Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 7.2 Released
An anonymous reader writes "The FreeBSD Release Engineering Team is pleased to announce the availability of FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE. This is the third release from the 7-STABLE branch which improves on the functionality of FreeBSD 7.1 and introduces some new features. Some of the highlights: Support for fully transparent use of superpages for application memory; Support for multiple IPv4 and IPv6 addresses for jails; csup(1) now supports CVSMode to fetch a complete CVS repository; Gnome updated to 2.26, KDE updated to 4.2.2; Sparc64 now supports UltraSparc-III processors. For a complete list of new features and known problems, please see the online release notes and errata list."
Adds another anonymous reader, "You can grab the latest version from FreeBSD from the mirrors or via BitTorrent. There is also a quick review of the new features and upgrade instructions."
Cheers !
I really feel for the BSD guys. Just hope they can keep users. Having choice in OS selection is great.
FreeBSD Jails are a kind of light-weight server partitioning scheme, in the same vein as Solaris Zones.
ZFS + Ports, take that Ubuntu!
I dunno about ZFS, but I've recently been playing with a freebsd install (7.1 I think), and ports, while a cool idea, seems pretty creaky in practice.
My main beefs were not with the infrastructure, which seemed OK, but that the package maintenance seemed pretty spotty: many many packages (even fairly "major" ones) were pretty out-of-date, even compared to e.g. debian stable, and in many cases they were installed as monolithic chunks where a bit of judicious splitting would have been very helpful -- for example, an otherwise fairly dependency-free library that happens to come with some demo apps that drag in all of OpenGL and X (it would have been better to put the apps with their heavy dependencies in a separate package, or make their inclusion easily configurable)!
Sadly, the ports collection felt kind of like a 2nd-class add-on (and I gather, that's essentially what it is). Even though there are many packages in debian where the maintainer should probably be doing a better job, on average debian's package collection feels a lot more solid to me that what freebsd has in ports...
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Nope, there's no reiserfs support.
.sig: No such file or directory
You can usually configure most ports, try doing a "make config" on the port dir... You should be able to turn those X11/OpenGL demo apps off if the port is well written.
What i hate about binary packages, and debian suffers from this greatly, is when a feature is optional to compile in (as opposed to comprising solely of separate files as in your example).. a binary package will typically be compiled with all the options turned on, thus necessitating dependencies you may not want or use.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Obviously you have not actually used 4.2.2. Simply put it fixes the vast majority of the complaints with the 4.2.x branch.
Haiku / BeOS. It's one of the few operating systems out there that is markedly different. And you can even test it in Virtualbox as a virtualized machine.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
I think BSD needs a new, cuddly but cool mascot. how do you compete with tux? Is the cresta (remember that?) polar bear available?
He's MIA after his glacier suddenly melted. Witnesses saw a little guy with some sort of trident fleeing the scene.
"and ports, while a cool idea, seems pretty creaky in practice"
"any many packages (even fairly "major" ones) were pretty out-of-date"
"Sadly, the ports collection felt kind of like a 2nd-class add-on"
Dude, what are you talking about ? Non of this is true!
If you tried the ports that come with 7.1-RELEASE they are several months old, this is normal, they come with the release. If you want up-to-date software you just need to update the ports collection, this is done via the csup(1) utility. Please try to get a little bit deeper into FreeBSD before talking bullshit about it!
And in rare cases when you need a rare obscure feature, it will not be compiled in, leaving you to play a bit with debuild and stuff. That sucks, too.
However, binary packages are much convinient in many cases. I've been using FreeBSD with ports before, and now I'm using Gentoo with portage (which is inspired by FreeBSD's ports) and I'm happy to turn optional features as I like, but I miss a lot of things from binary distros like Debian -- speed of installation, some assurance that the package will work, less work on my part to get it working, etc. To get the source, change a few switches and create your own deb isn't such a deal if you have to do it for only several packages. I did this on Nexenta OpenSolaris installation recently, and I say it's easier than maintaining a Gentoo installation.
