Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 3.1 Released
Jason C. Wells
writes "FreeBSD, Inc. has released FreeBSD 3.1. Please
read the release notes.
You can install FreeBSD 3.1 by following the instructions.
Have fun with it! "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Linux has got plenty of press lately, which is very much a good thing.
I like BSD's security though.
No notice of 3.1 on freebsd.org. maybe this announcement is premature.
Also, in response to previous comment, freebsd is no more or less ecure than linux
And 3.1 would be...the approximate number of users who even care about FreeBSD?
:)
</flamebait>
And it was prophesized that the saintly Microsoft shall come down and defeat the evil BSD devil, once and for all!
Any FreeBSD hackers know what compiler will work for kernel and tool ('make world'?) compilation (e.g., gcc 2.7.x? 2.8.x? egcs? KAI++?)? AFAIK, Linux is fairly specific as to which compilers (GNU gcc) need tp be used for kernel comilation.
I laugh at all you immature geeks running Linux, the OS of a kid. When you grow up, you'll want to use a real UNIX like FreeBSD.
Just thought I'd point out that http://www.hotmail.com uses FreeBSD and Apache 1.2.1 despite being a "Microsoft Company."
Just shows you how much faith they have in their own products...
BTW, I know this by using the HTTP query for webserver...you know the deal.
Well the BSD Mascot kicks the crap out of the fat bloated, stupid looking penguin... Sorry had to be said.
:)
That being said they work together quite nicely against the borg
Use the "bundled" gcc in FreeBSD for
system/kernel/userland compilation
This is not a race and the hype is over
the company named Rad Hat, not linux...
FreeBSD is only superior stink to Linux. As a professional, I urge you to not waste your time with either of them. I have found that Windows NT is perfectly stable and _fast_ despite the FUD from Linux Trolls.
When you say secure linux for sure you're
referring to Debian, SUSE, etc but not
to the marketroyd crap from Red hat, aren't you?
Can someone other than a mindless troll comment on the real difference 'twixt BSD and Linux on similar hardware?
DG
are you sure? Query again
And linux has a thing or two to learn about
public acceptance from M$oft?
Take a look at www.distributed.net to
complete your theorem
sorry but Linux simply has better SMP, supports
vastly more platforms and is growing exponentially,
while FreeBSD stagnates at best. If you like the 'slow'
pace of FreeBSD development and the arcane
'all source in one huge tree' approach (ever heard
of distributed, modular packaging like RPM or DEB?) then you probably also like walking in the cemetary.
not to mention that the kernel source is a big, disgusting,
unfocused mess. FreeBSD needs two things badly:
somebody like Linus and a better name.
Ever stop to think that just because something
is 'widely accepted' its 'tha shit' ?
sorry to burst your bubble but that aint always
and will not ever be consistantly true.
FreeBSD is shit hot, it DOEST want to be in a
little religious community such as you linux
charachters, linux isnt shitty, cute lil OS
if you ask me, but look at the masses of children
that follow linux, constantly fighting crap then
contradicting themself the next day..
And freebsd hits you where it counts, you can
keep you lil whining and crying folks to your
linux community.. WAAA KDE SUCKS, WHAA GNOME SUCKS
QT LICENSE IS BAD, GPL OUR SAVIOUR... yadda
yadda.. bsd execution is grand anyways..
watch your syscalls on linux... lets see.. hows
it go.. onto stack, into register.. then do
the cute lil DOS thing and call int 0x80.. wow
whats fbsd? push it up on the stack.. lcall
and do the syscall right where the info lies
and depending on the info and function args..
well.. the results in overhead can and mostlikely
are exponontial.... and yes, i imply the negative
results are on your precious linux.
Jimmy
Sad to say, but true. And in a recent interview, the world famous scientist Linus Torvalds himself noticed the eroding support for FreeBSD. Mr. Torvalds, winner of the prestigious Nokia award, made it clear that FreeBSD is dying and will never gain a popular following. The feeling was echoed by many prominent netizens who joined in IRC chat which followed the interview. Said one forlorn FreeBSD supporter, "Yeah, I know its dead. We blew it. The undercurrent of paranoia and distrust continues to haunt us in the BSD community. The failure of FreeBSD was almost inevitable."
Go all the way and upgrade to NetBSD! NetBSD is clearly superior to FreeBSD.
at extracting dollars from my wallet, at which it is extremely fast. For example, the 2 lines in the registry changing NT Workstation to NT Server, at an $800 premium.
Thanks but no thanks.
www.cheapbytes.com
Will the last mourner lock the cemetery gate on the way out?
You'll have to wait a bit for them to be burned, but you can get them at
cheapbytes.com
and
linuxmall.com
OpenBSD is the only true operating system ever created. Superior in all aspects to the rest.
Cheap*Bytes should have it eventually for their usual price of ~$5, right?
They're at http://www.cheapbytes.com
asdf
MS Employees are requested to post their flame bait elsewhere (like Usenet).
I found the FreeBSD packages and ports so wonderful that it converted me from Linux last year. People can argue forever about the relative stablility and performance of the Linux and FreeBSD kernels, but to a regular user like me, it's academic. All I care is that I've got a stable, free Unix clone to run on my PC and both fit the bill. The FreeBSD ports system never ceases to amaze me, and that's what clinched it for me. I'd rather see this system become a Unix standard instead of RPM. I recently installed KDE on my FreeBSD box. I typed "cd /usr/ports/kde ; make install". It went out and ftp'd the sources, applied FreeBSD patches, compiled, installed, and did the same for all the dependencies. It was a nice change after dealing with RPMs that would just quit and say it required some other package I didn't have. Well go get it! That's what FreeBSD does. Being able to 'cvsup' and 'make world' the *entire OS* (not just the kernel) is very nice too. You don't have FreeBSD users asking "how do I use a 3.1 kernel with 3.0?" because all the utilities and libraries get recompiled to work with the new kernel.
Heheh....NT....hehe....stable...heheheh....
I like him! He's SILLY!!!
