Look here to see what other work needs to be done.
They claim 5.3 will be the stable version but I will not upgrade. I am sticking with 4.9 for now.
http://saveie6.com/
The ultimate proof that bsd is superior to linux.
m l
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/bsdversuslinux.ht
Does anyone know if they have fixed PCMCIA support during the install? It used to work fine in the 4.x series, then it got broken in the 5.x series. I have tried it a month ago, and it was still broken.
Basically, if you need PCMCIA support during the install, you're SOL. For instance if you want to do a network install over a PCMCIA NIC. Like I said, since 5.x the installer doesn't even try to detect PCMCIA devices anymore.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
http://daily.daemonnews.org/view_story.php3?story_ id=2872
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/178
here
I thought FreeBSD did not have perl at all because of the 5.8 vs 5.6 debate.
Both versions are in the ports collection for that reason.
http://saveie6.com/
If you're going to troll at least make your points half way realistic. Apart being partially correct on point 8 you're 100% wrong on everything else.
Wow, now I *know* its been a long time since I've been a FreeBSD user. The last time I downloaded the OS, it came in 230k chunks (nice for that 14.4 modem) and was version 2.5. Maybe i'll give the 5.2 version a go, I'm sure there has been a few improvements ;)
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
Yes, the world needs diversity. Just like the nature... I mean, if all computers runs the exact same OS we will find it very handy, but a plague that takes that OS down will take down ALL your machines, for example.
I see people complaining about MS monopoly and domination and yet the same people wants evebody to run {linux,BSD,whatever} just like they do.
I like the liberty to choose from many possibilities.
- no sig.
prior to 5.2, i was having weird make errors when running an SMP kernel on Hyperthreaded Xeons. basically, during any sort of heavy make, the make would error out with a segmentation fault. this was using a GENERIC kernel with only the two SMP options enabled. the same system running a non-SMP GENERIC kernel would work fine. in addition, while running full load (setiathome for example) the two processors would peak at 50% load. now with the new SMP code, they both top out at 100% and otherwise act like a true dual processor machine. one last bit is that SMP is now enabled in the GENERIC kernel right from the start, probably in anticipation of large amounts of HT p4's and Xeons.
Too bad it still has perl 5.6 while almost every other operating system (including the other two BSDs) have switched to 5.8
NetBSD has not switched. The default Perl is still 5.6 because of portablilty issues in 5.8 from what I understand.
Chris
FreeBSD currently doesn't run on the PPC platform, which prevents me from using it on my iBook, but NetBSD, which (as far as I know) is simlar to FreeBSD has a working PPC port. So this is what I'm wondering, why not just use the NetBSD bootloader to load the FreeBSD kernel. It can easily be compiled for the ELF format, and OpenFirmware on macs know how to load that type of kernel. I'm not a expert when it comes to these things, so could someone please explain why no one has tryed using the FreeBSD kernel with the NetBSD bootloader (or loading it raw into OpenFirmware) ?
This signature was left intentionally blank.
1. You can not play games on it.
You can play Linux games on it (ok, no games)
2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
If your grandma is able to use Gnome or KDE, she can use FreeBSD.
3. It lacks a GUI of any note.
see above.
4. There is no support available for it.
There are a lot of places on the net were you can get help from the community. And some companies provide commercial support for FreeBSD.
5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
FreeBSD is a complete OS by itself, it's an evolution of 4.4BSD.
6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.
Of course it runs on x86.
7. You have to compile everything and know C.
Thanks to the ports collection, you just have to type "make" to get something compiled for you.
8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
Support for the latest hardware is sometimes poor indeed.
9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.
FreeBSD has a complete Linux compatibility layer which allows to run Linux binaries.
10. It is dying.
Well, some people like to repeat that every month since 1993!
Stephane
------
Life isn't fair, but the root password helps.
Agreed.
/etc, inet, dependancy hell, and cutting edgeness.
I feel fustrated by the limits of Linux's crypted
I am a FreeBSD user in case your wondering. I would switch back to Windows or perhaps stick with Debian without it.
I need per 5.6 not 5.8. Same is true with apache 1.3x. All the distro's chose to bundle things that break code and all my documentation. Perl 5.8 is not source compatible with 5.6 for example. The perl mongers are full of it and I have seen it first hand.
Anyway only Windows met this need until I tried FreeBSD. THe ports are really great.
However not all apps are in the ports and automake is not as portable as one would hope. Many Linux apps will not simple recompile on a FreeBSD box, hence why the ports exist.
More is better.
http://saveie6.com/
OpenBSD pushes the security in ways that the bloatware distros can't but the bloatware helps get more people comfortable with the *nix systems.
Uh, but OBSD is also slow as hell and lacks important features (SMP?). Generally OBSD sucks and Theo is an ass.
