Slashdot Mirror


FreeBSD 5.3 on the Horizon

underpar writes "ZDNet UK is reporting that FreeBSD is nearing a code freeze. August 15th is the deadline which will be followed by the usual beta testing and a final release hoped for by October 1st. ZDNet interviewed the software engineer leading the release work, Scott Long, for the article. He says: 'The 5.3 release will be the first one where we see the real benefits of that. The multithreaded network stack will outperform everything we've done before, for running applications such as Apache or MySQL.' Status reports can be found on the FreeBSD website." I've been using the last technology release of FreeBSD for some time now, and am really looking forward to the 5.3 release, as well as the 5-STABLE branch that's rumored to follow soon after.

13 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Explain something! by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can someone please explain how FreeBSD goodies like updated 5.3 code would make it's way into Mac OS X? How long might it take, what bits, etc, have moved in past releases?

    1. Re:Explain something! by Kyro · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, 10.3 had bits of FreeBSD 5 in it according to Apple's page for it.

      And according to the tiger preview page it's based on FreeBSD 5.x - so that would probably be 5.2.1.

      --
      save the GNUs!
  2. Apache on FreeBSD by FireChipmunk · · Score: 5, Informative

    A patch I wrote for the CVS versions of Apache/APR to Add KQueue support has been added to the FreeBSD Port version of Apache.

    Just make the port with "WITH_EXPERIMENTAL_PATCHES=1" and you can get a 10-25% boost in performance. (depends on your traffic patterns..)

    Its a quick way to get more performance out of Apache on FreeBSD, without waiting for the 5-STABLE branch.

    -Paul Querna

  3. More BSD goodness by Fux+the+Penguin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I got into FreeBSD about 6 months ago and have not looked back. I was frustrated with RedHat and heard good things about the BSDs.

    I have been tempted to check out OpenBSD, because of the networking. This FreeBSD 5.3 status announcement mentions work being done integrating PF (updates?) and ALTQ (new to FreeBSD?)

    I'm working towards a site-to-site VPN deployment (hubs and spokes, of course) and am debating FreeBSD vs. OpenBSD. IPSec, queueing and redundancy (dynamic routing, perhaps DBU, and something like CARP) are requirements. Managability is important. "Room for growth" (transparent proxies, accounting, file/print services) would be icing on the cake.

    I figure it all could be made to work either way. Is FreeBSD's IPSec and firewall (IPFW/PF) as solid os OpenBSD? How about queueing? I'm a "seasoned newbee" on BSD... My experience is with the FreeBSD 5.x branch, but I'm not sure what all is changing with 5.3. I figure on diving into OpenBSD someday, it's just that time can be hard to come by.

    Any advice out there? Am I giving anything up if I commit to Free vs. Open BSD?

    1. Re:More BSD goodness by noselasd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, speed. OpenBSD is committed to secuity, not speed, and it
      has many rather slow internal algorithms.

      I'd suggest NetBSD. It too cares greatly about security, and imports
      lots of fixes from OpenBSD. And it's slimmer than FreeBSD. Not to
      mention solid. I've many times managed to make both OpenBSD and FreeBSD
      go mickey, but have yet to crash NetBSD.

  4. Re:Java support? by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Informative

    A native port is already there! /usr/ports/java/jdk-1.4.2

    p.s. If you want a prebuilt binary of jdk-1.4.2, then complain to Sun. They're the ones that prohibit the distribution of Java packages for BSD.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  5. snap! by captnitro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The following has been brought to you by IANAT (I Am Not a Troll).

    I've been using FreeBSD since long before it was apparently dying, since maybe the 2.x branch. I never tried Linux until this past year, because I live under a rock on the dark side of the moon.

    I tried SuSE, and it was great and all -- the setup was really nice -- but it's not there yet. In fact, I backed over it with 5.2 immediately afterwards. Why? Well, for day-to-day use, I didn't see any difference between Linux and BSD -- except the cluttered /etc, the fact that YaST didn't like me seeing the cluttered /etc, and this nagging feeling that it was a system of patched together parts, rather than a well-tested, stable "distribution" (note: I'm knocking the distro, not the kernel, and only slightly).

    When it came down to it, FreeBSD and a daily-updated ports tree seemed to "click together" better than Linux. For most other day-to-day use, there wasn't a huge difference, though I will say BSD was a tad 'snappier'.

