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.

Comments

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons

[Anonymous Coward]

RedHat 8.0 on the Dual Opteron in 32 bit.

Of course it works - I tried it too - but what is the point running a 32-bit OS?

I've heard good things about SuSE's 64-bit enterprise server-distro as well as the RedHat Enterprise Linux, but you can't download them for a testdrive. Sorry. I won't buy something that I can't try first.

AMD64 is a Tier 1 FreeBSD platform - not Beta like the Linux distros and it just worked.

Re:Question

[Florian]

> I'm happy with my Linux system right now. It supports all my hardware
> and gives me a nice desktop.

Then there's no reason for you to switch. If you would instead not be
happy with your system and find that FreeBSD runs better on your
hardware, than this would be a reason to go through the hassle of
switching your OS.

After all, the differences between a GNU/Linux and a *BSD system are
practically user-invisible on the level of the desktop interface. Both
are, as a matter of fact, state-of-the-art Unix, but may not be called
so because of trademarks and expensive certifications (which, contrary
to popular make-belief, are not owned by SCO, but by the Open Group,
formerly X/Open).

The differences mainly concern the kernel (partitioning schemes and
filesystems, hardware drivers, module handling, packet filters, sound
and multimedia subsystems). Userspace differences in the init system,
package management and base OS/distribution tools are not bigger than
those between two GNU/Linux distributions. Slackware or Gentoo users
might even find Free/Net/OpenBSD more familiar than RedHat or SuSE.
There are subtle, but sometimes crucial differences in the commandline
userland between GNU/Linux and *BSD though, unless one installs the GNU
file and text utilities on *BSD and uses them as default (which is easy
and supported by the package management of all three free BSDs). The
KDE/Gnome/XFCE desktops act in a completely transparent manner, with no
visible differences, on top of GNU/Linux and *BSD.

Generally, the Linux kernel is best suited for a desktop system because
of its more advanced sound (ALSA) and video (video4linux) subsystems,
support for a wide range of desktop hardware gadgets (Webcams, graphic
tablets and the like), filesystems (including everything from Amiga to
Acorn...) and hardware-accelerated video card drivers (DRI/DRM, although
I read similar features are on the roadmap of FreeBSD and NetBSD), and,
since kernel 2.6, kernel preemption and low-latency functions. However,
FreeBSD should come close to Linux as it is optimized for the x86-PC
architecture and is a very good performer. NetBSD is, from my own
experience of running it as a secondary OS, not as fast, but still
surprisingly good for an OS that is developed with portability (and
hence abstraction/clean interfaces vs. optimization) as its prime
objective. IMHO, it is (very) roughly comparable with Linux kernel v2.0
in terms of performance and desktop computing friendliness. Installation
of NetBSD is a bit difficult (more so than even Debian), and the
necessity of creating classical BSD disklabels for every storage media
to be mounted can be highly annoying on a desktop system (for example,
if one wants to quickly mount someone else's USB stick). OpenBSD is,
IMHO, a bad choice for a desktop system unless security and crypto
features are the main requirements. It is not a good performer at all
(and not being developed with performance as a main goal).

Kernel-wise, FreeBSD's chief advantage over Linux used to be better
responsiveness under high system load and better virtual memory
management (which both gave/give FreeBSD an edge over Linux on servers
rather than on desktops). This advantage has gradually decreased through
substantial low-level improvements in Linux 2.0, 2.4 and now 2.6, which
AFAIK has lifted quite a bit from FreeBSD's advanced VM management.
Maybe Linux 2.6 is now on par, but still I wouldn't be surprised if
FreeBSD (and also NetBSD) would be more mature in this field. (For
example, I never succeeded in bringing down my two NetBSD boxes with a
fork bomb.)

-F