Currently running slackware 9, would love to switch to FreeBSD. But I absolutely need vmware. I know version 3 has been ported, but vmware GSX has not and I'm not sure how well vmware version 3 runs.
>I think the BSDs are great for internet servers, though I don't see how they're any more secure than a properly set up Mandrake system.
You couldn't be more right. The difference, at least to me, is that FreeBSD is much easier to configure properly because the documentation and ports system are so good.
With regard to OpenBSD however, there are many security enhancements that put its security far ahead of the rest. But it is rather paranoid for simple applications, and probably not worth the performance/ease of use hit.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
All *BSD and Linux people should join forces to create an even better Linux.
Tell ya what. When you can convince the varying *GNU/Linux forks to unite as one big happy GNU/Linux version, get back to the *BSD folkes about merging into one big happy UNIX-like OS.
M'kay?
It's nice to see this post time and time again. I used to have problems similar to this, but they've been fixed... at least for me.
Moreover, what's cheaper than free and more stable than FreeBSD, which is hailed as being among the most stable OSs out there.
Looks like someone needs to turn on DMA.
I'd like to see pros and cons, also benchmarks of Linux 2.6.1 vs. FreeBSD 5.2. Also the best linux distribution using the 2.6.1 kernel (or a few of the most popular since this is different from person to person) vs. FreeBSD 5.2, from downloading to installation to general use as a server/workstation, configurint etc.
Since I haven't seen this mentioned yet...
What's the possibilty of having a FreeBSD LiveCD? As far as I can tell, there is no technical restriction, since if I remember correctly, a lot of floppy-based routers use netBSD.
FreeBSD gets lots of praise from it's users, but my only real experience with it is that a couple of my friends tried it (about 3 years ago) and found it impossible to install. However, it seems like an it would be worth a try, but I don't really want to sacrifice my Linux partition. Plus, I'm not all that interested in going through another lengthy install process since I'm pretty happy with Slackware.
Of course, since supporters mostly seem to admire the ports system, there maybe little difference for the end-user between Linux and FreeBSD LiveCD's.
And please, no jokes about a "dead" operating system being distributed on a live CD.
"To save the planet, I had to go to the worst spot on Earth, and that was Philadelphia." -- Sun Ra
Yeah, until you find an ircd daemon running with about 2k connections sharing mp3's, pr0n, and warez.
It's all fun and games till someobody
Yes, there is no perl in the base OS anymore. But, the perl 5.6 port is installed as part of the standard OS install.
Removing or upgrading that is as easy as removing or upgrading any other port.
Look, I'm only familiar with RPM.
However, it would seem to me that what is needed is a packaging system that accomodates both binary distributions and source in a way that resolves dependencies.
There should be a hard line drawn between the source and binary environments.
The packaging system must encompass the entire Base Operating System (granted that most UNIX distributions transfer a "mini-system" at some point in the install). For example, patching the Base Operating System on OpenBSD is entirely different than applying updated packages. This inconsistency would be unacceptable for a major commercial user; the interface must be consistent.
Assuming that such a consistent packaging format could be developed, it should then be the goal to convert one of the old school UNIX players (HP and SGI might be the most receptive - there were rumors that Tru64 was going to RPM some time back; Solaris never changes anything in userland).
Until one of these packaging formats manages to win over a major UNIX player, the strife will continue.
The Perl you have on your system is whatever you installed from /usr/ports.
They removed Perl from the base system because it was too much of a hassle to keep up-to-date. Guranteeing backwards compatibility is also a major chore with Perl in some cases.
Debian stable ("woody") uses Perl 5.6, and that's just dandy seeing how early 5.8 was buggy as all hell.
1. Unlike most of the Linux distros, you can upgrade the system from the source. You can get the latest source code via CVS and completely update the whole system to the latest version or use it in order to fix bug fixes. It works really well if you want to stay updated on crucial bugs.
2. Unlike most of the Linux distros, it has a good software management system, ports. You can update them via CVS as a part of your cron job, thus you can get the latest version of software anytime you want to install something.
3. Kernel configuration does not involve clicking on tons of buttons. Also, the default kernel configuration does not come with tons of stuff enabled. When I create a custom kernel, I have to add certain lines for my personal configuration and hardly disable anything beyond simple stuff.
4. So far, I have used Mandrake, RedHat, Slackware, Debian and FreeBSD. From my experience FreeBSD was the easiest system to install and manage for server/production environment. I do not care about a nice looking penguin or games, I want my computer to do work. If I wanted to play, I'd use Windows.
There is NO RELEASE until someone from Release Engineering Team will say this in freebsd-announce@freebsd.org list with PGP signed message.
FreeBSD 5.2 is NOT released!
Its called Gentoo chief.
I'll admit, I tried out FreeBSD 5 shortly after it's initial release, and was fairly impressed with it. Solid, Stable, Ports rock. I ended up leaving it though, because at the time I was all about WineX...