And the unneeded features aren't such a big deal, really. I've run Debian on slow low-end devices, and it runs fine, they take a bit more space and the memory usage somewhat grows, but on a modern system that shouldn't be a problem at all -- it is offset by the lack of ports tree, the need for installed compiler and headers, and the faster installation. Debian developers also splits some optional features as seperate packages, where it is possible. And you never know when you actually might need these optional features.
So ports have their pros and cons, I really liked them when I had to play with them, but as I'm lazy I would choose something apt-get-style now. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is a nice choice if you want apt-get, FreeBSD kernel. I'm not sure if they have working ZFS and DTrace support at the moment, but it's still worth checking out.
One of the main reasons I would choose FreeBSD at the moment is ZFS. And there is very low probability that we'll see this in Linux.
Sadly, the ports collection felt kind of like a 2nd-class add-on (and I gather, that's essentially what it is). Even though there are many packages in debian where the maintainer should probably be doing a better job, on average debian's package collection feels a lot more solid to me that what freebsd has in ports...
I don't mean to slam your dick in the door, but one cannot compare ports (apples) to packages (oranges).
Now before you fire back with, "But Debian says packages are both source and binaries !", allow me to reply, "Damn you, Debian." Seriously, though -- apt-get from Debian uses either source packages (equivalent to freebsd ports) or binary packages (equivalent to freebsd packages), depending on the commands you feed to it.
Here's how FreeBSD separates source installs from binary installs:
Ports: Slower source installs compiled on your machine with make.conf optimizations for your system's architecture. Gentoo (portage/emerge) and Debian (apt-get) have Jordan Hubbard (now working for Apple on Darwin) to thank for these. Quick explanation below in the code quote:
Installation process for installing imaginary app "slashdot" (assuming you have the ports tree installed on your system):
Packages: Fast binary install that is compiled on someone else's system with their choice of "make config" options, for their architecture; usually a very generic build. These use pkg_tools to install, delete, get info for these binary packages.
Installation process for installing imaginary app "slashdot":
When i say slow and fast for install speeds, these comments are relative to two things: source install and binary install. Source compilation time for monolithic packages like firefox3, openoffice.org, xorg, gnome2, etc. take upwards or 6 hours to several days depending on the system doing the compiling. The loss in program responsiveness by using a generic binary package install may be worth it(unnoticeable) to save 3 says compile time. With computers getting faster, optimizations are less noticeable, etc., however, programs also demand more resources as time goes on, andso this may be a wash; and one STILL may want to compile certain programs for their own machine.
My main beefs were not with the infrastructure, which seemed OK, but that the package maintenance seemed pretty spotty: many many packages (even fairly "major" ones) were pretty out-of-date, even compared to e.g. debian stable
The reason for binary package apathy on FreeBSD, as I see it, is as follows. Most people that use FreeBSD don't care about binary packages beyond the base package for a RELEASE branch install from ftp or cd/dvd. For all other programs, most users will compile from source using ports and fetch new versions using portsnap, and lastly upgrade to said new versions using portupgrade. For aforementioned monolithic programs like openoffice.org, one may want to just bite the bullet and avoid a 3 day compile (which currently takes up ~12 gigs of space) including several license agreements, etc. to compile the beast, and just install a precompiled binary package from the "ooo" site.
With that said, most ports maintainers are fairly quick to release the latest version of a port, and some even maintain not only the release port of a program, but the beta. e.g. there is a firefox3(curren
and not trolling, ive had great luck with BSD subversion servers and mailservers... but ive been transitioning away from BSD in our corporate environment because of a nasty 16 group limit in the kernel, the quirkyness of ports, and mostly its inability to be deployed and managed site-wide easily (ex: redhat has cobbler, koan, satellite, and kickstart but where is BSD in all of this?)
still waiting for autofs support as well, as converting from my autofs to amd on local machines is a pain.
if i have 3500 servers i need to deploy, pxe is still not supported without a kernel hack. makes for long nites.
Good people go to bed earlier.
All of the FreeBSD ports can be compiled to binary packages, and you can easily mix and match between ports and packages. If you provide the -P flag to portupgrade / portinstall, it will use the binary package if one is available for your architecture, and fall back to building from source if not.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
First of all, I'm not trolling.
