FreeBSD 5.3-BETA3 Available

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Monday September 6, 2004 @02:40PM from the you-may-avail-yourselves dept.

hugo_pt writes "FreeBSD 5.3-BETA3 has just hit the ftp/cvsup servers. This new beta aims at correcting some known bugs from BETA2, mainly on ACPI and the schedules. It also improves several system utilities, such as bsdtar. More details available here FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE is expected October 3rd."

24 of 81 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Trying out FreeBSD by AresTheImpaler · 2004-09-06 14:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

Ok, I want to try one of the BSD's. Which one should I get? this FreeBSD? Or Which one would you recommend? Also, whre can I find some good documentation with the linux compatibility mode of the BSD's? I tried google, but I get too much crap in the first 20-30 results..

Thanks
1. Re:Trying out FreeBSD by Inominate · 2004-09-06 14:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Grab freebsd 4.10. 5.x still has some odd quirks.
2. Re:Trying out FreeBSD by Fweeky · 2004-09-06 15:11 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Some good documentation.
3. Re:Trying out FreeBSD by wirelessbuzzers · 2004-09-06 15:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I've been running FreeBSD 5-CURRENT. It's been more or less stable, not as much as 4.10, but hopefully it will be getting more so with the establishment of a 5-STABLE branch.
  
  The plusses: 5.x is faster, especially on an SMP or hyperthreading machine. It also supports goodies like ACLs and snapshots.
  
  Try the Handbook for Linux compatibility mode.
  
  --Mike
  
  --
  I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
4. Re:Trying out FreeBSD by grilo · 2004-09-06 16:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Try FreeBSD 5.3 when it's out. If you can't wait almost a month, give a go to 5.2.1. It will be painless to upgrade to 5.3.
  
  The STABLE branch is, as it's named, quite stable, but it doesn't have the new scheduler (ULE), and stuff like that. If you're looking for a desktop experience, try the most recent 5.x release, if you're looking for a server, I advise you to take a peek at 4.x.
  
  But if you're looking to find the ultimate desktop, you can look somewhere else. I've been a long time FreeBSD user and I recently tried Fedore Core 2, and I'm in awe with the integration supplied.
  
  FreeBSD is the ultimate server Operating System, but the ports team, in general, still can't match the level of integration provided by vendors like SuSE and RedHat (even Mandrake, for that matter), so keep your hopes low. On the other hand, the ports system really lifts any problem with dependencies, and everything. The package management facility is, in my humble opinion, much better than anything else I've seen.
  
  Nevertheless, give it a shot, it won't hurt. Just don't think you'll have the ultimate desktop waiting for you.
  
  By the way, FreeBSD is currently on ports freeze, which means no new ports will be added, in order to concentrate all of the resources in making sure every port builds as it should. Usually, several dozens of ports are added each day, but while the freeze lasts, only port fixes will be committed.
  
  Have fun! :)
5. Re:Trying out FreeBSD by CoolGopher · 2004-09-06 18:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  For best stability, go for FreeBSD 4.10. For the latest features, wait for 5.3 to be released. At the moment I'd roughly compare the two to Linux kernel 2.4 vs 2.6 - pretty much the same deal.
  For Linux compatibility, you should probably start reading chapter 10 in the FreeBSD Handbook.
6. Re:Trying out FreeBSD by noselasd · 2004-09-06 19:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I felt at home with NetBSD
  Nice and clean, and good docs.
  Some info on Linux emulation on NetBSD
7. Re:Trying out FreeBSD by Moridineas · 2004-09-06 19:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I would probably simply wait (as others have suggested for 5.3).
  
  though I'm running a 5.2.1 server and it runs fine--5.3 has a number of goodies like X.org default, much better SMP support, etc.
  
  Check out the FreeBSD handbook http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/h andbook/index.html for info on all things FreeBSD, as well as Linux binary support.
8. Re:Trying out FreeBSD by Xenophon+Fenderson, · 2004-09-07 00:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Try FreeBSD out first. It has the nicest installer. Then take a spin through NetBSD and OpenBSD. The installers aren't as pretty, but the rest of the operating system is configured and operated pretty much the same across all of the BSDs. In general, I am very impressed with the state of documentation. There are numerous resources on the web (e.g. the FreeBSD handbook and documentation project), and the manual pages are unusually complete compared to your typical Linux distribution.
  
  You should probably dedicate a disk to this procedure, as configuring dual boot (duel boot?) can require some wizardry. They all run very nicely under VMware.
  