;), so I'm curious if anyone has any experience using it as a full-blown multimedia desktop OS.
;)
Anyway, my question is this: How is FreeBSD as a desktop system? I no longer care much for WineX, and am far more interested in how well things like TV Tuners, Digital Cameras, USB/Firewire/CoolNiftyGadgets are handled by it. I was always under the impression that the *BSDs tended to be more conservative than the various Linux distros (Woody excluded
I'll soon be building a Media Box w/ Tuner, DVD Burner, and USB gamepads for my TV, and a new Workstation with a Scanner, Digital Cam hook-up, etc.
Should I give FreeBSD another shot?
The longer I'm a member of the Human Race, the more I believe Apocalypse is a valid solution.
Just wanted to go thru all the typical rubbish quick, maybe that way we can see some insightful content on a BSD post ;)
May the source be with you!
It takes about 5 minutes to install.
You can instantly download a pre-compiled binary of the latest version of pretty much anything by issuing the following command:
pkg_add -r [NAME]
You can instantly upgrade any software to the very latest version by installing sysutils/portupgrade and then typing
portupgrade [NAME]
Its so stable Apple used it as the foundation for OS X.
IMHO, hardware support is dramatically better in release 5 compared to release 4.5
If you havn't tried it yet you don't know what your missing.
Check out the FreeBSD Forums
To blog is sublime
Wow, you're some kind of smart guy, huh? Humorless dipshit.
If you understand how there can be a difference between two different versions of linux, you should be able to understand that there can be a huge difference between two operating systems.
FreeBSD has a different code commit policy: code going into CVS typically gets looked at by more than one person. In Linux, someone generally takes the code, feeds it to someone else, who feeds it to Linus, and nobody is really responsible for 'reviewing' the code. They may glance at it, or they may just read comments, but there is no accountability, there is nobody who's tasked with looking for 'off-by-one' or stack issues, and there is nobody who says "well, this is a good idea, but it's not the best". That sort of discussion is the core (and, at times, the problem) of FreeBSD.
Cool now MAC can twist BSD's version of the GPL to come up with OS/11.
If I wanted easy I wouldnt be an engineer or a patriot.
I go back and forth on this. The linux one is better in some respects; make xconfig is good for allowing one to see the various options and configure things easily. But I like the very brutal simplicity of the BSD config; it's more manual, but I get more control, which I like.
The biggest complaint about the BSD kernel config is the sometimes inadequate documentation of available configuration parameters (this was made worse in the move between 4.x and 5.x, as the config file has changed somewhat and the new values haven't gotten commented quite yet).
Look on the bright side. Matt's doing DBSD and we get AmigaDOS++ out of it. Go Matt!
As a UCB EECS graduate, I can truly appreciate FreeBSD.
As a hardware nerd, though, I was a little disappointed at the empirical results the OS turned in for my disk array (RAID5, 4x200GB, 16kB block size, 8:16:32:256K stripe size) - burst and sustained transfer is much faster under Windows. Have a look at the results: IDE Hardware Raid On FreeBSD
Rishi Chopra
www.rishichopra.org
Is www.cdbaby.com still running OpenBSD?
Funny I would say the same thing about Linus "Dictator" Torvalds.
I actually just recently tried out FreeBSD (5.1-RELEASE, to be exact), because I wanted to do something with my Sun ultrasparc 5 besides having it sit there and look sexy. OpenBSD was not an option, as I cannot boot the ultra5 from floppy (even says so in the README somewhere), and I was way too lazy to build a boot CD ala NetBSD's instructions, so FreeBSD it was - I wanted to use the box and see something new besides Linux and Win2k (and OS X in my dreams on the 12" PB).
:/ /usr/ports ; make distro clean takes about three days, but who is counting. :)
In hindsight, I have to say it's great, it simply *works*. I am running apache2 on it and soon will switch my internal IMAP server (just for home, two users, collecting from various accounts via fetchmail and providing the results to internal IMAP clients) to that box. Maybe nfs/samba file server will be next so I can retire the Mandrake 7.2 installation on my current file server.
Of course, the machine is slow, a cd
However, to finally get to the point (yes, I am bored today), installation was a bitch, to say the least, none of the terminal emulations the installer suggests is usable on the sun console. Usenet searches suggested a serial terminal (yeah, didn't have that under the kitchen sink), or a nullmodem to another box. I decided to do a "blind" install, took a couple of attemots, but somehow it worked and the rest is history - did everything through ssh from my desktop linux box.
I skimmed the release notes on 5.2, but could not find any mentioning of the sun console finally being a usuable install option, even though in my (previously mentioned) usenet archive search I came across mentionings of someone wanting to fix this. Does anyone know where it stands?