Most successful open source projects have some kind of corporate backing, whether it be developers, funding or both. Linux has IBM, HP, RedHat, etc. Sun sponsors and manages a number of open source projects.
The community behind FreeBSD have put together what seems to be (I've never used it for more than a few minutes at a time) a solid server operating system whose command-line code forms part of the basis of what is IMO the best consumer operating system (OS X). From what I understand, this is due to a small but devoted group of developers.
Still, not to bemoan the FreeBSD community's efforts, but I'm wondering if there's some kind of corporate backing, seeing as I'm certain several companies use it in critical production situations.
There was nothing about this in the Wikipedia entry.
This space left intentionally blank.
. . . is a bit like driving an automobile with a manual stick transmission, while also being a bit like driving one with an automatic, and yet not exactly like the modern compromise, "manu-matic".
(Manu-matic is supposed to give the driver a sense of the control of the stick, while simultaneously incorporating the no-brainer-ness of an automatic.)
The ports system is an undeniably good idea, but only really shines if it is supported by a full-time, high-speed connection.
Running FreeBSD from a set of CD's, on the other hand, can be really frustrating in my experience; while running Ubuntu, (Open-)Suse, and even Slackware from a CD-, or DVD installation--the way most desktop users are accustomed to--is much more doable at this point.
Still, if you yearn for the feel of cranky stick-shifts and the quirks of normal aspiration--some things that would seem likely to appeal to those drawn to open-source--then put on your goggles, fire up your broadband and pop that boot-only 7.2 RELEASE CD into the tray.
Flash is for sissies anyway, no?
Sorry, couldn't resist... ;-)
Reece
I don't get it either. As if I'd want FreeBSD to be a desktop OS.
Desktop OS's are supposed to be ready for the desktop. Not FreeBSD.
That's...not altogether true. Though maybe kind of. It depends a good deal on how you view computers. If a person views computers as simply a tool, a means to do something mainly concerning the "real world" and events surrounding it, but of no interest as to the computer plus software in and of itself, then that person would probably be better-served with something with Windows installed or with an Apple system.
People who have more of an interest in, for various reasons, or fascination with, the computer and its' software and want/need to have a different system are more likely to take a different path as the features and openness that some other systems provide may not be available in the common PC/Mac machines.
Many of those peoples' needs are met by linux, then there are others that have OS needs or wants that lead them to other systems.
I suspect many are like myself that have multiple OS's installed and use whatever works best for a specific task.
(I currently have Mandriva '08, PC-BSD 7.1/Galileo, XP-ProSP3 on this box, and also an SGI Octane workstation running IRIX UNIX 6.5.30. XP for a lot of gaming and some few other tasks/software that are still Windows-only or Windows-best.)
My PC-BSD system is amazingly friendly for a FreeBSD-based desktop, maybe rivaling or even surpassing Ubuntu in some ways IMHO. The PC-BSD packaging system using click-to-install ".PBI" packages (as well as having the ports system with some cool GUI port-managers available) is getting to be quite usable by the less computer-savvy user.
The automatic updates manager is no slouch either and seems to work great with both system & .PBI-package updates with little hassle. Features/development seems to be chugging right along also, as PC-BSD now is commercially-sponsored by iXsystems a "Provider of enterprise servers for open source and corporate sponsor of PC-BSD".
I have high hopes here as so far (I've been using PC-BSD since about version 0.76RC(?) or so), as PC-BSD has gotten to be very nice and easy to use to the point where I'm more comfortable there than Mandriva's desktop system as far as a non-MS desktop system with comparable features, simplicity, and ease-of-use. Of course this is purely anecdotal, but I do think PC-BSDs' version of a FreeBSD-based desktop is worth checking out if you're interested in a non-MS/Apple/Linux-based desktop system. No, I'm not associated with PC-BSD, iXsystems, or anyone affiliated with either in any way or have any interest other than as a user.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
And in the same vein, they are inadequate because all instances share a kernel.
