Slashdot Mirror


NetBSD 5.0 Released

kl76 writes "The NetBSD Project have announced the release of NetBSD 5.0 after two years of development. Highlights of the seven million new lines of code in 5.0 include a new threads implementation, kernel preemption, a new scheduler, POSIX real-time scheduling, message queues and asynchronous I/O, WAPBL metadata journaling for FFS filesystems, improved ACPI support, UDF write support, X.Org instead of XFree86 (on some platforms — at last!) and lots of driver updates. Binary distributions for 53 different platforms are provided."

37 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. 7 million new lines of code? by gzipped_tar · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's $28 million/month in total!!!!!!

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    1. Re:7 million new lines of code? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wouldn't get out the incense too soon. Switching to x.org is a Bad Idea right now. xorg-server-1.3 is aging badly: unsupported, unfixable bugs, and oh god xorg.conf. xorg-server-1.5.3 isn't really stable yet, especially for NetBSD, but we're on the cusp of the migration. If NetBSD is including 1.3 then all the fixing and configuring admins will have to do will be wasted when 1.5.3 breaks everything again.

      1.5.2 completely destroyed my gentoo X a few months ago when I tried installing kde-4.2. Apparently fglrx didn't support 1.5.x yet?! I was cast into DPI hell and my font sizes are still a barely noticeable few pixels off. grumble grumble

    2. Re:7 million new lines of code? by icebike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your numbers are off by a factor of ten.

      You are far too optimistic when quoting such low bug levels

      1 bug / 10K lines?

      Jesus H. Coder can't do that well.

      So the lesser gods that wrote NetBsd are probably going to have error rates ten times as high.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:7 million new lines of code? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      No its seven million lines in the patch. Many of them will be changed or removed line of code.

    4. Re:7 million new lines of code? by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 3, Informative

      xorg-server-1.5.3 isn't really stable yet, especially for NetBSD, but we're on the cusp of the migration. If NetBSD is including 1.3 then all the fixing and configuring admins will have to do will be wasted when 1.5.3 breaks everything again.

      I've got no idea about NetBSD, but xorg server 1.6 has worked great on my system for months on FreeBSD 7.1 and 7-stable. 1.5.x was fine too except for a few conf changes.

      midco# pkg_info | grep xorg-server
      xorg-server-1.6.0,1 X.Org X server and related programs

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    5. Re:7 million new lines of code? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Funny

      "1.5.2 completely destroyed my gentoo X a few months ago when I tried installing kde-4.2. Apparently fglrx didn't support 1.5.x yet?!"

      Well thar's your problem, that's like The Perfect Storm, linux edition!

      I jest, I jest...

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  2. Excellent by Venture37 · · Score: 3, Informative

    NetBSD 5 is out today & OpenBSD 4.5 is out tomorrow, it's going to be busy weekend for some. :D

    1. Re:Excellent by toejam13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      To add to it, DragonflyBSD 2.2.1 was released just last week. Also, FreeBSD 7.2 is currently in release candidate (RC1) state. It should be out soon as well.

  3. Bring Out Yer Dead by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

    NETCRAFT:
            Bring out your dead!
            [clang]
            Bring out your dead!
    CUSTOMER:
            Here's one.
    NETCRAFT:
            Ninepence.
    NETBSD:
            I'm not dead!
    NETCRAFT:
            What?
    CUSTOMER:
            Nothing. Here's your ninepence.
    NETBSD:
            I'm not dead!
    NETCRAFT:
            'Ere. He says he's not dead!
    CUSTOMER:
            Yes, he is.
    NETBSD: Bring out your dead!
            [clang]
            Bring out your dead!
            [clang]
            Bring out your dead!
            [clang]
            I'm not!
    NETCRAFT:
            He isn't?
    CUSTOMER:
            Well, he will be soon. He's very ill.
    NETBSD:
            I'm getting better!
    CUSTOMER:
            No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.
    NETCRAFT:
            Oh, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
    NETBSD:
            I don't want to go on the cart!
    CUSTOMER:
            Oh, don't be such a baby.
    NETCRAFT:
            I can't take him.
    NETBSD:
            I feel fine!
    CUSTOMER:
            Well, do us a favour.
    NETCRAFT:
            I can't.
    CUSTOMER:
            Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
    NETCRAFT:
            No, I've got to go to FreeBSD. They've lost nine today.
    CUSTOMER:
            Well, when's your next round?
    NETCRAFT:
            Thursday.
    NETBSD:
            I think I'll go for a walk.
    CUSTOMER:
            You're not fooling anyone, you know. Look. Isn't there something you can do?
    NETBSD: [singing]
            I feel happy. I feel happy.
            [whop]
    CUSTOMER:
            Ah, thanks very much.
    NETCRAFT:
            Not at all. See you on Thursday.
    CUSTOMER:
            Right. All right.
            [howl]
            [clop clop clop]
            Who's that, then?
    NETCRAFT:
            I dunno. Must be Tux.
    CUSTOMER:
            Why?
    NETCRAFT:
            He hasn't got shit all over him.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Bring Out Yer Dead by rdwald · · Score: 2, Informative

