Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FreeBSD 5.2 Released

Posted by Hemos on from the and-lo-it-comes dept.

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.

22 of 507 comments (clear)

  1. FreeBSD on Opterons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    FreeBSD was the only *nix distribution that installed cleanly on my dual Opteron with AIC7902W dual SCSI.

    Gentoo, Mandrake and RedHat crashed. Couldn't test SuSE because you can't download their 64-bit Linux.

  2. Re:FreeBSD 5 works fine in production, here by becauseiamgod · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Just another story that re-assures me completely switching to FreeBSD was the right choice.

  3. Question by Imperator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Question by Bluesman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One of the biggest selling points for me is the ease of administration with ports. The ports system is kept up to date VERY well, so it's rare to come across a port that's broken or that won't build. Also, it's really nice to be able to set compilation options so you never are searching for the "right" binary. Ports does it all for you.

      Also, the documentation is fantastic. The FreeBSD handbook has everything you could possibly want to know about system administration, and all the man pages are well maintained and actually there.

      As far as performance goes, I'm sure there's not much of a difference. The reason you'd want to switch is that you'd want a mature, complete system, rather than a hodgepodge of libraries and binaries. It makes it a lot easier and more enjoyable to get stuff done.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    2. Re:Question by karot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I used all 3 of these OS'es a while back in a datacentre. In those days (about 3 years ago) there was a concensus among many people that I worked with that:

      OpenBSD (2.7) = More secure due to better code reviews - Good for firewalls and gateways
      FreeBSD (4.8) = Better more efficient network stack - Good for webservers etc.
      Linux (RH 6.2) = Good alrounder - Good choice for desktop and for a much wider choice of prebuilt applications. Also OS du jour at the time.

      I would be very interested to see a good modern comparison of these OS'es, perhaps even with commercial *nix thrown into the analysis - HP/UX, AIX, Solaris and SCO for example.

      I bet they still all have their strengths and weaknesses now, just like they did then.

      --
      Enjoy Y2K? Roll-on Year 2037!
    3. Re:Question by kaiwainz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, since you asked nicely, I will reply nicely.

      Well, I like it from the point of the view that is is developed in the tradional way. There is good QA process, good community atmosphere which concerntrates on support users rather than giving a lecter on why their particular operating system "rocks their box".

      I also like the ports system and the fact that you can sync things so easily and compile everything in a nice clean mannor. Depencies are resolved via ports, updating the core is really easy and the speed, it is great. There aren't 100s of services running when using Linux and 90% of the time I am as confused as a baby in a topless bar over which to disable, enable or what ever.

      Also, the cool thing is, it isn't a cool thing. You don't have Red Hat screaming, 4 month using *NIX wantabees asking stupid questions. Sure, I used Linux for 5 years but now unfortunately, with the rise and perceived ease of use, we now have a whole new group of zealots and half witts.

      Oh well, back to my quiet yet stable life of MacOS 10.3.2 and FreeBSD.

    4. Re:Question by linuxbaby · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You're right that OpenBSD can be a little pokey and not the greatest Desktop. I went with OpenBSD first and was not thrilled - then I tried FreeBSD.

      On FreeBSD the ports are kept up-to-date faster. There are SO many more ports ready-to-go. Really a surprising amount. Like anything you ever needed, just go to /usr/ports and there it is, ready to install.

      No RPM hell. Just cd /usr/ports/multimedia/xmms ; make install clean. It downloads and compiles any dependencies from source. And a simple command can automatically upgrade ALL of your installs ports every night!

      I find FreeBSD faster and simpler than any Linux distro I tried.

      I still think OpenBSD is wonderful for making a bulletproof network-connected server or firewall, but if you haven't tried FreeBSD yet, I think it'll make a much better desktop.

    5. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      My reasons for using FreeBSD a lot are pretty straightforward.

      Overall consistency, completeness and attention to detail are important (consider the bootloader and kernel configuration, for example...).

      The ability to run a stable bleeding-edge system with decent manual pages for everything and run up-to-date software versions built from source. The only Linux distribution that lets me to build and manage the latest software using a reasonable mechanism (Gentoo) is, IMHO, a bit of a mess.

      It also "feels" different - e.g. compare the consistency and readability of dmesg output from kernel boot. The working devfs is nice, too.

      Note that I also have reasons why I want to use Linux sometimes - ALSA, reiserfs, many games work better etc., but you were asking for reasons why you might want to use *BSD.

      There is no single huge advantage for a regular user, but if you want to be able to track -current and rebuild your system often, like the ports collection, want to be able to set up IPv6 and IPsec easily out-of-the-box, value up-to-date documentation etc., it might well be worth considering.