(BTW, what is 'Shttty'?)
I think most of their hand written mail server engines are running on Solaris. They use FreeBSD and Apache for more "grunt" work, like churning out web pages.
Incidentally, the last employment ad I saw for Hotmail requested Solaris programmers.
FreeBSD?
Who cares.
So, what am I missing by running RH5.2 and not FreeBSD?
Des
I don't really think the Linux hype will hurt BSD all that much...
.02
Neither project is in it for the money, and most software written for Linux will compile out-of-the-box on BSD.
I have all the cool 'Linux apps' (GIMP, KDE, GNOME, et al.) on my BSD 3.0 box, and although
Linux is far and away more popular, I don't see
BSD going extinct any time soon.
My observation is thus: Marketshare isn't that big a deal in opensource projects.
Just my
Do some research and try again.
No. OpenBSD was formed because of conflicts between Theo DeRaadt (sp?) and the NetBSD core team. The original object was a good SPARC port. A good security team, and an ongoing, intensive security audit has created a security concious OS, not a security centric one.
The CD set from Walnut Creek comes with all of the pakages and ports sources plus a live system for emegencies when you screwup and some nice copmmetial demos. IMO a great deal plus of you subcribe it's ten buck's cheaper
FreeBSD has accomplished allot, these past 5 years.
Cheers to J.K. Hubbard and all the rest for keeping up the most organized freenix distribution on the net!
On Slashdot? You've GOT to be kidding! hehe..
Ok, at least from what I see, *BSD has better stability and reliability at a slight performance cost. Take a look at ftp.cdrom.com.. 3600 ftp users off a P6/200. At this point in time, Linux isn't really up to that point. However in a 3 user network environment, Linux seems to perform slightly faster than FreeBSD on the same hardware.
Also, FreeBSD is the name of the kernel as well as the distribution. In other words, the same people control everything. They also provide the entire distribution source on a CVSup server so you can rebuild the entire distribution yourself rather easily, which is what I am doing right now. Once you have a local copy of the CVS sources, downloading a new release is rather painless because it only transfers the differences. Actually, it is possible to build an entire custom release complete with up-to-date boot floppies. The process is quite tricky and time consuming. I can't tell you how much fun it is to see an error meesage pop up after 6 hours of grinding away... I got it to work, finally.
Scott
P.S.
FreeBSD is pretty linux compatible too. They have a linux binary emulator but most of your gnu/linux source code compiles fine. You will need to grab gmake from the ports collection (kindof like a RPM ). Their included make doesn't like some of the GNU extensions.
2 systems.
486 VLB board
Buslogic 542 card
1 speed CDROM, Linux wouldn't install.
FreeBSD did.
K6
IDE
3com card
Linux incorrectly IDed the card
FreeBSD installed.
From where I sit, Linux isn't as 'wonderful'.
How about cheapbytes? They should have one soon...
I'm going to get short here.
First, Linux is great if you don't know much about un*x and nead help, as there are TONS of users who are more than glad to come to rescue.
Second, Linux is really good on desktop, mainly because there is so much software for it.
Third, if you got odd hardware there are drivers for it.
Fourth, it's overhyped, that means that even if you don't know much about computers people will think you're cool just because you use it. Some think that's good, I don't really know.
Downside, the kernel is monolithic and not very good, it beats the crap out of NT though.
First, FreeBSD has a big userbase, that means easy help, it used to be X86 only but is also avail on Alpha.
Second, it lacks some of the desktop powers of Linux but makes that in advantage as a server.
Third, you get a cool picture for you website =)
Downside, it's not portable, a big downside for me, it's should not be to much of a downside for you if it's for personal use.
First, OpenBSD is VERY powerful OS for servers, it's the most secure freenix around.
Second, doesn't have as a big bunch of users, but if you know un*x that really doesn't matter.
Third, it breaks some un*x "standards" as a trade for much better security etc, some people dislike that, I think it's good though.
Downside, "standards" change fast for the better, it's really good for me, but for the avarage user it can be frustrating.
First, NetBSD is superfast and is the best freenix for servers if you don't need the security of OpenBSD.
Second, got many users and is avail on TONS of hardware.
Third, NetBSD is faster and less resource hungry than Linux and is therefor very useful on, lets say, an Atari Falcon(?). You can btw run Linux executables on it.
Fourth, if you have an Alpha, NetBSD is THE one.
Downside, I don't really know any downsides, well, their logo is quite ugly, but then, you could use the devil in sneakers instead.
Now, don't flame me, I might have forgoten some important points, I'm old, I forget stuff.
You should not let others pick what OS you should run,
you should pick the one that takes care of you neads.
If you still don't know, try all.
I generally try all modern OS's every year to find the best OS's for my neads.
This is the setup:
2 desktops running SuSE Linux and 3 Slackware.
10 Solaris stations.
2 QNX multipurpose servers/stations.
2 laptops and 2 desktops running NetBSD.
Then we got a "three step rocket" server service.
At the bottom NetBSD is running, for internal speed. An OpenBSD server for MAN network,
speed and security.
The third step is a Secure-Solaris server, it's a state of the art security server, the best.
At home I use:
Windows NT 4, strictly for games and some freeware development, though many won't run.
NetBSD, my personal freenix favourite.
SuSE Linux, GIMP =).
Solaris X86, I simply love Solaris.
AmigaOS, what can I say, Alan Cox loves Amiga too =).
You also get a Certified Eng. "degree" without
ever going to the University...
Some people (you) wasting your time. ....
What your mind is full of
A lot of good work is going on in FreeBSD
right now and as far as I can see FreeBSD doing great.
BTW when did you last contribute to your favourite free software project?
Never? Hmm, thought so.
BSD's are not going to die off as many of you think any earlier than Linux will die off. With opensource, it continues to be improved, etc. by thousands of people.
Companies let OS's die off due to lack of profits. As long as someone is interested in BSD code, BSD will continue to be produced. There are no profits to worry about, only personal enjoyment.