      Replying to eliminate incorrect moderation.

  4. Hajelluleh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Kudos to the NetBSD team. I have a NetBSD machine running as a NAS and media server that's so reliable that even my wife likes it. However, I won't be upgrading for a while. That's an incredible amount of new code they've committed, and while I have enormous faith in the skills of the NetBSD developers, there's a good chance that something slipped through the cracks. I think I'll wait for the bugfix release :) BSD Forever!

    Confessions of a Recovering Preppie: The Blog

  5. Re:But the real question... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course it will. Toasting multiple toasts simultaneously is now supported, as well as suspending and resuming the toasting process. If toasting fails, the toasts will now be rolled back into the original raw state.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  6. Also don't forget Debian! by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't forget to use Debian GNU/NetBSD ;-)

    1. Re:Also don't forget Debian! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No I am talking about netbsd in the context of debian. You can upgrade a debian system entirely with dpkg. You can not upgrade a netbsd system entirely with pkg tools. I am suggesting that netbsd make it possible to do that. All the tools exist, its just a matter of how they are used.

    2. Re:Also don't forget Debian! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No I am talking about netbsd in the context of debian. You can upgrade a debian system entirely with dpkg. You can not upgrade a netbsd system entirely with pkg tools. I am suggesting that netbsd make it possible to do that. All the tools exist, its just a matter of how they are used.

      pkgtools are for installing and maintaining third-party software packages, and not the "base" system.

      Traditionally BSD has done an upgrade-via-source way of doing things, but some FreeBSD people have been experimenting with binary updates:

      http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-update/

      Of course you don't have to compile the source on every system. The build process can be centralized on one host, and then you can mount it into the local /usr/src and just do a "make install".

  7. Re:But the real question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    You don't put toast in a toaster, btw.

  8. Re:Uptime by Marillion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is interesting, but is it relevant to this thread?

    I tried to find a methodology of their statistics. If I recall, netcraft used to perform fancy packet inspection to determine what a site was running and if or when a site rebooted. Today, any site of substance is really a cluster of servers fronted by load balancers. You really have no idea when a server behind it reboots.

    --
    This is a boring sig
  9. Re:But the real question... by the_humeister · · Score: 3, Funny

    And how exactly do you know that K. S. Kyosuke does not put toast in his toaster? For your information I always buy my bread pre-toasted and then put them in my toaster.

  10. Re:But the real question... by GaryOlson · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...rolled back into the original raw state

    Would that be called the undough or redough function?

    --
    Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  11. Re:Uptime by ZosX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its fascinating how windows dominates that list.

  12. BSD is compelling by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Interesting

    BSD is one of those things that I've been interested in doing, especially early on. It is arguably more secure than Linux, is definitely older and potentially more secure.

    So after using Linux for a year or so, I tried OpenBSD for a full month because of its much-touted security benefits before going back to Linux, and I've never looked back. Why?

    1) At the time, getting stuff installed was more of a chore.

    2) Although they had similar backgrounds and technologies, the differences were enough that it was almost a complete re-learn. RPM didn't work. Init was totally different. Commands such as ps, at, etc. had different options.

    3) Didn't have support for multi-core systems. (at the time, I believe that's long under the bridge now)

    Bottom line? I'd started to build a business that continues to this day using Linux as my architecture. In order to move over, I'd have to port over all my administration scripts, and much of my software to an environment that was just different enough to make me *think* I knew the answer when I didn't. Porting would have been somewhat expensive, and the case to make for the switch was marginal.

    Linux isn't the best at everything, but it does pretty good at everything. Security is decent, reliability is decent, performance is excellent, hardware support is good-to-excellent, etc. all of these well within the range of "commercially viable". So, I stick with Linux, and my hosted software company has grown from a few clients to over 100 client organizations, some with hundreds of users. We've grown from 1 server to 9. Our uptimes are excellent, best in the business, our software is fast becoming an industry standard, and Linux has basically never disappointed us.