      I wonder what has "seemed" much faster in Linux compared to OpenBSD, since there are few things that result in user-visible performance differences. If this was pre-softupdates, probably the filesystem; but then it was probably ext2 on Linux, and you can't really compare that to any of the *BSDs, which have never used unsafe filesystem mounts by default (unlike Linux up until it got journaled filesystems).

    6. Re:Question by Eil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't have Red Hat screaming, 4 month using *NIX wantabees asking stupid questions.

      I can tell you've never subscribed to questions@freebsd.org.

      Sorry, but the only reason you don't see at much n00bieism around FreeBSD is only because it's not nearly as much in the public eye as Linux is.

      Sure, I used Linux for 5 years but now unfortunately, with the rise and perceived ease of use, we now have a whole new group of zealots and half witts.

      I can remember the days when a person who owned a modem and dialed around to various bulletin boards was considered cool, mature, and intellectually superior to your garden variety computer geeks. But of course when the Internet started becoming more prevalent, bulletin boards started getting cast as low-tech and amateurish. Mid-90's: anything Linux was in, everything specifically non-Unix was out. Now it's the early 2000's and FreeBSD is the new geek fashion statement. Those who are just now jumping on the FreeBSD bandwagon are thumbing their noses down at Linux users and calling them names such as "zealots" and "half witts." (While we're here, I want the gentle reader to take a moment to ask who here is the real zealot?) New FreeBSD users are citing mostly the exact same reasons for using FreeBSD over Linux that Linux users cited for choosing Linux over Windows years ago, although they are now more subtle:
      • More reliable
      • More consistent
      • Better performance
      • Better development process
      • Freer license
      • Smarter developers
      • Smarter users
      • etc

      Trust me, it will take only a few years before the Next Big Geek Trend comes along and FreeBSD will not be the playground of the elite-wannabes. Instead, it will be relegated as a hunk of code that showed definite signs of promise but was ultimately hampered by too many "n00bs" joining the FreeBSD community thereby spoiling it for everyone. Or perhaps by an archaic, inflexible, development system or crochety old too-conservative developers. The particular excuse doesn't matter, only the fact that it will have gone out of style. The next new thing will be there to take FreeBSD's place.

      Don't think for a second that I don't love FreeBSD. I use it on my computers at home and have several patches on my todo list that I'd like to work on and submit to the FreeBSD developers when time permits. But I also use Linux and Windows on a regular basis as well. And I'm not going to sit here and lie to myself and others by saying that I wasn't totally infatuated with Linux and other geek trends in the past. That, I think, is the primary difference between an advocate and a zealot.
    7. Re:Question by sremick · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Disclaimer: I am not anti-Linux. However, here is why I like FreeBSD..

      1) PORTS. FreeBSD could win on this point alone. The ports system is AWESOME. I have never used Linux, but I hear a lot of people bitch about RPMs and "dependency hell". FreeBSD has dependencies but the ports system tracks all that. Every file, every version, every port is noted. I can just go to a directory and type "make clean install" and everything will be downloaded, built to my tastes, along with all dependencies and their dependencies and built in the proper order, then registered in the database. Daily I sync my ports tree and see what's new. If I want it, I can upgrade it (along with dependencies) safely with one command. It just doesn't get better than this. Recently, FreeBSD pass the 10,000 ports mark. There's also a nice overview of the ports system at Arstechnica.

      2) Stability. FreeBSD is notoriously stable. You can pick any Netcraft report (such as here, here, here, here, or here. ) for evidence of this.

      3) Consolidation. There is only one "FreeBSD". If I have 5.2 and you have 5.2, we have the same OS. There is no one "Linux". In reality, Linux is a kernel, and when you add a userland then you have a distribution. FreeBSD is kernel + userland.

      4) File organization. Linux seems to lay out its file hierarchy somewhat randomly, with no consistancy of where an installed executable binary might be placed or separation of base/user. FreeBSD has polished this and adheres rigidly to a formal structure. For example, I know my base system is under /usr/bin. When I install an app, I know it'll be beneath /usr/local/bin for console apps or /usr/X11R6/bin for X apps. Base config files are in /etc, while config files for stuff installed via ports is in /usr/local/etc.

      5) Community. I find the FreeBSD community to be less fanatical and instead more disciplined and polite. I feel like I'm getting help from someone wearing a suit & tie (though I doubt they really are..:) ) instead of a "LINUX RULEZ!!!" kid.

      6) Documentation. FreeBSD has EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION, which is helped by Reason #3. There are also a number of excellent books on FreeBSD, all of which in this list I own. Sure, there are a bazillion books on Linux, but FreeBSD doesn't need so many because there's just one FreeBSD, and once you get beyond the OS, the rest is specific to the application/server and is not OS-specific.

