Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 3.2-Release is out
Kenny_Dope writes "FreeBSD 3.2-Release is now available at the usual FTPs (ftp.freebsd.org , and mirrors)
with lots of cool new features.
go get it now! ( taken from freebsdrocks.com "
You BSDies know what to do.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Why? Because Linux doesnt perform well in non-real-world applications yer gunna give it up?
:)
Thats BS
FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD all would have performed nearly the same. Its just a matter of preference. Linux is HARDLY a "slow" webserver. The article isn't fud... but it isn't very real world. Infact, its not real world at all. Linux has been proven faster then NT on countless occations on real world tests.
Unfortunatly, coperations dont always listen to "real world" success stories, they want benchmarks.
On top of that, linux is more stable then NT
Well, guess what FreeBSD boy... we may be 5% slower but we run on a hella lot more hardware. I can run Linux on a mac, alpha, strongARM, palmpilot, i386, SPARC, and so much more.
Yeah, FreeBSD is optimized for i386... for the other platforms, you can use NetBSD.
sorry, but like Linux is portable and tweeked, freebsd just really really tweeked.
Yeah, and NetBSD is portable (I don't know about the tweaking because I haven't personally used it), and yes, FreeBSD is really really tweeked. So what's wrong with that? You act like it's bad.
~unyun~
Slashdot is followed by FreeBSD and NT fans too!
BTW: This beta release is not mentioned on the 'announcements' page at www.freebsd.org.
The installation needs to get easier on FreeBSD though. I tried v3.0 a while back and it was much harder than most other Linux distributions. Hopefully the v3.2 got easier.
I prefer to use FreeBSD on my router/server and Linux on my laptop. FreeBSD seems to be a more sane to administer than Slackware, but Linux is easier to configure for use on a laptop with APM.
YMMV.
I've had odd problems with FBSD 3.1 so I'm eager to install 3.2 tonight.
Without seeing what the others wrote:
FreeBSD - Optimized for X86
NetBSD - cutting edge code on may platforms.
OpenBSD - NetBSD's many platforms, FreeBSD's ports/packages and the code has been audited.
If its an X86 FreeBSD. OpenBSD for most, NetBSD for development.
If you want better laptop support, I've heard NetBSD is the best at that. Also, everytime I hear about *BSD on laptop (in a news article or whatnot), I hear NetBSD, not FreeBSD.
Any NetBSD/Laptop users to verify this one?
Do you want people to pull out the flamethrowers?
Install really isn't so bad if you are a fairly knowledge person about the hardware (not to say you're not). I don't think FreeBSD is targetted as directly to desktop systems as linux is, so that's probably why installs are different. But I used the 3.0-RELEASE official CD set and had no difficulties (no difficulties after I enabled LBA in bios that is. I felt like a moron since I already knew the 6.4 Gig drive would pose that problem). With FreeBSD, is seems that you really need to know your hardware, and you need to read thru an install guide first (the one at www.vmunix.com is pretty damn good).
Maybe you should visit advocacy.freebsd.org and look to find out that hotmail.com *also* runs on FreeBSD. Solaris for the mail serving, FreeBSD for the web interface. Why aren't they running NT to do the web interface, surely NT will run on x86 hardware?
No lab test is ever real world, yet I always see everyone cheer the numbers when they are on their side and berate them whern they go the other way.
In all honesty FreeBSD would have done much better than linux, at least 30%, maybe more, FreeBSD shines under high load. I don't know if it would have toppled NT, for everyone's blabbering over how aweful NT is it has some great design at the low level, stuf that is years ahead of Linux and FreeBSD
No fucking way is SCO "rock solid, ultrascalable" that "works on lots and lots of hardware."
SCO sucks! I'd rather admin NT, it's so bad.
I've not seen many flames against BSD as long it Linux doesn't get huga amounts of bad remarks first. I see it as a kind of Moment22 thing, If BSD people sais BSD is superior any linux user who sais the opposite is stupid because he doesn't use BSD and gets called a flamer, and his score is moderated to -41891489124 imidiatly ;) even if the article they comment on are greatly BSD biased, som e examples are The Matrix the some idiot used Linux emulation in BSD to do all the rendering or the pure FUD article against GPL.
OpenBSD is your into cryptography and security, FreeBSD for normal users and NetBSD for academic researchers and platforms other than x86 (OpenBSD also supports other platforms though).
