Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FreeBSD 5.3-BETA4 Available

Posted by timothy on from the like-a-rock dept.

BrunoC writes "Once again, the FreeBSD Project presents yet another beta release of FreeBSD 5.3. FreeBSD 5.3 BETA 4 features major bugfixes for ATA, 4BSD is now the default scheduler and overall stability has greatly improved. BETA 5 should hit the streets next week and should be the last BETA and a Release Candidate is scheduled too. 5.3 should be around by October 3rd. ISO images are available for those who want to help the testing process." (Use a mirror.)

33 comments

  1. Odd... by keiferb · · Score: 4, Funny

    For a dead project, they sure release a lot of betas...

    Long live BSD! =)

    1. Re:Odd... by ValiantSoul · · Score: 1

      FreeBSD has never been dead. It isn't heard of as much as linux however it is used in many cases such as being the server that runs Yahoo.

      Gentoo's portage is actually based on FreeBSD's ports system which continues to grow at a great rate.

      If i was a mod I would mod you troll for not knowing anything about it before posting...

    2. Re:Odd... by keiferb · · Score: 1

      If you did, I'd have to mod you unable to detect sarcasm.

    3. Re:Odd... by ValiantSoul · · Score: 1

      My appologies, I typed it at 2:00am while I had a little too much to drink.

      The next morning I was thinking about responding to myself however I did not

    4. Re:Odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats wrong with all Linux guys claim *BSD dead ?
      Try the system before you whine over its future.

      FreeBSD grow daily.... get facts!

  2. FreeBSD == by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Death warmed over

  3. atapicam by dar · · Score: 3, Informative

    I notice that FreeBSD now has a scsi emulation layer for atapi devices. Very nice. Might be time to take another look at FreeBSD.

    --
    My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
    1. Re:atapicam by Sicnarf · · Score: 1

      is this a new feature? seems to me they've had it before.

    2. Re:atapicam by euclid+manatee · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure when it became available, but it's there in my 4.10 system. I use to to write DVD-Rs.

    3. Re:atapicam by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now has?? It's been in there since the middle of the 4.x series.

  4. ACPI Status? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will the ACPI work for broken implementations? I am talking about Sony Vaio's or old Thinkpads.

    ??

  5. Scheduler? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    4BSD is now the default scheduler

    How bizarre. They only just switched the default scheduler from 4BSD to ULE. Now they've swapped it back. Anyone know why?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:Scheduler? by beholder77 · · Score: 1

      I think they said in the release that it had to do with stability issues with some optional kernel settings.

      Dunno about the rest of you guys, but I find the 4BSD scheduler smoother on my single CPU boxes. Then again I have crappy hardware, so who knows why that would be :)

      --
      Success is as dangerous as failure, hope as hollow as fear.
    2. Re:Scheduler? by anholt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Part of it was that there were problems with ULE and PREEMPTION, which we really hope to have working for the release if possible. But it was also not performing well for some specific tests that are being done (supersmack on mysql, among others). That combined with a few little bugs (load avg reporting) and the author not really being available to work on it, meant that it was decided to move back to 4BSD for the release (and possibly -STABLE), while hopefully getting ULE going well on -CURRENT. ULE has its own set of features -- better interactivity on heavily loaded machines (so nice for your desktop while compiling!) and, as I remember, better algorithms for machines with tons of processes, but its youth menas it's not well-tuned yet for general server use, which is what FreeBSD focuses on.

    3. Re:Scheduler? by drmerope · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The author of ULE has been out of touch now for sometime. ULE had known issues at the time it was made default in -current, but it was hoped that visibility would generate the reports necessary to stablize it. Unfortunately, Jeff hasn't seemed to have the time to fix or even examine the issues uncovered.

      The recent preemption changes drove ULE from being merely suboptimal (inefficient) in some situations to being unstable.

    4. Re:Scheduler? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      pardon me, but isn't this the same scheduler that bsd fanboys constantly hype over the linux one?


      the author of ULE has been out of touch now for sometime.

      wow. BSD sure is a whole lot more professional then linux

    5. Re:Scheduler? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pardon me, but isn't this the same scheduler that bsd fanboys constantly hype over the linux one?

      No, this *is* Linux's scheduler, quietly ahem, reimplemented, shall we say.

  6. Switching by rawg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I switched over to FreeBSD a while ago because Debian was so out of date. I fell in love with FreeBSD because it's so easy to maintain. And Ports are awesome! I can run a stable OS with the most up-to-date (stable) software. Before I had to run unstable Debian to get the latest PHP/Postgres to install, unless I compile it myself.

    --
    The above is not worth reading.
    1. Re:Switching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, the only thing 'unstable' in Debian Unstable compared to FreeBSD ports is the name. They really should have chosen something like 'devel' for Sid.