      7) Performance. FreeBSD is notorious for performing well. In fact, sometimes applications under Linux-emulation (see #8) run better than on a native Linux box. FreeBSD's TCP/IP implementation is also well-known for being very fast.

      8) Linux-emulation. Most stuff for Linux is available as open-source and can be compiled natively for FreeBSD (and is probably in the ports tree), but for the few binary-only things that aren't, FreeBSD can still run them. Some of the Linux stuff I run myself include RealPlayer, Acrobat Reader (although gpdf works well too), the Flash plugin (running in a native Firebird, btw), and maybe some other things I ca

    8. Re:Question by toggaM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The most noticeable difference between Linux (Slackware/Mandrake) and FreeBSD for me was speed. Booting/Shutdown and application running was visually noticeable. I was so impressed I bought the company! oh wait, sorry wrong product. I didn't buy the company, I just upgraded my 3 computers to FreeBSD ;-) I just bought a Mandrake Membership prior to switching over but I have no issue contributing to any *nix company for their efforts.

  4. Curious by CaptainAlbert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

    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. :) Zealots, do your worst!

    --
    These sigs are more interesting tha
  5. Re:Not quite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    FOSDEM - What would you say to convince a Linux user to switch to *BSD ?

    Henning Brauer - Well, I, like the majority of our developers, am not interested in religious wars. Every time _I_ have to deal with linux I am pissed by the in my eyes poor quality of the manpages, the incosistency in the system, and the often insane defaults. When I read Linux code I am scared by its often bad style, use of magic numbers, questionable hacks and obfuscation, compared to the clean code we try to use in *BSD. And often enough I am scared by a very sloppy dealing with copyright.

    I've been told KDE and GNOME run on *BSD, and I even saw that for KDE, and I bet there's not much visible difference for desktop users between linux and *BSD with one of those on top.

    For servers, the reduced complexity, saner defaults and better documentation in *BSD pays out quickly IMHO.

    A special case are firewalls - over the last, well, it's nearly 3 years, pf developed rapidly to a fairly impressive packet filter, with a lot of surrounding applications to turn it into bigger solutions. I don't see any comparable packet filter in the free world, and I dunno about commercial ones, bout I doubt there is any.

    Well, iptables may be able to do most of what pf can do, but it does many things wrong IMHO. And the concept of formulating firewall rules in command line options to some tool is so obviously flawed that everybody is using some frontend, with makes this further confusing and complaictedm and the resulting ruelsets worse, and... well, just compare to the beauty of a well written pf.conf.

  6. BSD packaging systems by Debian+Troll's+Best · · Score: 2, Interesting
    In a recent consulting gig, I've been tasked with looking after a few offices full of Mac OS X systems at a design company. As many of you would know, Mac OS X is based upon a FreeBSD Unix foundation, so it's capable of being useful to 'hard core' users such as ourselves, as well as presenting a typically user friendly MacOS face to designers and the like.

    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!!

    1. Re:BSD packaging systems by diamondsw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It should also be noted that early betas of Panther bundled DarwinPorts. That faded away in later builds, but most things that Apple has hinted at shows up eventually.

      Personally, I find fink (and the wonderful FinkCommander) to be extremely easy to use, but the inclusion of any simple access to ports/apt-get/etc would be a boon to OS X users.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
  7. Re:recommend using FreeBSD as a desktop by inode_buddha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been considering trying BSD but I have to wonder how well does it support *older* SMP machines? I have a dual Pentium Pro box just sitting here with ISA slots. BTW the ports system looks cool, from the examples in the comments.

    --
    C|N>K
  8. PowerPC by smeeze · · Score: 2, Interesting

    anyone know how well PowerPC is supported?

  9. PCMCIA support by Kazymyr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  10. FTP2 traffic by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    As always, it's fun to watch the traffic on the server when a new release comes out:

    here

  11. Live CD by Trejus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  12. Re:FreeBSD 5 works fine in production, here by grahamlee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Indeederoony, FreeBSD 5 is perfectly stable for production systems here, too. We use versions based on the Mach Microkernel, for Intel and for PPC. They're available here :-).

    Seriously, as far as FreeBSD-derivatives go, Darwin is very nice, if only for the Mach task scheduling, IOKit, SystemStarter, NetInfo, Apple/NeXT dynamic loader, fat binary support.... Show me another system on which you can build a single version of XFree86 that works with both PowerPC and Intel systems and doesn't even need an XF86Config file :-D

  13. Why *NOT* to use FreeBSD: by scosol · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.