I've used and liked FreeBSD since back in the 2.1.5 days. (~1994 IIRC)
Of all the reasons listed, it is the simplicity and order and coherency of everything that works for me. It's very standardized, and things just seem to be done in a way that "makes sense".
So- why not use it?
There really is only one reason: bleeding-edge hardware support.
For server systems this is not an issue, but for desktops (particularly laptops) it raises its ugly head.
I will say that the 5.x series makes a lot of improvements in the "general laptop functionality" area, but even still- hardware support *does* lag behind Linux.
It is for that reason (and *only* that reason) that for my FOB P2040, FreeBSD (4.x at the time) just was not an option. Stuff like sound/tvout/suspend/spindown and IIRC even the particular USB controller wasn't supported. It's been a long time now but I remember installing it and just finding it unworkable at all on a machine that new at the time.
Anyway- food for thought.
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
With regard to OpenBSD however, there are many security enhancements that put its security far ahead of the rest.
Yes, except for access control lists. There are no ACLs in OpenBSD! As a result, you have to run more programs as root, which is definitely a security problem.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Before SCO finds it first!
"If the FreeBSD team could get away with it, they would probably use warnings like "Contains live plague bacteria. Beware the Rabid Hippopotami. May cause nausea and vomiting."
-- Michael Lucas, re: FreeBSD-CURRENT
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
...why would you *not* want to go to BSD (on the desktop, at least).
Well, if I got to sum it up in one line "Because it's far more fringe than Linux is". As a Linux desktop user, I'm sure you know the drawbacks of not being mainstream.
I don't mind being in a minority, but it basicly comes down to that. Linux is starting to get on the radar, BSD just isn't... It might not be dying, but it's hardly booming either. Linux is getting the hardware support, and if the point is to run Linux binaries, why not run the original?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
But than again, for many math functions Java uses a software implementation rather than using the built in hardware functions on the processer. This is to ensure that these function perform exactly the same on different architectures. This probably accounts for the difference in performance, along with the problems with native threads on FreeBSD.
Are you talking about the first time Matt's commit bit was revoked, or the second time?
I would agree that Matts arguments about biting off more than you can chew is valid. However, I'd say that the current dirrection FreeBSD is headign is a technically logical place to be going, and that any incremental steps in that dirrection only dellay things.
Regarding luigi-ware in the base, I'd agree that sudden bursts of interesting activity is nice, but the months of inatention afterwards is anoying. But adding PF is just yet another network firewall kit, and we already got enought of that bloat.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Not to bash Perl or anything, but I think that these incompatibilities between minor version numbers is a Perl weakness. Having to use perl 6.x instead of 5.x I could understand. But having to use perl 5.8 instead of 5.6 is silly. The 5 means it's the same major version.
But in any case, just update your perl through ports and you're done. Easy.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Hey, Harv, how's it goin' today? Not so good, huh? So upset by a new FreeBSD release that you had to repost this by-now-serveral-years-old email *twelve* times?
Harv, I really wish we could get you a better hobby. I mean, it's got to take a lot of time to post these things over and over again. Wouldn't that time be better spent on something else? Anything else?
Because the more you post this stuff, the more you begin to stand out as being just one single individual with this extreme opinion. Frankly, stating something repeatedly doesn't make it any more or less true, and doesn't even mean any more people will listen to it. Labeling your opinions as "facts" doesn't help your case very much either. IIRC the last time I challenged some of your "facts" with actual metrics about e.g. the broken port count, you not only failed to respond with any kind of counter-argument, you just merely called me an epithet. This doesn't support your case either. Why should people pay any attention to your postings if you're just a broken record, and unwilling to even consider any information that runs contrary to your own apparently fixed opinions?
But I feel like I'm just wasting my time here. I think I'll go back to fixing actual problems in actual software, rather than trying to change the direction that the wind blows.
"FreeBSD also shines on older hardware compared to Linux (exempting Slackware or build your own.)"
I don't know about AlphaLinux, but I can tell you that installing FreeBSD on my Digital AlphaServer 1000 was almost suspiciously easy. It autopartitioned my drives, detected all my hardware, and in general just asked me how I wanted the network configured and what software packages I wanted, then took care of the entire thing itself. I really wasn't expecting that on such old, esoteric hardware.
+++ATH0
FreeBSD is, IMHO, a BAD choice for a desktop systems. It is not a good performer at all (and not being developed with desktop performance as a main goal).
Yeah, I guess you confused all of those outperforming-Linux releases with "dead."
Easy mistake.
No, the problem with FreeBSD is fuckwits like you. I'll just add that you have no idea about how Linux development works so just close your mouth before all the shit flying out of it hurts someone.
While speaking of the software ports collection, Debian Troll's Best wrote...
... where did you steal this one from?
Apple is quite the innovator in ports after all, being a pioneer of both USB and FireWire.