      Repeat after me: The unstabily of Debian Sid refers to changing relationships between packages, not to software stability. Moreover, FreeBSD 5.x is 'officially' just as unstable as Debian Sid and is not recommended for general use.

      FreeBSD ports change their relationships just as often as Debian packages, and for the same reasons -- the software changes, uses different libraries, requires different software to cooperate with. The kernel changes too -- hell, they just switched the scheduler, second time!

      By the way, 'most up-to-date' and 'stable' cannot be achieved at the same time.

    2. Re:Switching by rawg · · Score: 1

      I think your wrong. I was bit too many times when I did a apt-get update/upgrade and everything broke. The last time it happened I switched to FreeBSD. I have never, not even once, had a problem with stability in FreeBSD. I have the most updated stable software running, and the OS is stable. I'm talking about FreeBSD 4.10, Postgres 7.4, PHP 5, ... They are all labeled as Stable. And I have not had a single crash, seg fault, or loss of data.

      FreeBSD just works as advertised, "Stable".

      With Debian, I was forced to run unstable to get the latest stable applications. PHP 4.1 is not the latest PHP. Postgres 7.1 is not the latest stable. I go to unstable to get the almost recent versions, but then things like libc would bring down the system. Too many times I would update packages and find it hosed when I finish.

      --
      The above is not worth reading.
  7. Any help available? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Hi, I'm an experienced computer user looking into joining this whole BSD thing. I've managed to install something BSD on my computer from some disks I bought with a book at a garage sale. Now, the only question I have is, what is the BSD equivalent of the "dir" command from DOS? Does it have one? I need to see what has been "installed" on the "partition" and what .exe files I can now run. I'd look at the book at bought, but some kids chewed the pages and scribbled over it with a black crayon. Thanks in advance!

    1. Re:Any help available? by seagar · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Sure, I can help you out. Please type: shutdown -h now. After that is complete, please place both hands on the sides of the monitor, lift it as high as you can above your head......now release.

      --

      home of the original cupholder
  8. I read this recently, how accurate is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    FreeBSD vs Linux - The Definitive Comparison

    Flamewars between FreeBSD and Linux advocates occur all the time, so it's often hard to make a judgement. Our 500-employee company recently decided to convert fully to Open Source software and OSes; I was put in charge of making the decisions. It boiled down to FreeBSD and Linux, and without letting any bias or emotions get in the way, I established the following criteria.

    Performance

    This is a complicated issue, so let's consider these three types of machine (in use at our company):

    Single CPU server: FreeBSD just edged ahead of Linux on this one. The differences weren't drastic, but large enough - consequently, score 1 for FreeBSD here.

    Multi CPU server: With kernel 2.6, Linux performed considerably better than both FreeBSD 4.9 and 5.2.1. The updated SMP code and revised scheduler have worked wonders here, so 1 for Linux.

    Desktop: Linux 2.6 is much faster than either FreeBSD, particularly when the system is heavily loaded. Application start times are slightly better, while responsiveness is remarkably superior to FreeBSD. Another 1 for Linux.

    Result: FreeBSD 1, Linux 2

    Stability

    Linux distributions vary greatly in terms of stability, with Mandrake Linux and Fedora Core aiming for bleeding-edge desktop features, while Slackware and Debian put great emphasis on stability. FreeBSD is indeed a reliable OS, but the smaller development and testing community puts it behind Linux - additionally, there are more full-time Linux developers working with commercial companies on hardware support and core component testing.

    Our Debian and Slackware systems have never crashed or suffered any other major glitches in five years of use, and we know of other individuals and companies that can say the same. With the correct distribution selection, Linux systems are extremely reliable. The far greater amount of testing by the community and companies gives Linux a boost here.

    Result: FreeBSD 0, Linux 1

    Support

    Ease of updating: Although a third-party binary updaing system exists, it's not yet part of the official FreeBSD system (and consequently, problems with trust occur). Current FreeBSD releases rely on manual CVS updating, patch applying, compilation and installation. Debian GNU/Linux, conversely, only needs a single command to update; this is a major win for Linux, as it saves a huge amount of time on a large number of machines. 1 to Linux.

    Length of support: Each FreeBSD point release is only supported for 12 months. The Debian Project supports each of its releases for over two years, and other distros such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux are supported for five years. Although upgrading FreeBSD is fairly simple, the changes in userland tools and Ports means that extensive re-testing of home-grown apps needs to be made. A major win for Linux here.

    Commercial support: FreeBSD is significantly weaker on this front, with Linux vendors offering a much greater range and variety of support contracts than are available for FreeBSD. 1 to Linux.