    But don't get me wrong: I have immense respect for BSD, I live and die by SSH, which is foundational to our administration, backups, and cluster replication technology, and if I were starting over today, I would feel perfectly comfortable choosing *BSD.

    Long live BSD!

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:BSD is compelling by afabbro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BSD is one of those things that I've been interested in doing, especially early on. It is arguably more secure than Linux, is definitely older and potentially more secure.

      OpenBSD is - not BSD in general.

      2) Although they had similar backgrounds and technologies, the differences were enough that it was almost a complete re-learn. RPM didn't work. Init was totally different. Commands such as ps, at, etc. had different options.

      You name three things that one would expect to be different, even without installing OpenBSD:

      • BSD does not use the RedHat Package Manager. Now there's a shock.
      • rc.X-style init vs. BSD init is one of the archetypal differences between BSD and SysV systems...so what did you expect?
      • GNU vs. non-GNU utilities have different arguments. Again...why the surprise? I suppose if Linux is the only Unix you've ever used, then perhaps you think the whole world works in a GNUish way. AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, and dozens of others have long had their quirks.

      I guess I don't see why your experience surprised you so much. If you're going to switch Unices, particularly from a (mostly) SysV-based system like Linux to a near-purely BSD-based system like OpenBSD, you should expect that some things are going to be different. It's one thing to say "hey, I tried OpenBSD, found that security is indeed the inverse of convenience, and decided I liked Linux better because it was more familiar to me". But saying that you were surprised to find that RPM didn't work leaves you vulnerable to "well, duh" comments. Like this one ;-)

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    2. Re:BSD is compelling by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      BSD is one of those things that I've been interested in doing, especially early on. It is arguably more secure than Linux, is definitely older and potentially more secure.

      In general, BSDs do have a longer lineage than Linux, and they seem to have better security as well. However OpenBSD is the only one the is exceptionally notable in the security standpoint.

      1) At the time, getting stuff installed was more of a chore.

      I don't know, I've not used NetBSD. Install from packages on FreeBSD is fairly trivial. As long as you don't go crazy with your make.conf, install from source is pretty reliable and trivial as well.

      2) Although they had similar backgrounds and technologies, the differences were enough that it was almost a complete re-learn. RPM didn't work. Init was totally different. Commands such as ps, at, etc. had different options.

      Their backgrounds aren't really similar. I wouldn't expect RPM to work any more on *BSD than I would expect it to work on Windows or Mac. Well, maybe a bit more than on Windows. It doesn't even work across all Linux distros (and in my experience, I had better luck with apt on RH, than RPM. The exception being for the Linux Compatibility Layer, I would expect RPM to properly install stuff there (and it does!)

      As for init, yes, it is rather different, but there are several different init systems out there for *nix and *nix-like operating systems. You can get two or three of them on Linux.

      3) Didn't have support for multi-core systems. (at the time, I believe that's long under the bridge now)

      I've had SMP on FreeBSD for a long time, I expect OpenBSD was the same way. However, prior to FBSD7, you had to change some kernel options to get SMP. I'm guessing OpenBSD was the same way.

      Bottom line? I'd started to build a business that continues to this day using Linux as my architecture. In order to move over, I'd have to port over all my administration scripts, and much of my software to an environment that was just different enough to make me *think* I knew the answer when I didn't. Porting would have been somewhat expensive, and the case to make for the switch was marginal.

      True, but no one is asking you to switch. Keep with Linux, if it works for you, stick with it.

      In my experience, I spend less time in a year doing administrative tasks on a FreeBSD box, than I do in a month on a Linux box. But it's a mindset thing. FreeBSD is better designed for my mindset. There are people for whom the Linux mindset is better, or the Windows, or the Mac. It's good we have options so more people can have computers they can use.

      Long live BSD!

      And Linux, Windows, MacOS as well. May BeOS and Amiga be raised from the dead in the process.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  13. Re:Uptime by nicodoggie · · Score: 4, Informative
    from http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#os

    Why do some Operating Systems never show uptimes above 497 days ?

    The method that Netcraft uses to determine the uptime of a server is bounded by an upper limit of 497 days for some Operating Systems (see above). It is therefore not possible to see uptimes for these systems that go beyond this upper limit. Although we could in theory attempt to compute the true uptime for OS's with this upper limit by monitoring for restarts at the expected time, we prefer not to do this as it can be inaccurate and error prone.