  Where BSD falls down is on the availability of current binary updates. On FreeBSD 5.x, incremental security updates must be applied to the source code, then the O/S is re-compiled. The whole procedure is easy, in the sense that you type about five short commands to execute the whole update and build procedure, but it is very time consuming, especially on older hardware. Ports are even "worse": If you want to be current, you will most likely be building ports from scratch (also very time consuming when they upgraded to X.org, heh).
  
  --
  I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
9. Re:Trying out FreeBSD by raadradd · 2004-09-07 01:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  though I'm running a 5.2.1 server and it runs fine--5.3 has a number of goodies like X.org default
  
  Simply set X_WINDOW_SYSTEM=xorg in you /etc/make.conf, deinstall XFree86 and install Xorg. For more details check the 20040723 entry in /usr/ports/UPDATING.
10. Re:Trying out FreeBSD by phoenix_rizzen · 2004-09-07 06:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It will not be painless to upgrade from 5.2.1 to 5.3.
  
  The upgrade will require a recompile of *ALL* installed ports due to the changes in threading libraries and the new version of GCC (3.4) in the base system.
  
  A lot of kernel options have also been turned into sysctls requiring a thorough read through /usr/src/UPDATING to figure out what to remove from the kernel config file.
  
  The default version of X11 has been changed to Xorg and a new make.conf variable has been introduced to allow you to choose which one you want. Blindly upgrading X apps without setting this, or setting it to the wrong version, will cause problems.
  
  Highly recommended that people start reading the new /usr/ports/UPDATING file after every ports tree update.
  
  There have been a *lot* of changes between 5.2.1 and 5.3. The recommended, and best, method for upgrading from one to the other is to:
  1. Backup all your data and config files.
  2. Install 5.3 from the CD or FTP.
  3. Install all the apps you want to use.
  4. Restore your data and config files, as needed.
bsdtar by FullMetalAlchemist · 2004-09-06 16:54 · Score: 4, Informative

The bsdtar is so much better than gtar I think it will replace gtar even in most Linux distributions.
It automatically handles compresson (like gzip and bzip2).

My only beef with 5.X series is the fact that even though perl is out, it still is way too large; so I need to build my own releases for CD that doesn't have sendmail etc.
No biggie but still a tad bit annoying.
1. Re:bsdtar by Korpo · 2004-09-06 19:39 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Well, I don't think quite so. Not because I think bsdtar has no technological merit. I've got good reason to believe so, because gtar is known to be not very good.
  
  The crdrecord guy rewrote gtar, because it is in a state where it is almost no longer maintainable. He committed his version. Maintainers were happy. But Stallman said: We've already got a working gtar and basta!
  
  At least that's what I've heard.
  
  Given that most distributors stick with the whole GNU package, bsdtar, whatever its merits are, is more likely to be an addon package, and not the default tar on any Linux distribution.
  
  It surely would make a nice /etc/alternatives option in Debian for tar, where it would integrate nicely! But Debian is always more flexible and open in a lot of respects (Debian GNU/BSD anyone? ;) ) than other distribs.
2. Re:bsdtar by FullMetalAlchemist · 2004-09-07 00:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Here is a short version of what I normally do.
  You will need to customize the buildworld procedure to your liking, and that's about it.
3. Re:bsdtar by jsonn · 2004-09-07 02:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It sounds like Stallman had a point. You don't go around rewriting things for the sake of it. Does gtar need constant development? No, it's in a stable state. As I recall, automated testing of the GNU toolset compared extremely well with other versions - you don't throw away that stability just because the code is ugly.
  The whole point of Stallman was that Schily as German didn't want to hand over the copyright because he's legally not allowed so. Also GNU Tar is not stable. It is incompatible with almost any other tar on the world. Yeah, that's not a problem for the GNU guys, "Our tar is better, use it". Heck, the code is not only ugly, it is full of bugs.
4. Re:bsdtar by jsonn · 2004-09-07 07:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, I have heard of --posix. I also know that it does not work. It doesn't create POSIX-compliant archives and even the manpage admits it. This is something I call a bug. There are various situations which GNU tar fails to handle correctly either by failing or creating correct streams. The FSF way of testing GNU tar is testing that GNU tar does what GNU tar is supposed to do. Not tar, GNU tar. I don't call a tool stable, if it does fail to work correctly.
  For the copyright issue, like most European nations, the German copyright is based on human rights, you can't sell it. You can share the copyright, you can give an exclusive license, but it is not possible to completely hand over all your rights. Beside, this is something I as a developer would never do.
5.3 question by Korpo · 2004-09-06 19:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Out of curiosity and ignorance:

Is FreeBSD 5.3, when it's finished, the new stable or the new current release, or both?