Specifically, the FreeBSD core team is ready to rock our world with many new things such as a threaded kernel, parallel booting of devices, more drivers, improved scripting, updated ports, among other things.
They allow code from anyone to go into the system (upon inspection) and distribute an *entire* system. Not just a kernel, or user enhancements, or packages. It's fully integrated, and now features alpha support (testing right now to ensure 100% stability).
Thats right. When FreeBSD makes large changes, its not only backwords compatible but works with the entire system. (For those of you using the linux 2.2.x kernel set now).
I use linux as a front end, and BSD on the server. Why? BSD in general is more powreful. I only use linux to stay up with it not because I like it. It reminds me on a daily basis what not to do to an OS.
Agreed Linux is more stable than windows, but take that next jump and try out something else before flaming that other thing. Linux is not the end all of OS's. It's just that, an OS.
Personally I'm getting really sick of people targetting anything negative said about Linux, or anything positive about anything else.
Lets try them out first, then complain later. BTW. FreeBSD can not only run aout & elf bsd binaries, but also elf linux binaries (for those of you who want things like WordPerfect for Linux).
Think about this, and in the future, please refrain from flaming that which you don't know.
Thanks
Rod Taylor
And I do. Makes my PC a Unix workstation and I love it.
Don't judge linux by RedHat, there's many other higher quality distributions, such as Slackware.
I'd just like to point out, if Linux incorrectly identified your 3com card, you could tell Linux what it was.
Unless YOU couldn't identify it either.
Routing: yes
For packaging information, read the Handbook section on Ports and Packages.
Routing in FreeBSD is being supported by routed(a simple routing daemon) or if you need various features like RIP/BGP4/OSPF, you can consider gated, check http://www.gated.org for details.
ipv6 and IPSec are being supported by either the Kame project(http://www.kame.net) or INRIA v6 (ftp://ftp.inria.fr/network/ipv6)
ipfw, ipfilter would provide firewall service, and natd, ipnat would provide network address translation function. Needless to say, TIS fwtk, sock5, squid, sshd, skip are all available for FreeBSD.
You can install with either packages(binary) or ports(source), and they all use the md5 hashing mechanism to ensure the file integrity before installation, with dependency checking, of course.
Would advice you to take a quick look at the ports and packages section in the FreeBSD handbook, available at http://www.freebsd.org/handbook (And also sections covering the CVSup for keeping stuff up-to-date)
And when YOU grow up, you'll learn how to form proper sentences. "FreeBSD kicks Linux ass"?
Although not officially acknowledged..
telnet icq.mirabilis.com reveal that it's FreeBSD..
Yep!
Someone must stop Red Hat before it destroys
Linux quality and fame!
Go debian!
I don't know why, but I have a feeling the person who left that comment has a host mask of tide-xxx.microsoft.com.
hype is hype and quality is quality.
I wish someone would explain to me why everyone in High School seems obliged to point out that whoever they're arguing with is also in High School. Odd.
I suppose Linus is baking his own cake here.
Your absolutly right, no faster at all!
And NT is the next best thing to Grandma's apple butter!
At Linux Expo in the fall of May last year Linus talked about world domination as the goal, it was scarry, he sounded like Bill Gate$, even Hitler.
A bigger share than 25% of the market is bad,
no matter if it's FreeBSD, Windows, Linux, Solaris or any other OS or general software.
Tthat counts for all kinds of markets though, not only computers.
I just want to say to the hard working crew:
Well done!
I'm looking forward to it.
Don't let the recent success of *linux go into your head. FUD is not only a anti-linux thing you know.
Are you afraid of the competition? Why? At the end of the day it is free software made by volunteers all over the world.
If Darlington won the cup, would't we all be surprised.
I must make the statement up front that I use neither BSD or Linux. I am planning to use one, though, for personal use, such as programming and learning a new OS. But I am having a bitch of a time choosing between the 2 OSs since they both meet my personal needs.
But when I read these posts with everyone taking shots at each other like kids it makes me want to forget both OSs and move to one where users to bitch as much.
Now I would love to finally choose either FreeBSD or Debian, install it, and contribute to the online community, but why would anyone want to be a part of something where everyone just takes shots at everyone else?
If people want BSD and Linux to grow this has got to stop. Now if someone can state why Linux or Debian is better factually and without yelling, that might help their respective community. But until one of these groups can just calm down and realize that we are all in a similar group, just different OS, then maybe we can get along and get more people to join the alternate OS movement!
OK, I am done with my rant now.
Flame wars are silly an unproductive. Im willing to bet that 50% of the users who post such flames have even tried the other OS enough to give it a chance. I use both Linux and FreeBSD, and while I do like FreeBSD better I also love my Linux. Both Operating Systems have more than one place in my home network. MS laughs at us when we fight among ourselves. The bigger Linux gets the bigger FreeBSD gets, and vice versa. So lets contribute more time to concentrating on Open Source and less time to bashing our comrades.
Just the fact that you and the majority of "dudes" are running linux, does not mean that your dick is larger
Here's a story of a failed 2.2->3.x upgrade.
/usr/src had a different layout - different than what layout.txt on ftp.freebsd.org told me it would look like. Layout.txt on the ftp site had not been updated - and hence my nightmare began.
Firstly, I did a cvsup to get my 2.2.8 box to 3.x. This seemed to be accomplished nicely - except that
To make a long story short, doing a "make release" was the way to go, but I was still stuck in 2.2 mindset-mode (and so were the 3.x docs!) and my make totally blew up. Good-bye user accounts, good-bye root account.
I reinstalled with redhat, which I had sitting around anyway. While I don't think its as elegant as BSD, it boots faster (it doesn't probe so many devices by default, like BSD) and appears to generally install easier.
Of course my real lesson for nay open-source OS is to not get to excited about upgrades - I am waiting for CDs from now on. Most of the senseless upgrading of everything I saw on FrshMeat simply was making me miserable!
From now on, its either a rpm or from a cd.