Where the Hell can I get an iso of FreeBSD 3.2?
So,
Does FreeBSD/RH have their NFS act together yet????
Do either support NFS3????
Which one will give me better performance and stability when serving files to SGI IRIX 6.5?????
Previous attempts with FreeBSD 2.X and RH 5.2 were not all that spectacular, is it time to stick my neck out and implement a low-cost NFS server or should I stick with $GI for all of my NFS needs?????
Thanks!!!!
motjuste@briefcase.com
specifically, on my IDE drive, i had a layout of
1) tiny linux rescue partion
2) DOS partition (only way i could reliably
transfer between ext2 and ufs
3) UFS
4) extended with several linux partitions
I found that FreeBSD 3.1 would panic about 20% of the time on boot (it was fine after that) when it tried to read partition 4 and found what it thought to be an invalid label.
I'd like to switch to freebsd, but i need to dual-boot with linux for a few months, and this got to be too much.
Not really an AC, but to moderate this thread already.
Jed is an awesome editor. I don't think anyone would get laughed at if they used emacs or pico. Its a personal choice.
You should probably build world using the -j option of make, 4-8 would be a nice value to try.
Nice SMP-ing...
toor@127.0.0.1
If you are using CVSup 16.0, be sure to check the -s option, which would cause lesser disk access, and indeed, it runs faster coz it assumes that your source tree is correct. Of course, you might want to run it without the -s option from time to time, but it's definitely worthwhile to look into if you tends to run it daily, or weekly.
apache...
free is still too much for it
According to my observations, there is no such thing as an organized crusade by Linux users against the (excellent) FreeBSD operating system. I have been with Linux for 6 years, with 2-years in freeBSD. If we must examine in detail, there are probably more disparaging posts against Linux in the BSD mailing lists than posts against FreeBSD in the Linux lists. In general, thought, not much wrangling exists between the two communities and we do live side-by-side in comfort.
why was this post moderated to -1 ?
I think juan posted something he felt like writing about OpenBSD 2.5 being out now. Dear moderators, what is your point ?
I have never tried SMP with FreeBSD, though. I have a client who wants to know what OS to put on their new SMP box, and I've heard great things about SMP in Linux 2.2 from everyone (including Intel).
How does FreeBSD compare in this srea?
Congrats to the FreeBSD team on their new release!
How's FreeBSD's Oracle support? I don't need to run Oracle server on it, but I need an Oracle client for connecting to the backend server.
Well have a look to what a FreeBSD developer says about Linux VM. Very clean, but not designed to survive under high load. Face it, the FreeBSD people focus on performance, and FreeBSD might well be faster than Linux for high load.
Now the same couldn't be necessary be said for NetBSD and OpenBSD.
- not only. I'm really dissapointed to read this here. Or should I've expected that? Hmmm, not sure...
:-), etc. - I've done all this in the past and was absolutly [satisfied..impressed] with NetBSD's performace/features. - Stability doesn't impress me, I *expect* an OS to be stable - at least more stable than the hardware it runs on.
NetBSD is very fine for production servers: http, ftp, smtp/[a]pop*, irc, nntp, dns, dhcp/bootp, nfs, samba, routing, traffic analysis, firewalling/NAT, quake*
(Oh, and I use NetBSD exclusivly on my Desktop(s) as well) In short: NetBSD a Un*x style allround operating system for more than everything a Un*x style Operating system can do.
And of course it's absolutly *not* insecure:
The advantage of OpenBSD is the integrated *cryptography* since it's Canada-based (stupid and senseless US export restricions, we all know that).
OpenBSD itself is *not* more secure ("crashable or crackable") than NetBSD: Known bugs are fixed nearly immediatly for *every* kind of *BSD and the linux kernel and it's stupid to say the the number of unknown bugs is less in OpenBSD than in NetBSD or FreeBSD. Don't pay much on OpenBSD's "code auditing". We all know it's stupid to say "we have looked at the code, fixed bugs and now it's secure" - if this has worked you shouldn't be able to see any OpenBSD related bugfix in the last years (you must be blind, if you don't).
No doubt: OpenBSD is a fine OS, but it's FUD to say: "OpenBSD is secure and NetBSD is for developement".
(Well, I know that a *small* part of the OpenBSD developers and users have become experts on FUDing NetBSD (and FreeBSD sometimes). That's why I'm posting anonymously: I just don't want to get mailbombed by Theo search the FreeBSD and NetBSD mailliglists if you don't know what I mean.)