The Debian Troll gets the mods (yet again!) by trolling about hardware ports such as USB and Firewire. Yet another good troll
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
You must have nothing better to do then troll slashdot, which is fine. It's still more a waste of time then listening to a Captain and Tennille album.
/etc/sysctl (or you can use sysctl -w to add these):
Your link to the SysAdmin story is wonderfully entertaining, but you failed to realize those guys couldn't tune a FreeBSD, or any other *BSD box to save their life. FreeBSD ships with extremely small settings, and requires quite a bit of kernel tweaking via sysctl variables, and loader defaults (or recompile) for proper useage of memory, disk, and network performance on a high load, or high traffic system. (Such as SysAdmin is benchmarking in said test)
Quote from SysAdmin Magazine:
On FreeBSD: Append to
kern.maxfiles=65536
kern.maxfilesperproc=32768
The above are their "kernel tweaks", which I must say, is short of absolute hilarity. (All the fbsd admins are probably laughing with me too at these meager attempts to "tweak", by SysAdmin Magazine. This is just short of attempting to put a band-aid over a gash the size of your fist, and expecting the bleeding to stop.)
If you publish technical benchmarks, and state that your company is knowledgable and competent (Which I seriously question here.) atleast have the common courtesy to have someone experienced enough to tweak the server (as any large institution/corp/etc would, or like me, have a default sysctl.conf/loader.rc specifically for large load servers) Anyone who's ever admin'd a server with 15,000+ concurrent connections knows, a default FreeBSD box will "fall over and die" without tweaking. (More specifically, you'll fill up your mbufs, or exhaust your sockets, long before smashing the kernel to death.) After tweaking, it will easily do it with minimal load (dependant upon which services, obviously) as my servers are living proof of, along with Yahoo, and many, many others. FreeBSD's default kernel values are at very low, "safe" values, which in many areas will lead to much slower, degraded performance from what it is capable. (TCP Window Scaling is extremely low out of the box for just one small, yet very important example, and you'll see further ahead, this will easily lead to deathly slow socket connections, and such.)
The theory for this is, it should lead to a much more stable overall machine, albeit I've never had any of my tweaked machines reboot.
Quote from SysAdmin article:
FreeBSD performance decreased somewhat when more than 1500 connections were added.
I don't doubt this, as default FreeBSD install will have very minimal settings for max connections, max allocated sockets, max files per process, low fd's, again, low tcp window scaling, and more which for brevity I'll exclude.
To say FreeBSD performs worse than Linux, and Solaris, AND, Win... Absolutely laughable. I'm sorry, I've been in the UNIX/Networking field (traversing more medias than I wish to list) for over 12 years, I've run the entire gambit, and still do, so I find that statement highly offensive, because it's plain wrong.
To Sys Admin Magazine: Learn how to tweak a FreeBSD kernel, then run the test. We as the readers have an obligation to expect absolute technical perfection from those publishing these types of articles. Apples to Oranges.
More NetCraft fodder:
Seven of the top nine sites run on FreeBSD. The exceptions are Datapipe, which is doing a fine job of promoting the reliability of Windows 2003, and German hosting company komplex.net which runs on Linux.
Posted by mhp at 08:54 AM UTC on Jan 11, 2004
Had you ever contemplated the fact that FreeBSD, nor any other *BSD's success does NOT rely on how many people use it? We really couldn't care less. We'd love more userbase, and more contributors, who wouldn't? The fact that we have less users than Windows, or Linux, or OS X, is totally irrelevant to us.
A proj
Oh, and when I mean "gay" I don't mean "happy".
I mean fisting, cumguzzling, cock sucking, circle jerk, butt fucking, sperm licking gay.
and here is my leg :-)
:-)
http://acme-tech.org/images/tux-tat.jpg
Your tattoo is much better done then mine, I want it redone. Stupid ass cheap tattoo parlor... I want hexley too tattooed somewhere.
If this discussion was reversed, with the FreeBSD people saying the things that are being said by GNU/Linux people in a Linux announcment people would be moderated down fast. I am a FreeBSD fan and as I speak I am installing 5.2. But I can say that I have tried several GNU/Linux installations. In fact I have used Redhat, SuSE, College, Mandrake, Gentoo, Lycoris, and Slackware; I have a dedicated machine to testing, deploying and toying with OpenSource OS'es. After having tried those distributions I was able to determine what I liked the best. Now, having said that my main beef with the GNU/Linux people is that some of them have not taken the time to check out the system. I have taken the time to check out even the different branches of the BSD's and I like FreeBSD the best and I have my reasons.
In fairness to the BSD world, before people open their mouths and start to rant and rave about how BSD sucks and Linux is the best, and vice-versa, people should take the time to test them. Obviously if FreeBSD is now to 5.2 and has active development then it is not dying. Both Linux and the *BSD's have strong points and a week point. But there is no sense making this a religious war. Use whatever OS is best for the job whether that is Mac, Linux, Windows, or a BSD.