I've read somewhere around here, that 5.3 should replace the 4.x series as stable, finally.

So, is that true?
1. Re:5.3 question by DashEvil · 2004-09-06 19:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  6.0-current has already been branched. When 5.3 hits it will be -STABLE.
  
  --
  -If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
Binary updates by n0dez · 2004-09-07 02:53 · Score: 3, Informative

Try these:

FreeBSD Binary Updates
http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-update/

FreeBSD/KDE packages
http://rabarber.fruitsalad.org/

FreeBSD/GNOME packages
http://www.marcuscom.com/tinderbox/

Want more?
BPM; a graphical ports collection manager for FreeBSD
http://www.meowfishies.com/bpm.rhtml

http://www.n0dez.com/
1. Re:Binary updates by Xenophon+Fenderson, · 2004-09-07 09:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, while Colin Percival recently began providing updates for FreeBSD 5.x, he only builds updates for X86 architectures. The KDE and GNOME binary packages are likewise X86-only. But none of this matters even on X86, because if you are regularly cvsupping ports, up-to-date binary packages are not usually available. For example, the latest www/apache2 binary for FreeBSD 5.2.1 is Apache 2.0.48, which is vulnerable to denial of service attacks, yet 2.0.50 is in the current version of ports. Not that "portupgrade -a" is difficult to use, just time consuming and occasionally broken.
  
  By the way, have you ever run into problems where portinstall doesn't install or mis-calculates dependencies (even when compiling from source)? If I install lang/cmucl, misc/compat4x won't get installed, even though it is a dependency. Subsequent portupgrade commands complain about misc/compat4x missing, even though (strangely enough) cmucl has no problems. I don't know if it is a problem with portutils, pkgtools, ports, or the cmucl package itself. I'm open to any suggestions. I've also seen portupgrade complain about dependencies when required packages rev, e.g. portupgrade complaining about missing wget 1.9 for Nessus, when wget 1.8 was installed but not yet updated.
  
  --
  I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
Re:why FreeBSD 6 when no Linux 2.7 ? by Cochonou · 2004-09-07 03:35 · Score: 2, Informative

FreeBSD has two binary mecanisms: one for the base system (security updates) provided through freebsd-update, and the package system which is an alternative to compiling the ports by yourself. The packages usually lag the ports by a few weeks.
Re:why FreeBSD 6 when no Linux 2.7 ? by drmerope · 2004-09-07 04:53 · Score: 5, Informative

The FreeBSD model has always been that features and patches are tested in -current and then merged down to -stable and tested some more until it comes time for the next release from -stable.

This tiered approach exists to support three types of users: the developers (-current), sysadmin's test environment, impatient users (-stable), production environments, conservative users (-release).

5.0, 5.1, 5.2.1 were all preview releases--somewhat stabilized snapshpts of -current. 5.3 should be available for general adoption.

Thus, the existance of 6.0 does not reflect a change in developer focus but rather the adoption of conservativism on the 5.x branch (prior testing in -current required before merging) that is in keeping with it becoming a -stable branch from which real -releases are made. You can rest assured that bugs in 5.x will continue to be fixed and tested in 6.0-current and after some verification the fixed will be merged down to 5-Stable.

FreeBSD also maintains a POLA (principle of least astonishment) which prohibits any major behavioral/interface/abi changes from appearing in a -stable branch. (Basically you are nearly certain that an application that runs properly on n.0 will run properly on n.10).

6.0-Current exists as a proving ground for those features which would violate POLA.
Re:Check out the 5.3 To-Do List. . . by shlong · 2004-09-07 05:21 · Score: 3, Informative

Is it just that this list is unmaintained, or is 5.3 going out the door with some of these items left undone?

This is the list of things that will be fixed before 5.3 goes out the door. Releaseing 5.3-BETA3 is not the same as releasing 5.3-RELEASE.

Is this the version of 5.x that is to be considered stable?

That is the intention, yes.

--
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
Changes and upgrade docs by ivoras · 2004-09-07 08:51 · Score: 4, Informative

This article is a preliminary overview (work in progress) of major changes from the 4.x branch, and notes on upgrading.
http://people.freebsd.org/~bmah/pub/article.html

--
-- Sig down