Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NetBSD v3.0 Released

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the happy-christmas dept.

FullMetalAlchemist writes "After six release candidates, the NetBSD project has finally released a gold version of a major mile stone; v3.0. I'm looking forward to this release a good deal. If I wanted to, I could build our entire office infrastructure on it thanks to Xen. Major Changes can be found on the NetBSD website, and there are several ways to get the release. Get downloading!"

13 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. The VAX port stopped working a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hrrmph. As a loyal VAX owner, I need to note that it seems that although NetBSD claims to support some gawd-awful high number of architectures...many are left behind to basically fend for themselves.
    Just because NetBSD v3 is out, doesn't mean it runs on anything except a few of the common Intel/PPC chips.

    It would be nice to be able to complete a full VAX build without some bizarre GCC error forcing me to go look for a workaround.

    VAX 4-ever!

    1. Re:The VAX port stopped working a long time ago by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Heh, the last version that actually builds and works correctly on my VAX is 1.4

    2. Re:The VAX port stopped working a long time ago by possible · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Why does VAX need to be supported?

      Because porting to non x86 architectures forces you to fix bugs. If the code is faulty, it may work for 99% of the x86 users, but crash for the remaining 1% of x86 users. But since none of the developers can reproduce the problem, it's a case of "I dunno, works on my machine, I'm not going to spend time looking for it". Whereas on other architectures, incorrect code may fail 100% of the time due to aligment, different exception handling, etc.

      NetBSD doesn't just suck on VAX. It sucks on ppc (aka, Macs) too. And up til recently it sucked badly on amd64. Most of NetBSD's "supported architectures" haven't worked for years, because they often cross-build instead of doing native builds.

    3. Re:The VAX port stopped working a long time ago by darkjedi521 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They claim the VAX is a supported platform. Therefore, NetBSD/vax should work for the most part (barring any inherent limitations in the VAX architecture.

    4. Re:The VAX port stopped working a long time ago by darkjedi521 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a happy medium between the two. A cross build can save time, but the code should be tested on the real hardware. Especially if one is claiming to support some of the more interesting CPUs out there. I've heard stories of DEC redoing parts of VMS/Ultrix/Tru64 to work around CPU bugs. Just cause something works on paper or builds fine on i386 doesn't mean the binary will run on VAX, Alpha, PA-RISC, PDP-11, MIPS, etc, etc, etc.

    5. Re:The VAX port stopped working a long time ago by zaft · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree that it's frustrating to not be able to natively compile the VAX port, that's not really the same thing as saying (as in the subject line) that the VAX port "stopped working". It works just fine.

    6. Re:The VAX port stopped working a long time ago by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hmm... just wondering, if I post what version each of the obscure pieces of hardware I have lying around manages to run, will all of those posts get a +5 interesting moderation?

      Anyway, its a vaxstation 3100 m20 with 16mb ram and monochrome graphics with a local (scsi) disk for swap and temp storage, it is netbooted. When trying to run 1.5 or 1.6 and build a world, the machine just hangs after some 2 days of work. 1.4 finishes building a world but it takes forever to do so (actually, something like 7 or 8 days). I never tried 2.x and current however, maybe I should when I can be bothered to connect it again and setup mopd on some machine here.

    7. Re:The VAX port stopped working a long time ago by LizardKing · · Score: 3, Informative

      NetBSD claims to be extremely portable - portability is the main stated goal.

      Well, one of the goals, third down on the official list.

      f it only runs well on x86, NetBSD becomes basically irrelevant - FreeBSD is far better on x86, and OpenBSD (whose goal is security and implenetation and correctness) is more portable (OpenBSD runs fine on VAX). Essentially, if NetBSD doesn't actually talk the talk they have about portability, all they are is an inadequate OpenBSD that is less secure and less portable - and it has no advantages.

      Since FreeBSD 5 and NetBSD 2, performance on x86 has been very close and often better on NetBSD. Check out the benchmarks and studies posted on the advocacy mailing lists. FreeBSD is suffering portability issues thanks to the original focus on x86 alone. OpenBSD only works on a reasonable number of platforms because it absorbs a lot of work from NetBSD, the VAX port is a good example, where NetBSD supports more models of the VAX. NetBSD is arguably as secure as OpenBSD, but has far more features and performs much, much better.

      One of the more proactive NetBSD/VAX users complained recently about the native build problems and a personal fear of "featureitis". It looks like some Slashdot cretin has picked up on that and decided to try and piss on the NetBSD 3.0 announcement with what is largely a non-issue.

  2. Only the good die young... by NotFamous · · Score: 3, Funny

    Two, we hardly knew thee.

    --
    Some settling may occur during posting.
  3. NetBSD v3.0 Released.... by rune2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Netcraft surrenders...

  4. Obligatory by m50d · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm compiling it on my toaster right now!

    --
    I am trolling
  5. Re:Hmmm, the other BSD by Nimrangul · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's supposed to be comparable to the FreeBSD 5 series for speeds, I've seen no benchmarks against the newer 6 series, but can assume they're still within a pretty reasonable range of eachother, not too much else unless you want to run on a platform other than i386.

    As far as OpenBSD comparisons go; performs better overall, less secure, pf is not integrated into the system as tighly, and it's support of it's various platforms aren't always as good as those of OpenBSD's, since they do their support through cross compiling instead of native work.

    You may prefer NetBSD's speed over OpenBSD or NetBSD's support for alternative platforms, it's all in what you're trying to do.

    --
    I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
  6. does it fulfill portability promises? by drwho · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Of course it runs NetBSD" - the old saw, it seems. But I think that NetBSD is falling down in this regard. Many ports don't work properly, or haven't been updated in ages. Mailing lists lie dormant, waiting for attention, such as SBMips (BroadCom Sybyte MIPS) - in spite of Wasabi Systems (which is basically the commercial arm of NetBSD) having a press release about Broadcom support back in 2002, not much is being done in extending NetBSD to the CPUs used in consumer-grade equipment like Linksys routers. It's not even available for a fee: Wasabi doesn't have it in their development products and doesn't plan to. Linux is clearly quite far out in front in this regard.

    And it's not only MIPS: VAX ports are stale as well, from what I see here. This is sad. I like the idea of portability, and I like NetBSD - but I don't find that it lives up to its repuation in portability. Yes, someday I'll shut up and work on ports to the platforms I care, but in the meantime I am using Linux on the Broadcom CPUs and finding I enjoy it..almost too much to bother with NetBSD.