Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 4.10 Released
lorand writes "After some delay (initially scheduled to be released on May 5th) the long awaited 4.10 version of FreeBSD was released today. It features a large merge of the USB code from the -CURRENT development branch, some conservative updates to a number of programs in the base system and many bugfixes. The detailed release notes can be found here. Use one of the many mirrors
if you need to get the ISOs."
feargal adds "There are no sweeping changes from 4.9, mostly a consolidation of security and bug fixes.
Looking forward, it is also the first in a new 'Errata Branch' which increases the scope of fixes applied. In the past only critical security fixes were applied to the release branch. The Errata branch will include local DoS fixes and well-tested non-security fixes."
The 5.x branch is mostly ready (indeed, I know many people running 5.2.1 without any problems); when 5.3 is released in a few months, it will be the recommended option.
:-)
The continued maintainance of the 4.x branch is largely for the benefit of those users who -- for good reasons -- are incredibly paranoid about moving to anything new. Users like large banks, for example.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
4.x and 5.x are different products. People who know are going to be running 4.x on servers for the next several years, no matter what happens with the 5.x train. All of my servers are 4.9 right now, I have 5.2.1 on a lappie just to get familiar with it.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
I swear that I'm no BSD zealot, but that's pretty impressive.
If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.
Obvious troll for "who uses" ... ftp.cdrom.com, anyone? Anyways, I've never have issues with device support, except in the VERY early releases of 5.x. I've loaded FreeBSD on hundreds of machines of various manufacture, without a hiccup. If anything, they support too much, to the point where I'd cut all of the excess from the kernel after installation. IDE access times? You're kidding, right? If you want extraordinarily fast access times and throughputs, why are you using IDE drives to begin with. Technical arguments aside, Beastie is so much cooler than Tux. And if you don't like that, I'll have him stab you with the trident.
Nothing but the finest in meaningless drivel
So why-oh-why would anybody chose FreeBSD, since it's basically GNU/Linux without the Linux portion, with the FreeBSD kernel instead, with some Linux compatibility bits, minus the performance and hardware support? and please don't tell me it's good for routers, NetBSD or OpenBSD are better for that.
d :). FreeBSD has its own libc (GNU/Linux has GNU's glibc) and most of the userland is BSD although the C compiler and some programs are GNU. I guess that some people like the development method of FreeBSD and that it provides a complete OS which isn't the case in GNU/Linux land. Linux is only a kernel. FreeBSD is an OS.
The thing you are describing is of course Debian GNU/kFreeBSD: http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/gnu-libc-base
I find this review highly questionable. The writer seems to use loaded language about "surprises during install". This language seems to imply that FreeBSD is somehow difficult or less than perfect.
The author also went through the trouble of writing about and taking a screenshot of a rare bug during install that I have never actually seen in all the time I have been using and installing FreeBSD.
I found the text install for FreeBSD to be a relief when compared to the many varied GUI Linux installs out there. It is like a mac: it tells you exactly what you need to know, and clearly defines your options. No it isn't easy for a complete novice! I don't want an OS that is made for a novice. By the same token, Linux is far from easy to install, and don't even get me started on a Windows install.
Macs on the other hand are a different story...
In any case, I learned nothing new in the above article except that distrowatch is obviously Linux biased. They seem to review FreeBSD as a novelty instead of a serious hardcore OS.
I am glad 4.10 is on RELEASE. I don't care if anyone likes or things BSD is easy. It is my little secret, and I think that is cool.
It just works.
can someone please explain to me why /.-ers say bsd is dying (i realize the parent is joking)? is it just fud or does someone actually have evidence of declining bsd use or development?
The 'bsd is dying' is FUD. I would imagine that the myth is being perpetuated by a few who for some reason couldn't get it installed. It very well could be due to their lack of ability or desire to read the documentation.
There is a big difference in the attitude of FreeBSD in that most FreeBSD users really don't care what operating system you use. If its linux that works for you best, then by all means use that. There's room for plenty of choices and everyone need not be alike and all do the same things. If we did, then that just a mono-culture of a different color.
It only takes a glance to see that the number of applications that have been ported to FreeBSD continue to grow:
http://www.freebsd.org/ports/growth/status.png
Its approaching 11,000 ported applications with new ones being added every day. If it were dying, wouldn't it stand to reason that there'd be a lack of development?
Many people choose FreeBSD because of its maturity (its been around longer than linux) and the professionalism that the project demonstrates. The solid stability and conservative nature of FreeBSD often makes it the choice for many users.
Open source is all about choice and embracing the diversity that is out there. Some of the linux (and other) zealots need to come to grips with the fact that people are all different and have different needs and goals than they do. I'm sure they could better spend their time doing bug fixes, writing documentation or new applications.
