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

FreeBSD on Opterons

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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:FreeBSD on Opterons

[DA-MAN]

try this link

Finding a 64 bit SuSE is easy. This is not the Enterprise Edition, but if you want Enteprise, you will have to pay first.

FreeBSD 5 works fine in production, here

[linuxbaby]

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.

Re:FreeBSD 5 works fine in production, here

[zulux]

our company went ahead & did it anyway because we needed a gigabit ethernet driver that was only in FreeBSD 5 not 4.

The Broadcom Gigabit ethernet drivers that were needed were merged back into 4.8 and 4.9 - but 5.1 is so stable that we're not going to change anything.

(Did you buy some IBM eServer's too?)

Re:FreeBSD 5 works fine in production, here

[Anonymous Coward]

If 5.x is suitable for production or not depends a lot on your environment really. For running some web based services, esp. when building that based on standard tools (mysql, apache etc) will work very well, and in some cases works better then on 4.x

I run all my machines on 5.x now, but am strongly considering to move one machien back to 4.x, why?

Because I need stuff like mjpegtools, mplayer and the like to compile and work without trouble. Currently they give waaay too much trouble on 5.x to be usable for me.

Stability? 4.x has crashed on me a few times in the last couple of months, 5.x hasn't so far (at least not without there being obvious reasons like cpu/memory failure due to overclocking)

In a server setup, neither has crashed on me ever, and I run quite a variety of servers on 5.x now, and used to run those on 4.x (and 3.x before that)

Matter of fact is that 4.x simply gives me fewer surprises, and as such is more usable in a production environment, 5.x provides interesting new technology and as such is more interestign as logn as I have the time to deal with the startup issues.

Question

[Imperator]

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.)

Re:Question

[Bluesman]

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.

Re:Question

[karot]

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.

Re:Question

[kaiwainz]

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.

Re:Question

[linuxbaby]

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.

Re:Question

[bluGill]

It "feels" right. I grew up on BSD systems (okay, sunOS 4 wasn't exactly BSD, but it was closer to that than system V), so BSD feels right. I like the way it works.

The differences are subtile though. I can use either linux or BSD systems without problem, and if I don't do anything to find out which I'm using it can take a long time before I find a difference.

Traditionaly linux has supported more hardware, but sometimes that hardware wasn't so good. FreeBSD traditionally has better (faster) networking, and better support for server class hardware. (Years ago this ment if you went with SCSI you used FreeBSD, IDE you used Linux, but that was years ago) In these modern times both have good support for most hardware you are likely to find in the real world, or neither has support.

OpenBSD and NetBSD are not the same as FreeBSD. FreeBSD is faster and better suited to the desktop, though if the desktop is your goal, a lot of what you want on the desktop gets into linux first. OpenBSD is more secure, at least in their (extreemly limited) default install, I wouldn't run a firewall with anything else. Otherwise I'm not sure I'd bother with openBSD. NetBSD runs everything you are likely to care about, and it is supported. Linux may have had prots to more systems, but half those ports are broken is seems. So if you want to run that Vax in the corner, or some other strange macine netBSD is your only reasonable option. Once you run it one place it may be easier to run it everywhere. (Yes there are good reasons to run old hardware even though a typical desktop today is faster. Those who have good reason know who they are)

In summery: FreeBSD and Linux are mostly an issue of Ford vs Chevy. Some people prefer one over the other, but in reality the differences are not significant. NetBSD and OpenBSD are for specialized uses, but still worth useing for a lot of people.

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

Re:Question

[sremick]

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

Re:too bad

[archen]

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

cd /usr/ports/lang/perl5.8

make install clean

tada, you now have perl 5.8

Not quite.

[dinivin]

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

Re:Not quite.

[dinivin]

Yeah right. And the FreeBSD release team reserves the right to change anything under that directory at any point prior to the official announcement. They done it in the past. And thanks to Slashdot jumping the gun back then, too, some people ended up downloading bad code.

IT IS NOT OFFICIAL TILL THE RELEASE TEAM SAYS IT IS.

Excuse my yelling, but the release team has been over this with Slashdot time and time again.

Dinivin

Re:Not on Thinkpad X40

[cravey]

Well, according to this, they didn't start BUILDING RC2 until 2003/12/21. Two months ago, you probably would have built some seriously unstable code. This isn't -STABLE, it's -CURRENT. And if you'd done a upgrade from 4.x to 5.x without an intervening format, you'd have been in for some fun as well. If you'll look at the release notes, you'll also see that statfs(2) got a tweak that probably caused all sorts of problems for you if you weren't paying attention to the freeber-current list. Perhaps next time, you'll have better luck with something that's not in the MIDDLE of a development cycle?

recommend using FreeBSD as a desktop

[linuxbaby]

A little FreeBSD evangelism FWIW:

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:

• KDE 3.14 and its included apps
• the FreeBSD-native version of Opera
• the FreeBSD-native TextMaker word-processor
• Mozilla Firebird
• Everything like XMMS, Acrobat, and mplayer you know from Linux-land work just fine in FreeBSD

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.

FreeBSD 5 is not yet officially out

[agshekeloh]

Folks,

The mirrors are still updating. While 5.X is imminent, /. has once again jumped the gun.

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 /. has pre-announced the release and people got bad code.

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

Re:Suggestion

[thogard]

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.

Re:Curious

[doon]

Who uses it? Lots of People (Like Yahoo!).

How exactly is it licensed It is licensed under a BSD license.

Should I consider Running it? Short answer: Yes (but I am biased)

Long Answer: It depends on your applications. FreeBSD is a rock solid Operating System, also it is distributed as an entire operating system, as opposed to GNU/Linux where you have the Linux Kernel and then what ever utils/programs $VENDOR has built around it. We run it on 20+ servers here and have been really happy with it. I run it on Multiple boxes at home also. Then again the 2 of us here are kinda FreeBSD bigots. Here is my leg to prove it so my opinion might be biased.

Depending on your application, you really should run the best Operating System for the Job. I haven't found the one perfect OS yet. For instance if you are running Java app servers you might want to look at Linux for that as it's java implementation seems to be better( but FreeBSD's is getting there quickly). The nice part is it free and you can just grab The ISO's and try it out on a spare machine.

Re: Mandrake

[Bluesman]

>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.

Why *NOT* to use FreeBSD:

[scosol]

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.