Just because I am using FreeBSD and Windows today does not mean that I will stay FreeBSD and Windows. I may switch to FreeBSD and Linux or Linux and Windows.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
It seems that FreeBSD 5.2 does not work with vmware nor the crappy virtual pc. Vmware throws "NOT_SUPPORTED" error, while virtual PC just hangs. I really wished i could test FreeBSD 5.2.
nt
FB5.2 soon crashes during installation on the latest version of VMware Workstation under WinXP SP1, when the disc1 ISO is mounted for the CD drive.
Nice, I've been meaning to give FreeBSD a try. My spare box has a hacked up AMD T-Bird that I tried (unsuccessfully) overclocking. Damn, the OCing never goes as smoothly as indicated in those articles. :^)
Kinda weird acting although I did install Solaris 9 x86 on it. Maybe some of that weirdness is Solaris choking on this weirded out CPU and mobo that isn't on Sun's (short) HCL.
looks like someone fell for an old troll
mod down parent
This I am aware of, as I've seen this identical posting atleast 4 times in other threads. I just had to go on record and disprove his mindless dribble, if not merely for my own satisfaction.
-mpf
Honestly, I wish there was some other reason, but it's the most clear and concise explaination.
/. ;)
So to your comment I say, Amen.
I don't watch TechTV, (infact, I utterly despise it) yet I remember the offmyserver.com postings about it, and if memory serves, all this seems to have started up around that time? Perhaps I'm mistaken, as I don't frequent
-mpf
Current Uptimes
I see lots of trolls posting NetCraft stats, so here's yet some more to entertain their lonely lives.
Dead you say? It must be so, look how long these machines have been up, it certainly time for something new.
Gander at which OS's dominate the list. This certainly doesn't mean anything, now does it?
For a dead guy, BSD sure has a lot of kick left in them. For those of you that're behind, plans are already being made for the 6.x branch of FreeBSD. That sure sounds like a dying OS, now doesn't it?
I've got no beef with Linux. I run Linux, and multiple BSDs, and have for over a decade. I've got a beef with trolls making false statements and any moderators that bump their post to informative.
*chuckle*
We're far from through.
-mpf
I've been running FreeBSD and Linux for over a decade, and I don't bash Linux, especially not to this depth. I've made comments on how it could improve, that's not bashing. I run it. I prefer FreeBSD as a server and desktop, but that's ME. To each his own. Something about running xf86, and having such a tiny OS footprint, is a very beautiful thing.
/. :) )
Trolls are posting absolutely hilarious things, which can't go unchecked. I think the funniest thing I've seen was: "It has no GUI!" There have been so many funny things said by them however, I can't keep track. Some of these Linux zealots have really gone off the deep end, to the point where it's just funny.
(Which is the only reason I started participating in these threads, or hopped on
It really proves how clueless so many of them are, as most of the time they're talking out their ass, and it shows.
-mpf
bullshit. Most FreeBSD users have used Linux at one time or another and have an appreciation for it. They know that "bashing" OS's is just stupidity, as each OS has its stengths and weaknesses.
.. even if you win, you're still retarded.
*BSD and Linux have an almost symbiotic relationship. If one goes away, no good will come to the one that remains. In fact, it would most likely lead to a bland and boring open source scene. I know this and I hope other people realize this. But alas, it takes just a few assholes to start up a pointless flamewar.
And speaking of flamewars, there's an old saying: Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics
Over and out.
bullshit
Bullshit for you, sir. I've been around the internet for ages (i.e. >10 years). I saw the whole entire flamewar begin. Sure the Linux users are a bit immature and zealous at times, but nothing takes the cake like how the *BSD users attacked Linux threads and users.. It was some time ago.. a few years at least, but I remember it clearly on Slashdot and other places.
They know that "bashing" OS's is just stupidity, as each OS has its stengths and weaknesses
I'm sure many *BSD users do, but I've observed enough *BSD zealots online and in person to know otherwise.
*BSD and Linux have an almost symbiotic relationship. If one goes away, no good will come to the one that remains. In fact, it would most likely lead to a bland and boring open source scene. I know this and I hope other people realize this. But alas, it takes just a few assholes to start up a pointless flamewar
I disagree. They have a completely independent codebase and Linux makes very little use of BSD code (while BSD can make zero use of Linux code - licensing issues).
BSD benefits mainly from a long tested and mature codebase. Linux benefits mainly from a strong community and corporate backing.
OK, so a simple, innocent question about BSD history / free software politics actually is totally off-topic on an article about BSD. OK mods...what article should I attach this question to? Believe it or not some of us are actually curious about where this all started.
Hey..I know...Ill make up a smart arse SCO comment about BSD..then Ill get modded +5 funny even though it has nothing to do with BSD at all.
I am Monkey, the Great Sage, equal of heaven!