Also, I find that if you like being able to manually configure your system (text files and all), FreeBSD is actually a lot easier to fully understand and use than most Linux distros.
He does have some very positive things about FreeBSD, like its being the fastest distro he has ever tried. Like it or not, this is my personal experience too - it just seems faster compared to my earlier linux distroes (on the desktop - my primary use of FreeBSD) on the same machine. This isn't exactly a popular opinion around here - well around anywhere, now I expect tons of quotes of synthetic benchmarks - yeah, I know about fefe, and no I DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF! - but this is how it feels, can't help it :P
Someone else pointed out Packages so I'll try to enumerate things I like about FreeBSD:
/usr/bin and installed packages in /usr/local/bin. So when I do a system upgrade, only /usr/bin is updated. Linux's behavior of putting everything in /usr/bin drives me nuts.
1. Stability. The -stable branch (right now 4.x series) is ROCK SOLID. Even with a saturated CPU load, it is responsive and doesn't crash. It rivals commercial unix for stability in high-load environments. I think one can get linux to do this using a very stable kernel (ie, not the latest) or distributions (debian stable). The -current branch is less stable. I've had two kernel panics with it in the last year.
2. Saner release cycle. With RedHat and others constantly upping their version numbers, it is nice to see branches supported for long periods. 3.x got security updates for a long time, and I know 4.x will too after 5.x becomes stable
3. Saner Design. Unlike Linux, each release of FreeBSD dictate kernel+base system. Other packages are installed afterwards. Due to this, upgrades are a snap, as each cvsup, makeworld gives you a new release of FreeBSD but leaves your apps alone. Maybe to some people this is bad (KDE not being upgraded), but for servers this is ideal.
4. Part of No, 3, but oh well. Saner directory structure. Maybe I'm old school, but I *like* having all the base system (bin utils, etc) in
5. Documentation. man will give everything you want, but there is also the Handbook, which in my opinion is only rivaled by Gentoo's. It is well written, clear, and easy to find.
So you can see where FreeBSD is geared towards--servers. As such, it is great to set-up, maintain, and run services on it, but it also has downsides, like lack of hardware support (can't have flaky hardware and drivers ruining uptimes). I suggest you try FreeBSD for your server needs, but stick to Linux for more general use, especially if there is no driver support for your favorite hardware.
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
First of all, if you are happy running Debian or whatever, why bother seeking other alternatives? If your time is as precious as you say, then why are you considering other alternatives? Honestly, if you can't think of a reason to use FreeBSD, then you probably don't need to run FreeBSD.
You are right, FreeBSD relies on the ports system and building from source to a greater degree than your typical Linux system. I usually cvsup the kernel about once a month and rebuild the world and kernel. It virtually always works exactly as advertised, and maybe takes ten minutes of my attention. I'm have modest desktop requirements (I don't use Gnome or KDE, in large part because they have large numbers of requirements and are frequently updated with little effect on my overall productivity). I mostly keep up to date on Python, Apache and a few assorted Python modules. The rest, I simply don't worry about keeping up to date on.
Finallly, f you are really in the mood for binary packages, you should learn about "pkg_add -r".
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
Very true about the article not being too bad. I may have been a little too eager to call bias, but it did seem a little unprofessional. I would expect a professional to just explain the facts. I don't care if he was surprised by something FreeBSD did or if he is confused by the differences between BSD and Linux. I just want to read a review of FreeBSD as an OS. If I want to read a comparision of Linux v. FreeBSD I will seek a more comprehensive source, or at least an article whose scope claims to be a comparision of the two.
FreeBSD does seem very speedy. As for anecdotal evidence: It is absurd how easy it is to take old equipment that can barely run win98 anymore and load it up with FreeBSD. I have a Pentium Pro 200 and K6 233 with 64 MB of RAM in my basement. They can run all the latest versions of Apache, MySQL, Sendmail, and some other daemons and still be reasonably responsive. The CPU load averages are extremely low too. These machines were dead to the Windows world, but have found new life as frankenstein FreeBSD machines. So far they have functioned flawlessly running FreeBSD 5.2 despite being 8 years old! Now that is a return on investment.
So what is Linux 2.4.20 to you?
-If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
Maybe I'm just old school, but reading 4.10 as different from 4.1, and also as *greater* than 4.7 just fucks with my logical mind.
Why bother with this nonsense when it flys in the face of the earliest of floating-point mathematics?
The dot in the version number has nothing to do with the mathematical dot, just like the dot at the end of this line doesn't.
Also, following your reasoning you will have great difficulties with the concept for minor revision numbers like 2.2.7 and 5.2.1...
For what it is worth, if you're doing version comparisons and are treating the numbers as mathematical values, your algorithm is broken by design. The right way is to split the version number by the dots (so you get a 4 and a 10) and compare them with the other splitted versions.
Edwin
bash$