And are significantly faster (on our workload) and more efficient for the same reason. Since all jails pull from the same heap, you don't have to worry about under- or over-allocating RAM to an instance. You also don't have to contend with multiple kernels all trying to do bookkeeping many hundreds of times per second.
Jails obviously aren't the right tool for every job, but when they suit your needs, they're outstanding.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
What about removal of packages?
One of the things I like about Debian source packages, is that they can be compiled, installed, played with, upgraded, etc and finally removed - all that without a hustle.
Impression I had that ports is just a nice front-end for "./configure && make && make install". And as usually "make uninstall" is largely missing (as only few source packages provide the functionality).
That means over time system gets loaded with orphaned files.
Actually the thing which impressed me most first time I installed the Debian was that during upgrades/install of custom packages, it can also remove conflicting packages. E.g. during library migration, Debian would properly install/remove library needed by particular package version. Apps like aptitude, which can also automatically remove unused automatically installed packages, saves heck a lot of time in long run.
Ports in a way nice simple system and I like it more than e.g. Gentoo. Yet, for stable maintainable in long run system, I'd still go with Debian Stable, as it's thorough package management was more than once saving my servers from me.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
What about removal of packages?
Ports provide a build skeleton for creating packages. Every port comes with a list of installed files and potentially an uninstall script. You can remove them with make deinstall in the port directive or with pkg_deinstall / pkg_delete, just as you can with binary packages.
Impression I had that ports is just a nice front-end for "./configure && make && make install".
Yes, it is (and various other build systems). And providing uninstall support is part of the difference between a nice front end and a trivial front end.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
My main beefs were not with the infrastructure, which seemed OK, but that the package maintenance seemed pretty spotty:
Could we get a less vague or subjective characterisation? The general concensus by FreeBSD users (and one shared by myself), especially those coming from a Linux background, is that the ports system Just Works(TM). As for the tools to manage installed ports or package, there's certainly plenty to choose from. By that I mean the issue, if there is one, is generally one of "preference" rather than functionality; put simply, they all work.
many many packages (even fairly "major" ones) were pretty out-of-date, even compared to e.g. debian stable
To the extent that the "many many" qualifier has any meaning, I'd really be interested in your naming just a few of these "major" ports.
and in many cases they were installed as monolithic chunks where a bit of judicious splitting would have been very helpful -- for example, an otherwise fairly dependency-free library that happens to come with some demo apps that drag in all of OpenGL and X
There's as much or as little judicious splitting as you want. A quick read through of ports(7), make.conf(5), src.conf(5), for example, would have addressed your perceived issues, as would have a quick Google search. Next thing I'll hear is that FreeBSD suffers from a lack of documentation.
Nothing personal, but I have trouble seeing something modded +5 that consists of little else than random impressions from the uniformed who are "playing around".
What about removal of packages?
This is a really basic "RTFM." It's not "make uninstall" like you wrote in your post, but "make deinstall"
Alternatively, you use the "pkg_delete" or "pkg_deinstall" command to delete any installed package. (again, to find out potential options etc, RTFM)
Very simple.
One of the things I like about Debian source packages, is that they can be compiled, installed, played with, upgraded, etc and finally removed - all that without a hustle.
Yes, those would be fundamentals of any packaging systems.
Impression I had that ports is just a nice front-end for "./configure && make && make install". And as usually "make uninstall" is largely missing (as only few source packages provide the functionality).
Your impression is somewhat correct. Again, this is something expected of ANY source packaging system. I'm not sure how else you would want it to operate?
That means over time system gets loaded with orphaned files.
I may have missed something...why are files getting orphaned?
If you're confused about what files belong to what packages in FreeBSD, try the "pkg_which" command.
Actually the thing which impressed me most first time I installed the Debian was that during upgrades/install of custom packages, it can also remove conflicting packages. E.g. during library migration, Debian would properly install/remove library needed by particular package version. Apps like aptitude, which can also automatically remove unused automatically installed packages, saves heck a lot of time in long run.
Yes, this is a weakness of the base ports system. Fortunately pretty much everyone who runs FreeBSD runs either portupgrade or portmaster. These programs essentially take the place of apt, etc, and work completely within the structure of the ports system.