Oh, and NetBSD has a FreeBSD-style "ports collection" for over a year now as well. It's just called "packages" since the term "ports" is used to refer the many platforms NetBSD runs on (eg. NetBSD/arm32 is a "port of NetBSD to the ARM processor").
Fight FUD!
Thank you for your attention.
Oh well.. I know I can cvsup it fairly easily, but it's still worth it just to get the official CD set. FreeBSD is so excellent that I wouldn't even hesitate to buy an official version when presented with the opportunity.
Sounds fine to me. Just like Linuxies or Solarisies.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by d106ene5:
You're right - PCMCIA support still isn't really there. Linux is marginally better for laptop support.
Posted by JPerlow:
Free UnixWare 7.1, 50 bucks for the media/manual kits, license is free to students, academics, home users and demo purposes.
and check out the SCO Skunkware site for open source UnixWare 7.1 tools and popular ports of Linux and FreeBSD programs, like KDE.
Deinitely worth a look if you want a rock solid, ultrascalable UNIX (this one is SVR5 with a 64-bit filesystem, RAID, SMP and clustering support, pentium and even Merced optimized, works on lots and lots of hardware, X server works on tons and tons of cards). Administration and configuration is easier than any unix out there with SCO's graphical SCOadmin.
doesnt quite sound right :P...BSD Users?
my.cents = 2;
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
FreeBSD is too big, and it changes too fast for a single "changelog" file to really cover it all. If the summary of changes in the release notes isn't detailed enough for you, the next stop is the CVS commit logs. Everything is there, albeit not necessarily in a format that's the easiest to recover.
I haven't seen a "real" UNIX shop that laughs people out for using emacs... I rarely have seen one where many people use vi....
Not to start distro wars, but slackware doesnt seem to put much emphasis on ease of administration compared to other Linuxes. If you're going to compare, look at SuSE or RedHat or Debian (possibly PHT, but I know nothing about that distro)
I can't believe that he wouldn't be even more productive in emacs though... :)
Actually it is difficult if you have to guess about parts of your hardware. I have a bunch of crap that I got from various sources, most of which is still a mystery (my NE2000 clone card cost me $2). I used a RedHat 5.2 install to gather information about it, and then went on to a FreeBSD 3.1 install. Of course, I'm back on RedHat for the moment, but I'm going to try 3.2..
-- The unsig...
People get it now, I think. You like a FreeBSD feature? Port it to Linux. You think a Linux app rocks? Run it under BSD. The lines are blurring between distros and UNIX in general.
The only question in your choice these days is exactly what you want out of your OS. Claiming one is better or the best isn't productive and usually isn't valid to other people.
FreeBSD rocks. Linux rocks. NT, well, it runs.
-- The unsig...
I don't see why there needs to be any degenerate threads. I use Debian linux myself, and tried FreeBSD once. It was different, but worked, until I messed up /bin/sh on the P60 I had it running. I never bothered to fix the problem, but I still never saw a reason to blast *BSD
So don't believe that all linux users thing *BSD sucks.
Tigger's like to read
on my 4.0 system with dual 400-PII i get about a 55 minute buildworld using -O3 -mpentium and no shortcuts. I was wondering how your box does?
Other noted configuration: 256ram, 9gig 2940UWscsi
Just curious...
- Alfred Perlstein - Programmer and Administrator, Wintelcom.
I can run BSD on all those but the PalmPilot and since I don't have one, it doesn't matter.
GPL isn't communist. It's just a license to keep linux open. Redhat and caldera sell linux distros. They make money
---
Now if I only could convince my boss to give FreeBSD a shot. He stares at his penguin all day long, and doesn't want to hear a thing about *BSD. Too bad. He should at least try FreeBSD before forming an opinion. Maybe in the future...
Intosi
Intosi
Intosi
Intosi
Intosi
I do understand that vi ships with virtually every system. I do know the basics but still find it purile and unneccesarily difficult. I mean, Emacs is no piece of cake, but at least there's no arbitrary difference between entering text and entering commands. (Basically Emacs is in command mode all the time, and keystrokes are mini-commands.)
This is not intended to start a stupid vi-vs-emacs flame war. I just wanted to point out that lumping pico in with emacs is pretty laughable.