Please cite a case where SCO has sued either a FreeBSD user, or the FreeBSD Foundation itself. I have seen no such mention anywhere. There has been some FUD from SCO but no legal action.
It is likely that SCO is enjoined from taking any such action as a result of the BSDI/AT&T settlement. Unless you cite some kind of source for your "information", it's just going to be clear that you are intentionally spreading lies.
5.8.1 is one config file setting away.
I find your views fascinating, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
I'll add mine here
;)
The biggest advantage to the FreeBSD ports vs. FreeBSD packages I've seen (and most activly use) is that whenever you compile any port from source it uses your global make.conf settings, as such all my ports are compiled with -O2 -mcpu=athlon-xp for those few less bytes and picosecond execution time.
Just my 2c while I buildworld to 5.2 and then portupgrade -aRrF
Music is everybody's possession.
It's only publishers who think that people own it.
Fuck Beta
~John Lenno
What is... FreeBSD 5.2-RELEASE Release Notes Alex?
Release Notes are obtainable via many methods, not just FTP. Neither FTP nor HTTP are inheriently superior to the other for the transfer of files, so your premise is rather skewed. For you to say HTTP is better fitted to serve that specific file is a moot point.
The main FreeBSD repository server is very busy, especially during release time. That's why there's more mirrors for FreeBSD than Michael Jackson has in "neverneverland ranch". So you can download from a mirror that's geographically closest to you, thus you don't go through fubar'd routing and such.
-mpf
*BSD doesn't wish to use Linux code. :)
:) I too have been an Internet junkie for long over a decade, before that, I was a BBS sysop/junkie :p) Whereas a lot of the Linux users, this is their first POSIX, UNIX-like operating system, and they might never have even installed a *BSD, or played with them for more than a few days. (Hardly long enough to derive an educated opinion)
I agree with you on the zealot issue, there's zealots in both camps. The difference I see is, many BSD users have been admins for years, and have ran Linux, or admin'd a machine running it, at some point in time. (Such as myself, I've been a Linux advocate and admin/user since kernel 0.99, albeit that first machine did very little on one of my networks.
Linus Torvalds: "Oh yeah? Well people compare Linux to BSD constantly. But there can be no comparison. Any time BSD does something better than Linux, we incorporate their code. But our performance wins can't be ported to BSD because the GPL prevents it. The code just flows one-way baby, so there's no real hope that BSD can remain competitive. It's embrace and encumber cats, embrace and encumber."
Reference: SlashNot
Linus blatently stating they rip BSD code at times, which is just fine by me. Yet if *BSD sucks so horridly as the Linux zealots have stated, then why ever rip or merge code from said codebase? Some Linux users certainly need to get their facts straight before shooting their mouths off.
Even if core members could rip Linux code, I highly doubt they'd ever want to. Infact, I'd bet on it. If not for their own arrogance (Not all of them are.), but then for the sanctity, and purity of the codebase.
I say this because: The BSD Vision seems to reinforce my belief. Just my $0.02.
-mpf
*BSD doesn't wish to use Linux code. :)
You speak for all of *BSD developers?
Linus blatently stating they rip BSD code at times, which is just fine by me. Yet if *BSD sucks so horridly as the Linux zealots have stated, then why ever rip or merge code from said codebase? Some Linux users certainly need to get their facts straight before shooting their mouths off.
Its nothing to do with facts. Its done to anger the *BSD zealots who have contstantly trolled Linux fourms over the years. No one who posts this stuff actually belives what they're saying (ever noticed how most of it is sarcastic?).
Even if core members could rip Linux code, I highly doubt they'd ever want to. Infact, I'd bet on it. If not for their own arrogance (Not all of them are.), but then for the sanctity, and purity of the codebase.
Well, I see that you took a nice cheapshot at Linux.
I highly doubt any of the legally copied *BSD code in Linux is just copied and pasted before it goes in
You speak for all of *BSD developers?
;)
Obviously no one does. I draw my conclusion from seeing their posts, and their logic.
This thread is about arrogance.
I was merely saying, arrogance is one obstacle in any possibility of merging code from Linux. (Theoretically, if it could be done.) There's exceptions to every rule. I think your misread what I'm saying.
I'm in no way implying Linux code is evil. I've got a debian box with an uptime that's only been affected by a severly long power outage, it's perfect for what it does.
Well, I see that you took a nice cheapshot at Linux.
No cheapshot, you misconstrue what I'm saying. Again, I'm not saying with any specificity that Linux code is unclean, plenty of parts of Linux code are great. I only say that because of many developer's mindsets, and The BSD Vision
and because of the Architectural Guidelines although it's open to interpretation I suppose.
I highly doubt any of the legally copied *BSD code in Linux is just copied and pasted before it goes in
I don't seeing anyone say that
-mpf
Even if core members could rip Linux code, I highly doubt they'd ever want to. Infact, I'd bet on it. If not for their own arrogance (Not all of them are.), but then for the sanctity, and purity of the codebase.