It's very simple. Linux, any distrib by that i mean, from suse, and debian, to slackwrae and redhat are really more suited for workstations and research like distributed computing etc. Linux is more cutting edge and has nifty features that have NO place in a server. the advantages of freeBSD is a rock Solid system that can handle MUCH higher loads that linux. I say this from Personal experience, since i am a systems admin at an isp. we started with linux, but as we grew, linux just did not cut it. coupled with all the useless software that comes and is hard to figure out to uninstall, and it's little gui admin scripts that have to reall clear way of doing thing plain text ( ie linux conf, redhat admin scritps) while in FreeBSd everthing can be done command line and gives youmore flexibility. Plus the FreeBSd kernel handle lods so much better, in a virtual webserver enviroment, freeBSD handles over a million hits with no prob while linux's laod usually rockets.
But i do think linux can be fixed, there should be a distribution called "FreeLinux" which emulates the philosophy of the *BSD's of security firts and of the ports collection, which nay linux zealot must agree, it rocks. so anyways, not to ramble anymore
FreeBSD==Server Linux==Workstation,Research
--Keepper
it's coz all the 'nerds' know what the real stuff is FreeBSD is the good stuff hey ;)=
it is unlikely to change, for instance I don't see any OS without the bickering.
A fool and a party of followers. The fool fucks up and then another fool comes along. Some more fools follow.
Failure, get used to it.
Hey dipshit, the manuals in the 3.x path were simply copied over from the 2.2.x path, even though the actual instructions were much different.
How about Tux stuck on Chuck's pitfork being
roasted over a fire with the subtitle,
"Penguins is practically chicken". (From a
Bugs Bunny cartoon)
Ask anyone who knows. BSD excels in heavy load areas. yahoo, cdrom.com, hotmail, heavy disk activity (high end file server), etc.
Most people who have used a number of things know this. They also know solaris functions exceptionally well on a sparc for processing speed. And those people would also realize that Linux is marginally faster in single user mode than in multi-user mode.
Rod Taylor
Microsoft natural?.. damn. I must submit that
the intensity of your wit crushes my intrepid nature. Let fact be the matter as I explain to you that your infantile rantings have thrown my pal Jimmy into a rage. So intense was this rage; it threw his typing off slightly. Though, I myself completely understand the content regardless. Please do not profess to the world that the things you do not understand are to be labeled 'incomprehensible', rather than pointing your finger at the true source of the confusion. Your incredibly small intelligence quotient. Might I suggest a few days at the local library, a vacation that may open you to a world that is less difficult to comprehend.
Pointdexter.
BSD has no UNIX code (remember the lawsuit?) and
no UNIX trademark rights. BSD does not even come
close to meeting the UNIX standards, and the BSD
hackers seem to care about as much as HURD hackers.
Linux sucks too, but not as bad as BSD. I and
many others are hacking on the last few bits
needed to make Linux a real UNIX, in name at least.
I dream of Linux being legally "Trusted UNIX".
well, those of us who like our computers to not have NFS bugs that crash the machine, and many other random bugs such as the "vfs: no free inodes: contact linus" one, and the no available FD one in 2.1... hello.
Yes, we beat SunOS 4 (BSD-based) and SunOS 5 (Sysv-based Solaris) on Sun's own SPARC hardware. We were also the first 64-bit OS on the UltraSPARC, and Sun management was not pleased with the Solaris team over that one!
Association with the devil is not generally
good for your soul. Suit yourself though...
I don't really have to save you.
Why would I run OpenBSD when I've already got VMS (which is more secure).
RTFM retard.
have you try the *latest* stable linux kernel ??? :P
try it than complaint again
Sounds like you're the fan boy. Where are the facts to back up your statement? I want facts, not "oh I heard this from so-and-so....blahlblahblah"
Yahoo is entirely FreeBSD - I know, I am an engineer there
Not just ISPs... AFAIK, nobody at my company has ever interviewed anyone who listed only Linux on his/her resume. We've interviewed a couple of Solaris only people, but the people I'm mostly interested in are the ones who have used enough UNIX systems to not get stuck in any specific ways of thought.
This is exactly why I'm more likely to get someone hired who has extensive experience with NetBSD. NetBSD doesn't reflect anyone's ways of system management, etc... Almost every NetBSD user I've ever met has known more about UNIX in general than almost every Linux user I've ever met. This is a rule of thumb, but has shown true in almost every case I've seen. Because of this, the users are more likely to solve a real-world problem than complain about how their favorite OS has their favorite pointy-clicky manager that would solve the problem for them.
>And let's see, where were a huge percentage of >UNIX standards made? The BSD project comes to >mind.
Hey look, it's a real BSD user. I can tell from the stench of his arrogance and European spelling from miles away.
Where *were* most of the standards for Unix(r) set, is something for the history books. Where are the standards of new features, performance,
and adoption of new standards being done today? Linux. Sorry, but BSD fell way, way short and way behind a long time ago. Don't even spout some nonsense like "Softupdates" at me, either. An extension to a legacy filesystem (UFS) that was poorly designed from the start and ought to be trashed? Give me a break.
Oh, and the original post was correct. SysV is the *real* Unix, both technically and by trademark. BSD has been dead for a long, long time. About time some of the jihad warriors wake up and realize that.
this doesn't take in to consideration how open source development works. things get done because people want to get them done. usually for their own personal use. and there's still pretty severe bigotry involved in the BSD vs. SysV/Linux. i use FreeBSD in my servers at work because it was a better OS when i started with it; i continue to use it because i'm used to it. i use linux at home because it's better suited for an all around (desktop) OS. people will continue to use and improve what they like and what they're used to. they're not going to finish devloping the things that _you_ think need to be worked on to complete an OS. people often forget why most open source was developed -- to build a better mousetrap for themselves; it's not nearly as altruistic and organized as people make it out to be.
1. Linux is nearly 100% GPL. It makes it difficult to develop your own extensions and expect to make money from it. FreeBSD is in use in several embedded products because of this. The traditional Berkeley license is much more open than GPL.