Only I still had problems. I got the system installed, but getting it to see my card after the first bootup was a nightmare. And I was not really equipped to patch and compile a kernel. Not to mention the fact that FreeBSD does not ship with Emacs and I haven't the foggiest idea how to use vi.
My question is, when is this vital laptop support going to be rolled into FreeBSD itself?
In the meantime, I'm quite happy with Linux. I just installed RedHat 6.0 on the same laptop, and everything was flawless... both the network interface and sound and everything was instantly recognized.
This isn't a complaint, really. It's a question.
So you want degenerative threads to illustrate your innate superiority or something?
How about this: cvsup it and enjoy it and live life outside your choice of OS.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
I didn't see anything like "Changelog" jump out at me on freebsd.org or on freebsdrocks. I'm not a hordling (though my name *is* Chuck) but I'm still curious about it.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
What do you mean, beta release? It's a full release, and there's nothing beta about it. The announcements page is usually the last to get updated. You can get all the info you need from the freebsd-announce list and from the docs on the ftp sites.
-lx
Well, if there was a best BSD, the other projects wouldn't exist, right?
;)
-lx
Sounds ok, (cept the svr5 part), but I've heard some bad things about sco's stability and general worthwhileness. Then again, that might just be because of the general slashdot Linux bias.
-lx
That's actually useful info, as I ran around looking for the release tag, which apparently is RELENG_3_2_0_RELEASE or something horrific, before testing it out and finding that RELENG_3 was sufficient. :)
-lx
What I really want is a Debian GNU/BSD, with Debian's pleasant APT, decent GNU tools, as opposed to the dated 4.4BSD/Lite tools, and same filesystem layout as Debian GNU/Linux. That would be heavenly.
Through in GNU/OS/2 while you're at it. Thanks. ;p.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
Still running CURRENT cmc? ;)
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
I must sadly admit that I've only tried FreeBSD, I intend to try Open and Net as soon as I have the possibility. But if you run a PC, FreeSBD is a great os, in my opinion quite a bit better that linux (stability/speed). I've run Linux before, quite a few dists... So give FreeBSD a try!
OK, I've tried linux and like it but now I want to try BSD and see which is better (for me). So which version is better, Net, Open, or Free?
The RELNOTES.TXT says
Support for USB devices further improved.
I justed switched to 4.0-CURRENT after 3.2-STABLE had been out for some days. I recall that they removed the sample usb options from the LINT and GENERIC config files, and the cvs-log stated something like "Not ready for mass consumption."
Was this released to early??
Correct me if these are bogus claims.
-CURRENT rocks. Plus, the more people out there using -CURRENT on non-critical machines, the faster bugs can be found and reported to the development team. And the faster that happens, the faster cool and useful features can be stabilized and integrated into -STABLE, where I can feel safe using it on a server.
:)
I tend to cvsup my -CURRENT box at home about once a week and rebuild everything, though often times i'll hold off for a few days if the traffic on the freebsd-current list indicates that doing so will probably break me badly
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
They are working on an alpha version now. Also thereis is also NetBSD and OpenBSD.
this space for rent
That Linux may not be the end all and be all of operating systems in the near future I may choose to become Future FreeBSD Guru, and Future Solaris Guru and Future (ACK!) NT Guru...
3.2 rocks. Watching make-world on the console on a fairly fast system in nearly hypnotic.
I can't see using any other OS in the near future - FreeBSD rocks.
Signed, A BSD Bigot.
FreeBSD 3.2 supports nfs3, and it's pretty stable as long as you keep to UDP. NFS/TCP still have it's share of problems.
As for performance, you may have to tune nfs sysctl settings. On a recent thread on one of the FreeBSD lists, for instance, it became clear that OS/2 clients interacted badly with FreeBSD's NFS write-gathering.
Also, Linux (by default, at least), violates NFS2 specs by immediatly acking write requests, instead of waiting until they are committed to disk. FreeBSD has this tunable, with the default being not violating the specification. But if you are going to use nfs3, that's a non-issue.
(8-DCS)
CVSup straight to -STABLE if you're into that tame 3.x stuff.
I'm glad there are little posts on this article. It means the [f]lamers are ignoring it. The next step, hopefully, would be to get some decent, mature commentary on the stories. I hope to see it soon.
FreeBSD also has a working port to Alpha, and a Sparc port is in the works. Perhaps the people who are working hard on these areas should know that the only work on FreeBSD is being put into i386.