    Result: FreeBSD 0, Linux 3

    Hardware

    Server: FreeBSD's driver range for server-class machines is very good, and the drivers themselves are robust and well-tested. Linux is strong on this front too, but FreeBSD just pips it to the post. 1 to FreeBSD.

    Desktop: Linux far surpasses FreeBSD in terms of desktop hardware support, with a gigantic range of drivers and subsystems from both kernel developers and third parties. 1 to Linux.

    Other platforms: Debian supports more architectures than FreeBSD, although the gap is narrowing. NetBSD supports even more, but that involves throwing another BSD variant into the mix - this causes problems. 1 to Linux.

    Result: FreeBSD 1, Linux 2

    Software

    The commercial software range for Linux is growing at an astounding rate, and Debian's package repository contains more software than FreeBSD's Ports

    1. Re:I read this recently, how accurate is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait
      FreeBSD is useless for the laptops because it has not support for powersaving that Linux and Windows have.

      Useful tools for long-life bateries as cpufreqd, cpudyn, cpuspeed, ... are present in Linux, not in unusable FreeBSD.

      Centrino + Linux (with powersaving tools) takes 4.5 hours.
      iBook G4 + Linux (with powersaving tools) takes 5.5 hours.
      Centrino + FreeBSD takes 1.5 hour.

      open4free

    2. Re:I read this recently, how accurate is it? by ValiantSoul · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Enabling power management in the kernel would help. You are most likely comparingn linux w/power management vs FreeBSD w/o

  9. Misplaced effort... by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: -1, Troll

    And yet they still haven't fixed this.

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    1. Re:Misplaced effort... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's because no one cares about compatibility with your broken BIOS.

      Chill and stop trying to police every last little setting on your computer.

    2. Re:Misplaced effort... by R.Caley · · Score: 2, Funny
      And yet they still haven't fixed [the block count thing]

      Well, neither have you, and you have all those numbers in your name to prove how cool you are.

      --
      _O_
      .|<       The named which can be named is not the true named
    3. Re:Misplaced effort... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From your entire bug report, it seems pretty obvious that something is rather wrong with the ata controller and/or bios on your hardware.

      I happen to have had 3 of the same Maxtor drives as you have, and the last surviving one is currently primary master in my router. (hint, replace them, I have had 2 of them give up within short time of eachother, and the 3rd one seems to be getting close to giving up)

      All 3 have always worked with FreeBSD, Linux and Windows, without any confusion with regards to its CHS settings.

      I did however follow the rather strong suggestion that my BIOS gives me to run the bios auto detect and select 'normal' mode for a drive on which I am going to use a unix like system. This results in a user configured drive (for as far as the standard cmos settings go)

      Oh, and I also followed the recomendations to have the disk as primary, and a cd drive as slave instead of having it as primary like you have.

      That it is not recognized that way during sysinstall seems rather suspicious to me.

      Maybe FreeBSD needs some patches for detectign this broken hardware configuration, just as it did get a patch for dealing with the rather broken bios of the asus p2b-ds that I happen to use (apic is broken, resulting in an interupt storm when doing things according to the official standard)

      If you think this problem affects more then your very specific case, I suggest talking about it on the mailinglists for -current, and try to be helpfull in getting a workaround, ie, that means accepting that it is in fact a problem of your hardware.

      All that said, your comment regarding fdisk seems to be correct, and it should accept the alternative geometry if those fit within the physical number of sectors that the drive has.

    4. Re:Misplaced effort... by hugo_pt · · Score: 1

      Actually, this seems like a real problem as on at least two workstations I've had fdisk insisting the drive geometry was wrong. Specifiying the correct vallues to fdisk didn't help as it insisted with the old values.. But ultimately I could install the OS just fine even with the geometry set wrongly and it reports the partition sizes well.

  10. I've been happy with Beta3 by Moloch666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I switched over my 5.2.1 personal server to 5.3-Beta3. Mostly for the NDIS driver so I can get my atheros wireless card to work in turbo mode. It runs great. Their ath drivers are much more mature than linux's madwifi they still can't do turbo, all though the man file said otherwise. I'm guessing it's an issue with my card(DWL-G520). I now have my 2 linux computers and this one using windows drivers using ndis wrappers. My wireless speeds are now up to acceptable.

    I suppose I'll give this one ago, although by the time I get around to it, I'll probably be cvs up'ing beta5.

    --
    Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
  11. Uh oh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    you posted factual information that presents FreeBSD as not being sufficiently advanced. Despite it being the truth, your post will likely get modded down by the rabid FreeBSD fanboy base.

  12. FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Have a look at this funny catfight among "top" FreeBSD developers, starting here.

    Wow, such "professional engineers", they're not like those idiot pimply faced teenagers who hack the Linux kernel.