2. The same thing can be said about Linux. Berkeley has been giving away BSD source code long before Linux every appeared.
If hype is what you think matters, you've already lost. My advice is to get yourself on a waiting list for Windows 2000...
The only thing that matters is software that does what you want it to, and does it well.
There was a an interview with Alan Cox (probably #2 Linux developer after Linus) referenced here on Slashdot recently. Perhaps some of you should read it, because he has some interesting things to say about FreeBSD.
Oh yeah, I guess that's why Yahoo and cdrom.com uses FreeBSD...
Maybe you should consult your brain *before* you speak the next time.
solaris is completely proprietary.... and anyway it's SysV.4 ------ oh yeah....
and BSD was developed as an _improvement_ on the SysV standard.....
being a solaris admin i've seen more stupid things in solaris than anywhere in freebsd
The NT 4 Workstation SP4 box on which I burn my CDs is an old dual Pentium 200 (not Pentium II, not even MMX). It's only got 64MB of EDO RAM, and the hard drives and 4X CD burner (HP 8100) are all IDE. It's got a web server and SQL Server 7 running on it 24/7, and I've never needed to shut down any apps to burn CDs, be it IE and Outlook 98, or real hogs like MS Office. Nor do the performance of those apps suffer, nevermind not having any slowdowns in alt-tabbing between them. To this day, I haven't had a CD write fail on me.
Now, if you can't manage to burn CDs without having system slowdowns while using a 128MB PII-350 box with SCSI drives, I think you need to recognize that you've either got hardware problems or admin problems. All your registry "tweaks," perhaps?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" -- JWZ, mozilla.org
Well, in slashdot.org. Although it is hardly an example of perfect robustness, nor of good engineering (no NNTP, use of DB where unneeded).
The possibilities of evil companiescan't be dismissed like that: look what happend to Mosaic ; while it has not a BSD like license, it was free for non-commercial use. It was the basis for the first beta version of Netscape (later rewritten from scratch) and Spyglass (licensed from NCSA). Spyglass Mosaic was then the basis for Internet Explorer.
Now look at the browser landscape: Mosaic is nowadays mostly out of the race, and thanks to it, Microsoft has gained 6 months to 2 year advance in its attempt to dominate the Internet. Mosaic was a commercially product, but had it been under a BSD-license, I don't think that things would be different.
For servers this is different; Apache is the symetrical example ; but for end-user applications, the threat of going non-free is very serious.
Also let's add that the fact that SunOS,Solaris,... are based on BSD-licensed code does me very little good ; I guess that FreeBSD core team isn't overwelmed by Solaris BSD-based code for 64-bit Sparcs. Instead they would have to revert to NetBSD code.
funny thing
is that SysV is much more popular in Europe than in US
most of western North america prefer BSD over SysV
while ppl in Europe and Eastern us usually prefer SysV
over BSD,
probably has to do with bsd roots being in california....
uuuh
what does freeBSD have that linux dont ?
freeBSD = linux wannabe
netBSD = dead
openBSD = only bsd worth using
Uhhh, did you miss the part about all of the US Post Office's mission critical servers?
Try the 3c59x driver... works like a charm
if you want to code and then give your code for free to apple (or some other company) so they can release macX (macX is 80% rip of freeBSD and openBSD code) and make money of it you are welcome
and when it comes to this english speaking community, you need to get clue and realise that us is not world and that us sucks when compared to europe. who wants to live in country with highest criminality rates (among industrialised nations), no free healthcare, not free schools.....
and btw , most of the currently ongoing unix projects are started in europe....
well anyway i dont have time to discuss with morons.
Here's a story of a successful 2.2->3.x upgrade.
Firstly, I did a cvsup to get my 2.2.8 box to 3.x. This was accomplished nicely.
To make a short story short, doing a "make aout-to-elf-buildworld" followed by a "make aout-to-elf-installworld" was the way to go, since I read the 3.x docs and the freebsd-stable mailing list.
From now on, it's cvsup.
The cleanest System V is SCO Unix. It is based on system V.3.
Solaris whitch is based on System V.4 contains a LOT of BSD code.
The System V Release 4 was a "merge" between the System V Release 3
and SunOS (BSD).
A System V.4 based OS has IOW been significantly influenced by BSD and
contain a lot of BSD code.
Linux was a kernel originally written by the Finnish CS student Linus Torvalds.
It was a kernel based on Minix and together with tools from Gnu and FSF it made a Unix like OS.
It does not contain any AT&T code but I suppose it contain some BSD code.
Nevertheless it has the look and feel of Unix and it is influenced by both SysV and BSD.
The Unix trademark is owned as far as I know by X/Open. Even if BSD can not
legally call itself Unix it is to me. Unix may have been born at AT&T but it grew up at UC Berkeley.
Remember the C-shell, Vi, TCP/IP, virtual memory etc?
So I will continue to call my FreeBSD box I am typing on just now Unix, just as I call my DEC box beside me Unix.
Have you actually used SCO? A recent version?
:)
No, I have never used the beast and I suppose I never will. Did you miss my point
It sounds like you never have done any coding yourself.
Considering that the main site's been sitting on the 3600 anonymous user maximum since it was announced, I'd say there's more than that.
Where can I get an ISO image of this? :(...
WCARCHIVE doesn't seem to like to carry ISOs anymore
To be honest, my opinion is that market share is less important with Open Source Software than it is with commercial software. The current situation, where Linux greatly outnumbers FreeBSD users, is fine with me, since FreeBSD has enough momentum and Linux emulation support for it to be fine for what I do. And, since Linux (and FreeBSD) are both growing, the longer term trend is good, too.
Quote:
FreeBSD - Most of our web servers run FreeBSD.
I suspect that the mainline servers run FreeBSD, but they use special-purpose servers running other OSes for things involving databases and the like (probably Solaris and/or NT).
Rumor has it that Netscape's FreeBSD ports happened at least partially due to pressure from Yahoo! folks.