Revolves around those optional features that are compiled into the damn package, pulling in all those extra dependencies. Portage and the Use flags are very good for that. I can specify on a per package basis what optional features I want, which helps keep my system much leaner.
Another issue I've got with many other distros is the continual insistence of starting so many services at boot. To me it's reaching the point that most distros look like a damn windows installation with all the services running. Personally and Professionally, I like the Slackware/OpenBSD thinking that as little as possible starts at system boot. Let the damn Sys-Op/Admin decide what needs to run to provide the functionality the system is supposed to. In my case, the system is a desktop so the only thing that needs to be running is sound, apcupsd, cups, basic networking - ntp client and firewall. I don't even have X running at startup as I'm fairly comfortable working on the CLI having used computers since the Dos 5 days.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
First you have to know where it is located
(for that you either need to install another package to (and you have to know that name too) or make sure you have Internet connection and go to freesbd.org ports page to search for the name
cd /usr/ports
make quicksearch name=packagename
You'll find the package. No need to install anything new.
Then you have open the login shell as root,
(and you must know how to do that -- it does not automagically prompt you for a password )
"apt-get install foo" doesn't hold your hand, either. Nor did rpm prompt you for a password the last time I used an RPM-based system.
Then you CD to that directory start the build
and discover that it tries to download source
code for Gnome or KDE then build it -- which
will take half a day on some machines....
welcome to the ports system
The FreeBSD maintainers aren't concerned with being trivial to use. They're more concerned with creating a powerful and flexible system.
They focus on this almost to a fault. There's a recent thread on freebsd-questions with the subject "Modern FreeBSD Installer" where a few people are complaining about how unfriendly the current installer is. There's a fairly large base of people who don't want a change to the installer because it's familiar--and once you're familiar with it, you can install the base system in about 5 minutes. But the arcane nature of the installer is such that it turns a lot of new users off from the beginning.
Keep in mind that FreeBSD is an advanced user's OS. While its documentation is really quite good, it isn't going to hold your hand once you're on the shell. Reading through the handbook ( http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports-using.html for specific information on the ports system) before or during use will help you learn a lot about the system.
Maybe you could have read his post instead of imagining what it was and then commenting that he is wrong.
What, and sully such a longstanding /. tradition?
Besides, that also means that one would actually have to think and respond to certain facts and logical arguments put forth by another person. Such tedium!
He was talking about PC-BSD, a FreeBSD-based distro designed for desktop use. Since it has many pre-built packages and a GUI front-end for ports, it is actually quite a usable desktop distro. Pretty much about as easy as Ubuntu. I normally prefer linux because of hardware compatibility, so I usually use Ubuntu as my desktop and debian or Ubuntu-server for servers, but PC-BSD is pretty nice.
Not only a GUI front-end for ports, but also an entire package system using ".PBI" packages (sort of like ".deb" packages in Debian Linux, only with less dependency-hell) for click-to-install behavior closely resembling that of Windows software installation packages. You can use both systems to install and remove software along with all the various CLI port-managers, not either-or, so another bonus.
I must also say that the PC-BSD system installer works great and is far faster and friendlier/informative/easier to use than the Windows system installer. PC-BSD (and FreeBSD itself) has made tremendous progress as far as hardware compatibility/drivers/kernel modules and supports most anything Ubuntu does. There's also Java and Flash Player support, so one can browse/watch YouTube videos and use most webpage-embedded Java apps.
If you're tired of Ubuntu and/or want or need a desktop OS with the features, software, security, and power of a more Unix-like system than Linux then PC-BSD may be for you.
Definitely worth trying, IMHO.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
All VMs share a hypervisor. A successful attack on the hypervisor... well, you get the picture...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Unlike Debian or even OpenBSD, ports in FreeBSD don't receive much testing.
Some ports haven't been updated for a while, some even never worked at all, but they are still in the tree for ages. For instance lang/neko never worked on FreeBSD. It compiles, but it was obviously never tested as creating a basic thread is enough to make it crash. Oh and it still has a knob to compile it with MySQL 4.x library (yes, 4.x ...).
{{.sig}}