Actually, their new scheduler (SCHED_ULE) for example was copied almost verbatim from Linux's O(1) scheduler. Sure, change words around and claim its only vaguely based on Linux, but believe me as someone who has read both sources - its a blatant rip off.
FTP imposes a lower threshold connection limit than HTTP. FTP requires lots of chatter on the wire to be able to just receive a file. So, to say that one is not superior to the other is just wrong. HTTP is better suited for the transfer of files *inherently* because of its low overhead.
Actually, their new scheduler (SCHED_ULE) for example was copied almost verbatim from Linux's O(1) scheduler. Sure, change words around and claim its only vaguely based on Linux, but believe me as someone who has read both sources - its a blatant rip off.
:)
Wrong. Linux ripped the ULE from FreeBSD. Proof Here NOT the other way around.
I'm QUITE sure the code you read on your Linux box is very nearly identical to that of the code in FreeBSD, BECAUSE IT WAS RIPPED FROM FREEBSD BY Francesco Sportolari.
Jeffrey Roberson wrote FreeBSD's ULE, and I'M QUITE sure he'd be rather bothered by your accusations. ULE was designed as an improvement for SMP based systems, yet FreeBSD's scheduler is, and has been 0(1). Perhaps read This sometime. Also ULE is *NOT* the default scheduler, it's still SCHED_4BSD, atleast up until 5.1.(I don't run any 5.2 boxes, my only 5.x boxes are non-production)
Be sure you get your facts straight before you go off making false accusations against FreeBSD, and it's extremely talented and hard-working developers.
I love Linux for what it's accomplished, and I love *BSD for the same reason.
My personal preferance is FreeBSD, trying to change that is like trying to tell me that Chocolate Ice Cream is better than Vanilla.
-mpf
and quit marking me off-topic, I'm not!
FTP imposes a lower threshold connection limit than HTTP.
This is solely based upon individual's configurations.
The excess "overhead" of the FTP protocol introduces trivial amounts of added traffic, especially in today's high bandwidth internet. This is a moot point, and one that should be discussed elsewhere, however I'll atleast respond.
If you don't live under a rock, you know mark-up language adds tags obviously. In turn which adds to the size of the file. The following are the i386 Release notes for 5.2-RELEASE:
58K RELNOTES.HTM
30K RELNOTES.TXT
As you can see, the HTML file is much larger - nearly DOUBLE, which will surely result in MORE traffic. I'm sure there's not 28k of extra over the wire traffic due grabbing this file via FTP as opposed to HTTP. Even if there were say ~30k overhead due to the ftp session, (Which I *know* grabbing this 1 file, would not generate that kind of traffic) then they balance out as equal in the end. (Obviously interpreting hypertext will cause "more" cpu load than opening a plain text file)
I agree with you on a whole that serving content is usually better left to the tender loving care of an HTTP server. That's for many reasons, which aren't all specifically protocol based.
End result, I don't know what you were smoking that lead you to beleive you could only get FreeBSD's release notes via FTP, nor how that would tie into FreeBSD's viability as an Operating System.
-mpf
Wrong? What do you mean wrong? Yes, Francesco Sportolari's patch ports interactivity work from FreeBSD to Linux.
The actual guts of the O(1) scheduler were written by Ingo Molnar for Linux, and that was then taken for SCHED_ULE. Read THIS
And in case you don't, I'll quote:
"Linux has also recently recieved a totally rewritten event driven scheduler from which ULE's queueing system was derived."
I didn't say that FreeBSD's 4BSD scheduler wasn't O(1), or that ULE was the default scheduler, so I don't know how that is relevant to the argument.
I won't go off making false accusations because I do have my facts straight. Get yours straight before you falsely accuse me of making false accusations.
I never said FreeBSD was bad, its great. It really gives me the shits when people try to say things like linux takes heaps of good FreeBSD code, and FreeBSD wouldn't touch Linux code even if they could type of things. Or when they say
FreeBSD is more stable
FreeBSD is more secure
FreeBSD is more scalable
FreeBSD is more robust
FreeBSD has a better networking stack
FreeBSD is better under load
etc.
Without *anything* to back them up. I mean, what the fuck do I look like? An idiot manager type who laps up the buzzwords and lack of content?!? Quite apart from half the claims being blatantly false, the other half of them have not been measured for a long time.
Oh, and by the way, Francesco Sportolari's work was hardly looked at twice (no offence to him) because at that time SCHED_ULE was having more trouble than Linux's O(1) scheduler wrt interactivity.
Actually, you're wrong. ULE is based on the O(1) scheduler, but has some extra stuff for interactivity. The page you pointed to was a patch to O(1) to add this extra interactivity stuff.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...