    I urge those who haven't tried FreeBSD before to give it a chance. It's not that hard, and it is not, contrary to popular opinion, "better for servers". I play UT2004 and America's Army daily on my BSD box with no problems (thank you native nvidia drivers). What causes most people to gawk after seeing Linux is the text-mode installation -- which is just text menus, but still menus. (I've seen some installation programs that can make you wonder.. OpenBSD, I'm talking to you.)

    Last month I introduced FreeBSD to someone who had never, ever used *nix in any form before. After about an hour explaining different concepts (slices, ports and packages, rc.conf), she was off and running and actually, almost sadly, hasn't asked for my help once since then. She had X and KDE up and running within the day.

    So give it a try. We have no evil plan. (Except that, yanno, our mascot is related to Satan)

    1. Re:snap! by captnitro · · Score: 5, Funny

      Absolutely not. In fact, the mental image on my end is Tux, Clippy, and Daemon fighting it out.

      Tux is gone; he's cute, but has no defensive weaponry. Furthermore, he can't even fly, all he can do is repeat the Futurama quote to himself --

      Penguin: Full of fish?
      Bender: Not entirely.
      Penguin: Then let's fish.

      So it's down to Clippy and BSD Daemon, and maybe that Apple and his friend Darwin the platypus in the corner who're both giving moral support, but they're setting off fireworks because they like eyecandy and have a short attention span.

      Pretty much, the Daemon unwinds Clippy and uses him to open a stuck CD-ROM drive.

  6. Windows Network Driver Compatibility! by dokebi · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the article

    FreeBSD 5.2[3] will also introduce a software layer that lets Windows network drivers work with FreeBSD. This layer, dubbed Project Evil, means that wired and wireless network cards should be able to work with FreeBSD even if the manufacturers have not written any drivers for the operating system.

    This is totally awesome! FreeBSD network drivers are very reliable, but hard to come by for very new devices (eg. wifi). I would totally use this feature even with some reliability sacrifice.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
  7. Major improvements to jails too by bigberk · · Score: 4, Informative
    A hear from a friend of mine, who is also a BSD developer, that many improvements to jails are on the way in 5.3 (A reminder -- jails allow multiple virtual servers to exist within one system, allowing several customers to each have their own root). Some aspects of jails that have been improved:
    • More efficient resource usage among processes in different jails
    • Superior isolation between jails
    • Raw sockets etc. so you can finally ping and traceroute
  8. Re:FreeBSD Daemon by halivar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a life-long practicing Christian, active in my local church, with many practicing Christian friends, I just can not in good conscience use an operating system that uses an image of Satan as its mascot.

    Context is everything. The BSD "daemon" is in no way supposed to lead people in worship or in any other way lead people to violate commandment #1. In fact, as an open source project, I feel that projects such as FreeBSD and Linux best represent the kind of software development the Acts early church of the Apostles would do: communal. Honsetly, it is not menat the celebrate satan or represent some sort of mystic iconography.

    Microsoft, on the other hand (which you currently use in favor of BSD), is a perfect example of immoral greed (if you mods disagree; fine. I'm just calling it how it looks from here), which I find much more morally reprehensible than a cartoon devil; because unlike the cartoon, it is real.

    So, as a recent convert to Christianity, I find a great moral symbol in the fact that I run 100% open source at home, as opposed to corporate mammon.

  9. switcher by BoydWaters · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So I was a Gentoo zealot for two years, it helped to teach me (more than I wanted to know) about Linux.

    I got fed up with power-management issues on my employer-supplied laptop computer (a nice machine, but not Linux-friendly) and purchased a Macintosh PowerBook. Very nice, not as clean as Gentoo, but it got me interested in *BSD.

    My server was running Gentoo SeLinux until last week. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2.1 and I am *very* happy with it as a stable, secure server platform.

    Linux, Apache, etc. have lent legitimacy to Open Source, and BSD license is attractive to many who cannot otherwise use Open Source. So *BSD is helping spread Open Source, and to otherwise improve the quality of the aggregate code base.

    Since Gentoo was developed by someone who liked BSD but wanted the device-driver support of Linux, I feel that most of my skills transfer very quickly. I feel that my learning curve on FreeBSD helps me better understand Mac OS X, which has an installed base of about 12 million computers (if Apple is to be believed).

    BSD is dead? Hmm. I rather doubt it.

  10. Re:Recent FreeBSD switcher by tigga · · Score: 4, Informative
    doing a 'portupgrade -a' makes me long for 'apt-get dist-upgrade'.

    You know, 'portupgrade -aPP' is much faster, because it uses binary packages, as apt-get does.