For the record, netcraft claims that email.yahoo.com is being run on Solaris, with NCSA.
This matches my hypothesis about running FreeBSD for the mainline production servers, with other boxen for other tasks.
Job information about their sysadmins requires BSD knowledge and recommends Solaris, NT, and Intel hardware experience.
- closed development (real contributions limited to old-boy clic).
- contempt for others in non-freebsd hacker community.
- unrepentant hypocrisy (hatred of the FSF while slurping up all the FSF GNU tools in sight).
- rabid jealousy of the success of others (e.g. the success of Linux and BeOS).
- fratricidal incompatible fragmentation of BSD community (freebsd, openbsd, netbsd, bernbsd, bsdi).
- aging user base (gray beard syndrome).
- lack of true innovation (emphasis on trying to match feature check lists).
- single source vendor trap.
- devoid of third party and ISV support.
- death of CSRG and government subsidies.
Freebsd is a classic study in office politics and backroom backstabbing. The freebsd ``core team'' has been devastated in recent weeks, punctuated by the resignation of many of its senior members. From lax attention to security as highlighted in Usenet's comp.risks, to continued financial woes of a certain vendor of freebsd cdroms, the ongoing decline of freebsd should serve well to instruct others in how not to run a software project.Why bash people who write free software? Just because it is not for linux?
Tell me, what have you done for free software besides making a fool of yourself yesterday?
Nothing I guess.
this might be a little off the topic, but i was wondering if anyone has gotten token ring support to work with fbsd? the documentation for this is scarce, and what i could grudge up were some source and header files to compile into the kernel that didn't work very well at all.
anybody got any insight?
Time for the latest release! Being the second release on the 3.X branch, a lot of things were worked out that were strange in 3.0. I now wholeheartedly recommend a FreeBSD 3.X release to anyone!
Honestly, this is the best FreeBSD release ever; so many new drivers have been added, features added, bugs fixed, and so on. When everyone does their best to improve upon such a great OS, it's evident wonderful things [read: 3.1] happen!
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
What in the HELL are you talking about?
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Posted by Eidos:
:)
HA! AHAHAAHAHAH!!! Sorry, that had to be said. I'm sorry, but I do NT for a living and I've found this to be FAR from the truth.
And no, it isn't because I'm a lousy NT admin. IMHO, the only good MS people I've met tend to despise the OS.
STABLE!!? One poorly written app can easily bring down the whole show. Example. We had to upgrade to McAfee's 4.0 engine to pick up an Excel Macro virus we had picked up. The file/print server would BSOD EACH AND EVERY time we clicked on shutdown. The mail server BSODed in the middle of the install. Finally, I had to pull off the 4.0 engine and put 3.0 back on.
And its far from fast, as well. I have Wks installed in a PII350 128MB ECC Dell desktop workstation. If I attempt to burn CDs while doing anything else, it can choke my system (SCSI optimized) to the point where an alt-tab to a new app can take minutes. And yes, latest drivers, latest SPs, hours optimizing the system via the registry.
I do NT begrudgingly. I think its a fine solution for small workgroup solutions (Such as my work situation, 150 clients), but for large companies, I cannot imagine how they pull it off without vast numbers of NT-skilled employees.
If I had to set up a pure router, DNS server, mail server, etc, I would choose a Unix solution. Hell, I'd choose Novell if I had to over NT in that situation.
Face it, in 20 years when NT had the maturity of Unix, MAYBE it will be an excellent solution. But, for now, its hideous, still missing pure home directories and share scripting (Without resorting to kix32), it has no drive quota support until Windows 2000, etc....
Its featureFULL because MS spends far more time including new features, then redesigning weak points and working out bugs.
I'd be THRILLED to wait 2 years to see a new release of NT that included no new features but fixed thousands of bugs, updated drivers, and improved overall performance.
Done ranting..thansk
I totally agree that the FreeBSD philosophy rocks and was thinking of starting a project like FreeBSD based on the Linux kernel. But it seems as though I am a bit late now. I just subscribed to the FreeLinux mailing lists and lets see how well they are doing. I will be glad to help.
Of course now that I've got cooling fans on my overclocked processores. (well I had them before, but one fan died, and the toher heat sink fell off. this time I got quality, maybe they will last more then 3 months) my system has been solid as a rock.
I wish my linux system was as stable, but not enough to upgrade all the deamons to something a little better then the secureity hole ridden versions I've got. (for one I think I'm running a 4.x version of sendmail) The kernel is fine, at least when I compile it with the right options.
I'd like to try this out, but it doesn't support my scsi controller - Future Domain 1680. No big deal, but that's where the extra disks hang off of, and so, for now, no joy. I'd like to give it a whirl; anyone want to donate an older 'puter so I can experiment? :)
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
At the risk of a flameware, I'll ask:
/home with my linux install.
Does the e2fs support work this time?
I tried 3.0 shortly after release, and found out that it did some Bad Things to my e2fs system. Particularly, it inserted random data during writes.
I'd like to give it a longer try, but that's not possible until it can share
>Aside from a few booboos (pine falters on FCCing >email, and netscape crashes the machine >occasionally on file save)
Not just X, but the whole machine???
>it works just fine. The netscape thing sounds a
>bit severe, but after compiling a lot of stuff >off ext2fs, (where all my cvs trees are) I feel
>safe with it. The thing is that FFS+SU is faster, >so perhaps move your home over to FreeBSD?
If it works, I could do that. The fear is losing *everything* if i have to move it back. hmm, i suppose i could copy a tarball to a fat, then boot the other OS to untar it . . .
But I still needto run long enough to be sure i want to make the switch.
>I haven't really tested Linux's latest UFS
>driver... the one before the 2.2-pre series
>sucked.
It was also read-only . . . and the linux partitions in an extended partition after a bsd partition changed numbers depending upon what you were doing unless your ufs support was just right.
>Currently (thanks to netscape and pine), I just
>made a separate home dir in FreeBSD with
>a few symlinks for stuff like ".ssh", and one
>symlink to the entirety of my home dir.
that could work, too . . .