    Why does my uptime go back to 0 after 198 days ?

    The Linux TCP stack uses the low 32 bits from the system uptime timer, and this timer, in recent kernel releases, runs at 250Hz. This means that the timer value wraps around to 0 after roughly 198 days. Although we could in theory attempt to compute the true uptime for OS's with this upper limit by monitoring for restarts at the expected time, we prefer not to do this as it can be error prone.

    Why do you not report uptimes for Linux 2.6 or FreeBSD 6 ?

    We only report uptimes for systems where the operating system's timer runs at 100Hz or less. Because the TCP code only uses the low 32 bits of the timer, if the timer runs at say 1000Hz, the value wraps around every 49.7 days (whereas at 100Hz it wraps after 497 days). As there are large numbers of systems which have a higher uptime than this, it is not possible to report accurate uptimes for these systems.

    The Linux kernel switched to a higher internal timer rate at kernel version 2.5.26. Linux 2.4 used a rate of 100Hz. Linux 2.6 used a timer at 1000Hz (some architectures were using 1000Hz before this), until the default was changed back to 250Hz in May 2006. (An explanation of the HZ setting in Linux.)

    FreeBSD versions 4 and 5 used a 100Hz timer, but FreeBSD 6 has moved to a customisable timer with a default setting of 1000Hz.

    So unfortunately this means that we cannot give reliable uptime figures for many Linux and FreeBSD servers.

    meh...

  14. So where is it used? by alienfluid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone know of any major projects where NetBSD has been deployed and has been known to provide benefits far and beyond what can be gained from using more "traditional" operating systems?

    1. Re:So where is it used? by onefriedrice · · Score: 4, Informative

      Major projects? Not that I know of. Tons and tons of small projects? Very much yes. NetBSD runs reliably on old hardware that would otherwise be put out to pasture. Don't assume that it's worthless just because it wasn't used to build facebook. In fact, it's not even very safe to assume that NetBSD isn't a modern, very capable general purpose operating system. In fact, it is.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    2. Re:So where is it used? by lhoguin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      NetBSD is often used for research. See http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/research.html for the most important ones.

    3. Re:So where is it used? by DerCed · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is at least a start:

      http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/sites.html

      A list of sites using NetBSD...

    4. Re:So where is it used? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      NetBSD runs reliably on old hardware that would otherwise be put out to pasture. Don't assume that it's worthless just because it wasn't used to build facebook.

      The problem here is that most of the time, someone up the street has a PC with a better price-performance ratio lying in a cupboard than the extra 68k macintosh you're installing netbsd on.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. Why NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I believe NetBSD 5.0 is a major turn of tide. Compared to 4.0, this is definitely a new chapter. In a way Mr. Hannum did a favour in his infamous rant: practically all aspects he identified have been addressed.

    We here at $DAYJOB have made extensive evaluation of the NetBSD 5.0 pre-releases and it is looking very good indeed. Our internal benchmarks show that for our typical workload, performance of NetBSD is now comparable to that of Linux and FreeBSD. (Numbers and methodology may not be representative nor even correct, but we have to base our decisions to something.) It is very likely that we will be rolling the next big-iron production line solely with NetBSD again. The recent happenings with Sun and the uncertainty surrounding Solaris have warmed also the management section upstairs.

    Besides performance and SMP, other things that account high in our book:

    1. Long support cycles and backward compatibility. This has always been one of the greatest strengths of NetBSD.
    2. Stability. When evaluating an operating system for servers that should be online to the late next decade, it is of crucial importance that stability is guaranteed. In this item there is a question mark for Linux in our list.
    3. Security. We believe that reducing the amount of code running is the first step to a more secure environment. In the Linux world the trend has been exactly the opposite even with so-called enterprise distributions. From NetBSD 5.0 we look forward to ASLR and security features inspired by PaX, the technology which we believe in with our Linux systems. This is one area where there is a big minus sign for FreeBSD.
    4. Xen. Not only does it run on NetBSD, but does it better (stability-wise) with NetBSD. Contradicts with all previous points, but is probably going to be employed in some parts of our farm, even if it is just to please management.
    5. Journaling support. While ZFS is the clear winner here, no doubt about it, the so-called WAPBL has looked promising in our tests. Roughly speaking, our conclusion has been that ext3 and FFS+WAPBL are quite comparable in their performance and stability. To rephrase this: both suck equally bad. Our Solaris-fileservers are not going anywhere for at least five years.
    6. Cleanroom implementations and central source for code. Since we have a relatively large in-house software stack, this, combined with (1) and (2), is very important to us. We are an open-minded shop with technically competent people who can replace non-optimal or bad parts of the system with internal designs. Avery dangerous thing to do with Linux due lack of coherency, but our previous experiences have shown that this is not so much of a problem with NetBSD.
    7. Documentation. Add to the end of (6). A big minus sign for Linux.