Thanks
When I have a couple of hours, i'll move around a few partitions & install.
"Anything goes"? Linux is controlled by *one*person*.
Faugh.
FreeBSD wasn't very friendly with my 486. Succeeded in making me waste a full weekend before I got it running. Linux, OTOH, worked nicely out of the box (RH 4.2). Admittadly, old, and FreeBSD was nice enough once I got it installed, but I like the general feel of Linux better.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Moron.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
You've been in a cave for awhile, haven't you?
Microsoft bought Hotmail, and tried converting the service to NT, but NT failed to handle the load, so FreeBSD remained there. I know a few people that work at Hotmail, and they warned Microsoft that they wouldn't be able to do it...
After installing a 2.2 on one of my systems, I was somewhat disappointed by the number of inconviences it introduced in the networking area, like no aliased interfaces in "route" and ipchains do not support interface IP numbers.
Also, 2.2 sometimes sort of blocked.. although I must admit it is much faster under HDD load.
Maybe its time to try one of the *BSDs again... Do *BSDs support routing by source/TOS/port well? portfw? Whats the packaging system used - is it as easy to use as RPMs/DEBs, i.e. dependencies, checkable PGP-signatures on packages (for automatic upgrades) and so on..
Anyway, my server lost a disk the other day, the one that contained most of my system stuff (because in reality my server is junk box) so I'm like hey, I'll try freeBSD on it. Downloaded the boot disk today, not even knowing what version it was and it just happened to be 3.1, from the web site. About 12nn today. Good luck for me I guess, that I didn't start a few hours earlier.
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
cheapbytes will have em in a few days or so.
---
---
we stand in life at midnight, we are always on the threshold of a new dawn.
I do.
---
---
we stand in life at midnight, we are always on the threshold of a new dawn.
2.7.2 I belive. 2.8 doesn't work for sure, and egcs doesn't normally work. In anycase something in the 2.7.x range.
As much as I love copyleft and despise the advertising clause of the BSD license, even I as a tried-and-true, 4 1/2 year Linux lover have to say that I think Chuck is a much cooler looking mascot than Tux.
Tux is "cute;" Chuck kicks ass.
However, given the choice between Linux and *BSD, I'll pick Linux any day of the week. Better hardware support and a better license. However, were Linux not to exist, I'll dump some of my weird hardware and run FreeBSD long before I switched to NT.
(NT is a registered trademark of Northern Telecom.)
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
[ home ]
Well, whatever het name is, s/he/it's cooler looking. =) I haven't spent a lot of time investigating FreeBSD specifically, so a lot of what I've picked up is probably wrong.
So, could you be helpful and tell us what s/he/it is called?
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
[ home ]
"Better hardware support" is no longer true, as far as I can tell.
"Better license" is a question of viewpoint - either you want a restrictive license like the GPL because you want to kill the commercial software market, or you think that providing people with the software that fit their needs is a good thing, and thus don't want the GPL.
Of course, you could also start the paranoid game about the evil companies using your nice code and being able to do more profitable work that way than by doing quite different programming due to not having the same starting point - but we all know that which license a codebase is under influences who works on it, so it is obvious to most of us that this is just propaganda. We're also aware that talking of 'making code proprietary' just is a play of words used by GPL-zealots to try to convert those that don't really consider supplying people with what they need as evil. (Code cannot be 'made properitary' after being released under an open source license, unless all copies are lost - it is already available. Changes can be properitary to the people that make them, though - and IMO it is quite natural that they should own their own changes - it is their effort that create the changes, after all.)
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Anybody know a good place to get a FreeBSD 3.1 CD?
Downloading it off the net using a modem is extremely painful.
I would get it from Walnut Creek, but it costs like $39.95. Ouch. Not good for someone with serious budget problems.
dc
...than the Windows NT/9x proponents you so despise. FreeBSD sucks and Linux is cool? Give me a break. Both of them are good OS's, and while Linux certainly has more users, sheer numbers alone do not indicate superiority. If they did, that would make Windows 9x superior to Linux.
JB
BSD is gonna need it, considering current hype over Linux.
alexc
Join Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine
Well, if you do packet-capturing, youre surely going to thrive with *BSD instead of Linux.
If you're using NFR (Network Flight Recorder), sniffers, etc. the *BSD-implementations is better than Linux. 2.2-kernels has LSF capturing, but I haven't seen any performance figures yet.
For other things, I think they both are nice OS'es.
ArneD
-May the source be with you
Short post:
One open source O/S makes makes far more sense than competing ones. Developers need to spend more time making new features rather than making separate versions of roughly the same thing. In an ideal world, everyone would use a base linux kernel for their architecture with custom additions and loadable modules for their specific needs (diff. filesystems, devices, features). I feel that by dividing our resources like this developers are wasting their time by duplicating work. Ideally we'll see optimized and customized versions of Linux- accelerated for servers, for high intensity graphics, etc.
Ex Machina "From the Machine"
xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]
FreeBSD may have a cooler mascot, but the penguin is a better logo than other ones like an apple or a window that looks like a flag
Some of the ipchaining and aliasing stuff has been supported in the FreeBSD kernel for a while. You can do NAT (ipmasqing), port forwarding, and standard firewall stuff.
As for the source, it's all distributed via CVSup, if you prefer to compile yourself, or daily snapshots are available on current.freebsd.org. Application packages are handled through the Ports Collection. You find the package you want, type 'make', it goes out, grabs the source, patches it, compiles it, then you type 'make install' and it installs it. If you don't like it, just type 'pkg_delete foo' and it's gone. Simple, painless. Beats the hell out of searching for that obscure library that some guy used for his app.