    Some drawbacks:

    1. The package system. A huddle of shell scripts without a strict API. Can be forgiven since nothing essential depends on it. A big plus sign for Linux.
    2. Lack of binary updates. A blessing and a curse. Can be forgiven in our case, but would be a pain in more heterogeneous environment. Again a plus sign and a parrot sticker for Linux.
    3. Java. Practically a complete lack of enterprise-like support for this nasty piece of software rules out NetBSD in many of our servers. Linux and Solaris are the only options to consider.

    At $HOME perhaps the most exciting feature is the new power management framework. This has taken huge leap forward in NetBSD 5.0. While there is still much work to be done, the direction is right. I believe that like SMP on the other end, power management will be one of the dominant factors in consumer-grade computing at the other end of the spectrum.

    Other things that I like generally in NetBSD:

    1. UNIX legacy. I have always liked the history of computing and it is a fresh breeze of air to find a system in which you can still feel the good-old days instead of the GU
    1. Re:Why NetBSD? by CraigParticle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Folks with mod points should bump this (AC) parent up; it's pretty much spot-on.

      Here are a few extra data points...

      I've been following the NetBSD 5.0 branch since it turned -RC on sparc, i386 and ARM. It's a significant step forward in a lot of ways. For example, on my EEE PC 900, everything works... something not every Linux distro has managed to do.

      In NetBSD, there seems to be a stronger realization that developer time is precious. For example, NetBSD suffers a lot less from 'superfluous redesign' than Linux. Many years ago, I wrote a few Linux 2.0 device drivers for a few ISA and PCI data acquisition boards I was using. I had to make fairly significant changes for kernel 2.2, then 2.4, then 2.6. And since then... don't get me started. I've had to fix inane code breakages in the 2.6 series several times. In NetBSD, my driver code didn't need to evolve a tenth as much. Code interfaces are just more stable.

      Just the build system alone is a huge time saver on embedded systems. You don't have to go searching around for cross-compilers, toolchains and all the other things that can be painful in Linux (unless your vendor spent a lot of time to assemble them for you). In NetBSD, this stuff is all built right into the base system to begin with.

      Admittedly, on the desktop, NetBSD is still more work than it should be, even compared to typical Linux distros. It's about like the other BSDs, and not so different from a basic Debian install, for example. There's a growing realization in the NetBSD community that 'making it easier' to get a functional modern desktop environment running is worthwhile. Hopefully this gains traction.

      NetBSD is a really nice system, which undeservedly gets overlooked a lot. It's definitely worth a look.

    2. Re:Why NetBSD? by catmistake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      hmm... listing pkgsrc as a drawback? Every admin I know sez its better than any other available... perhaps for this reason its been ported to most other platforms even...

    3. Re:Why NetBSD? by hson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here is a short presentation with some purty graphs comparing NetBSD 4.0, NetBSD 5.0, Linux and FreeBSD 7.1.
      http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/50/img0.html
      Done by Andrew Doran, one of the most prolific NetBSD developers.

  16. Re:Uptime by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that it comes as no surprise to anybody that Linux and BSD can have years of uptime, but some people (particularly on /.) have hard time believing that, yes, it is actually possible to configure and administer a Windows/IIS box so that it will keep on par with that, too.

  17. I know of a very famous NetBSD project! by jonaskoelker · · Score: 2, Funny
  18. Re:Oh might masters of xBSD help please by CraigParticle · · Score: 2

    You might give this NetBSD Live CD a try:

    http://www.jibbed.org/

    It would be a fairly painless way to see how NetBSD 5 behaves on your system.

  19. Re:Oh mighty masters of xBSD help please by LizardKing · · Score: 3, Informative

    Seems strange that the amd64 iso is only 247Mb

    That's because it only includes what would be called a "base" install by the standards of most Linux distros. You'll get all the command line utilities, developer tools and an X Window install if you choose to install all the packages from the CD. What you wont get is things like a GNOME or KDE environment - those can be added after installing from CD by using the package tools. With these tools you can download pre-compiled packages from the NetBSD FTP server or (preferably) a mirror close to you.