Suprisingly, some ISP's looking for people won't look at your resume unless you've had experience in running a UNIX other than Linux.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/6986/ya hoobsd.htm
d vlin.html
and while you're looking at that:
http://www.futuresouth.com/~fullermd/freebsd/bs
Would you kindly do everyone else the favor of not flaming their favorite OS without proof? Where on earth do you BSD is more powerful than Linux statements come from? They may be true, you might well be able to back them up. But please, either back them up or don't make them. If one OS is superior, and this can be factually proved, then fine, state that (with proof) if you wish. What on earth can be gained from "*BSD is more stable and powerful than Linux, listen to me all you Linux wet-behind-the-ears suckling babes. Come try a real man's OS. My penis is bigger than yours and I have more chest hair."
Maybe there should be some rule that the only people who get to make unjustified statements about Operating Systems have to include some sort of credentials, such as having written 60% or more of two or more operating systems with 5000+ users each?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Well, your question's been answered several times here, so I'll respond to your painful modem issue.
/stand/sysinstall program and select Configure - then Packages.
/usr)
/usr/src and make world (compiles and installs the entire system - now you have much more than the Base System you started with)
/usr/ports/x11/XFree86 and make;make install X (if desired)
/usr/ports/(insert favorite app here) and make;make install
I've performed several installs via a 56K modem using the FTP method. It's sweet compared to my attempts at doing the same for a Linux dist. Here's the basic process:
Download a boot.flp image (1.44M)
Transfer image to floppy and boot
Perform your disk setup process (nothing rights to disk until you complete all of the setup info)
Select FTP and the closest mirror to you as the source
Configure your PPP connection info (if you have a lame ISP and DNS resolution fails, ping the site and use the IP address instead of site name)
Select Base System as your pre-packaged source (this installs the basic system, no X, no source)
Reply YES to the do you really want to do this
Leave it alone for a few hours (because it doesn't require the entire source to be downloaded just to do a basic install, it is far quicker that Linux)
Once the system is installed and rebooted, setup PPP and connect to your ISP. Re-run the
Install the CVSUP-BIN package and configure it to pull the source tree and ports tree to your PC (make sure you have lots of space on
Kick off the cvs update and leave it alone for several hours.
When it completes:
cd to
cd to
cd to
It's that easy - The several times I've installed this way, I started the initial install around 8pm on a Saturday night. By 11pm the system was installed and running so I kicked off the cvsup and let it run overnight. Sunday morning, I kicked off the make world to install the complete system. By Sunday afternoon I installed the various ports I wanted and by Sunday evening the entire system was complete.
NOTE: There are obviously manual configuration steps necessary during/between the above steps. Times are approximate - Your Milage May Vary.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
I can't believe you posted this. Is this supposed to state that FreeBSD didn't work or that your incompetent. At least you posted as an AC.
Anyone who upgrades any system should have read all available documentation[1] (and understood it) before even attempting the process.
[1] This refers not only to README's and such, but a quick search of the mailing lists would have provided more than enough warnings.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
I think www.dejanews.com is run by a bunch of linux machines.
If you wait a little while cheapbytes.com will have 3.1 ready, thier freebsd cd's usually go for $4.99. www.cheapbytes.com
linuxmall may also have it soon, they usually cost $1.89
Already at 'as a professional' I knew you had to
be a looser. And when you call NT 'perfectly stable', it's just obvious that you have to be
a "web designer" or "VB programmer" or something
other in the 'air,food and money wastement' area
of work.
Of course you could be paid by Microsoft too.
Logs, anyone?
Several os'es means competition, and competition accelerate improvement. Open os'es are getting better than commercial alternatives, but we don't want to stop there. And duplicated work don't waste that much time when the competitor is open. :-)
SMP support on FreeBSD/i386 is standard now, but it is not as good as one might want it. In particular, there is no scheduling of a MT process to multiple CPUs. Apart from that, SMP support works as expected. -Hans
Do you have any factual information to support your claim that the linux kernel is superior to FreeBSD's?
Further more, unified development will likley lead to less innovation. FreeBSD takes whats good from linux, linux takes whats good from FreeBSD. This leads to a better, faster, more secure and stable platform for both parties. Were we both to run Generix I suspect a "its not broke, don't fix it" mentaility would set in.
considering you would have to compare how similar things run on NT to get a feel of how well your OS is running. (not much of a compitition.) I've never found the claims of superiority over windows impressive, I do however find claims of superiority over xBSD or linux worth looking into.
IMHO the developemnt of these two similar operating systems, and that of all the other opensource OSes (OSie?) spur competition between each other that makes each respective enviroment better for the end user.
cheapbytes will probably come out with a $5 cd
sometime soon.
-jason
Who's reinventing the wheel, old boy?
BSD UNIX has been "the wheel" since the early '80s. It's the Linux folks who seem to be imbued with the "Not Invented Here" problem.
Linux is neat, no doubt about that, and I'm a big fan of diversity... I'm an Amiga fan, I've got a Mac and I've had Ataris and CP/M boxes and god only knows what else. I'm not saying Linux people shouldn't go ahead and burn the midnight oil looking for better solutions... but for god's sake, it's really amazingly daft to argue that it's FreeBSD that's "reinventing the wheel".
To set up an alias on an interface you use ifconfig, not route.
I personally find BSD to be a smoother and hotter system, but that's not the point. I'm not trying to put down Linux, I'm trying to provide a bit of perspective to the people flaming about BSD being somehow derived from or inspired by Linux.
You talking to me, boy? You talking to me?
I've written software that automatically converted 16-bit PL/M code on a proprietary Intel O/S to C that had to run on Solaris and Digital UNIX. The convertor ran on both UNIX platforms plus Xenix-286. The resulting code is not the prettiest stuff in the world (PL/M's pointer handling is baroque at best) but it's maintainable and portable.
Writing code that will run on BSD and Linux is no harder than writing code that will run on Debian and Red Hat and the old libc and the new libc and all the different versions of GCC... until you have one OS and one version and one implementation of every library... and that won't happen, ever, without someone like Microsoft being in a position to dictate that beyond this day ALL OLD CODE WILL BE BROKEN (and not even Microsoft has that power)... writing portable code is just part of being a programmer.