FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE

Triumph The Insult C writes "FreeBSD 4.7 is out. Here is the announcement. New items include an option for IPFW2, a number of disk controller updates, security updates, and some changes to userland. Remember, please use a mirror." Among other things, the release announcement says: "FreeBSD 4.7 also incorporates all of the security and bug fixes from 4.6.2 (released in August 2002), including several ATA-related bugfixes, updates for OpenSSL and OpenSSH, and fixes to address several security advisories." And here are the release notes.

Mirrors

[aridhol]

Instead of pointing to the front page, it may be more useful to point at the mirror list [freebsdmirrors.org].

Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?

[Moridineas]

The best of FreeBSD? Well some would say the best of FreeBSD is the BSD part (license and architecture). Another advantage (and what I like a lot) is the ability to keep track of the CVS tree and "make world" any time you want and have a completely upgraded core system. The ports system is also in my mind infinitely preferable to binary package hell. Ports has been tried in some linux distributions I believe (Gentoo? not sure). So in a way, some of the best parts of the BSD's are going into linux

On the other hand, linux because of it's size and diversity will never have the core development group, and central design that the BSD's have.

Re:freeBSD update schedule

[lertl]

Usually there is a release every four months or so. You can check the Release Engineering page at http://www.freebsd.org/releng/index.html.

Re:Heh jsut in time :)

[DoctorPepper]

Why is that a good thing? Hell, once you install a FreeBSD distribution, you never have to install another one on the same computer again (assuming you don't mess it up :-). Just point your cvsfile at the branch you wish (RELENG_4 in this case) and do a buildworld, and voila! You will have FreeBSD 4.7.

Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?

[b0r1s]

Many will argue that FreeBSD is still more stable than linux. That is debateable, but I think a case could be made either way. Much of the difference is due to preference (some of it is due to the dislike of the GPL by many, many people).

The advantages of FreeBSD over Linux is:

• Complete control of ENTIRE operating system. With a few exceptions, tools in the base systems are BSD derived rather than GNU tools. This prevents the FSF people from calling it "GNU/FreeBSD", and allows the contributors to the operating system the ability to modify userland tools to better integrate with the kernel.
  
• Incredibly well developed updating system. The CVSup setup employed by FreeBSD is simply unmatched by anything linux has. Yes, Redhat allows you to grab new kernel RPMs, and debian allows you to apt-get kernels, but FreeBSD is designed to be updated often ('updated' means the entire source heirarchy, if need by), and the system in place makes this possible. When you also consider that a single 'make buildworld' followed by an NFS mount, and multiple 'make installworld's on other machines can update an entire server farm to a custom built OS, you'll realize that linux can not compete with the level of customization that to which FreeBSD administrators have become acustomed.
  
• Make tools that make developing nice. Things like <bsd.port.mk> et. al. have no rivals in the linux world. Creating kernel makefiles becomes trivial; a simple include statement handles 90% of the grunt work involved in writing makefiles.
  
• Freedom from the GPL. Like it or not, most corporations do not want to give away all of their work to their competitors if they ever decide to release a product that required modification to the OS.
  

Yes, linux is nice ... for the desktop. But I'd still prefer FreeBSD in the rack, or in any corporate situation.

Re:FreeBSD running behind linux?

[Hoxworth]

I suggest trying it out. If by support you are referring to hardware, it is true that FreeBSD is not as heavily advanced as Linux. FreeBSD is built more as a server operating system than a desktop operating system, and as such, the developers are more worried about producing a stable operating system and hardening the actual core than providing driver support for the latest and greatest soundcard. Don't get me wrong, they do have an excellent list of supported hardware. In my experience, FreeBSD has been able to utilize my system a heck of a lot better than Linux ever has. Large X processes seem to always have no problem running simultaneously with 3-4 builds taking place in the background. Even binaries built for Linux run at incredible speed; as stated on the FreeBSD website, Linux binaries can even run faster on a FreeBSD machine using Linux emulation than Linux itself can run it. I'm not going to get into a holy war over which operating system is better, because they both definitely have their ups and downs. I do suggest, however, to give FreeBSD a try if you are interested in seeing what it can do.

Re:Heh jsut in time :)

[b0r1s]

While I agree with most of what you said, I dislike tracking -stable.

It's far better to track the latest release. Setting the tag to "RELENG_4_7_0" would allow you to grab the exact sources used to build the 4.7 cd, AND any security updates as they come out.

Stable is fine, for home users, but some of the patches MFC'd aren't quite as stable as they should be for production equipment.

Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?

[Deth_Master]

Incredibly well developed updating system
the entire source heirarchy, if need be

Check out SourceMage [sourcemage.org]. This is a linux distro that, with a little work, is always the most up to date Linux distro Ever. You get the source from many different locations, and it's the latest stable version. It also has a nifty theme to it, Magic. You "cast"(install) "spells"(programs) and it downloads the source and compiles and installs it, and creates logs of all that happens. You can "dispel"(uninstall) it. you can "gaze" into the "grimoire"(list of spells). Even if you only get it because you can cast xfree86 or cast linux itself, its fun!

ok made my monthly advertising requirement... :P

Re:Still no CARDBUS support yet?

[CoolVibe]

FreeBSD has cardbus support, but you'd have to dare to run the CURRENT branch. CURRENT is now having a big overall nouw ith the recent additions of the new KSE threading and GEOM, so I'd just wait for a bit until everything in CURRENT dampens out a bit.

CURRENT is going to rock when it goes STABLE.

Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?

[dsb3]

> There's no RedHat FreeBSD, SuSE FreeBSD, Debian FreeBSD, etc. It's just FreeBSD.

Um. Actually there *is* Debian/FreeBSD. You can find more details here: http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/

That said, I do agree with your original point.

Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?

[akharon]

Um, there was an article awhile back on the highpoint driver being stolen. Stolen, meaning that the BSD license wasn't adhered to, as credit wasn't given to the original author.

Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?

[aridhol]

Less users spurring development I suppose.

I think that's exactly it. NVidia has released binary-only drivers for Linux and Windows, but not for any other OS. They claim that they can't release the source because part of it is licenced from another source (can't remember who), and that they aren't licenced to release it.

Re:Heh jsut in time :)

[akharon]

It is better to track RELENG_4_7, as you then get all the bugfixes and security updates, but none of the tweaks that accompany RELENG_4.

actually, since you mention it

[Anonymous Coward]

The various BSDs are not differet distributions of a single operating system. They originate from a single source code base, but are separate operating system.

Their kernels differ (often substantially), their filesystem layouts and utilities (to some degree) differ, their packaging systems differ, etc. There is cross pollination, and it's easier to adapt kernel features among the BSDs than between BSD and other *nix type operating systems, but they are not the same Beastie.

And while we're on the topic, OsX is not really a BSD operating system; it's a Mach microkernel with a BSD layer on top that provides some utiltiy functionality. It's not substantially BSDish.

Re:Sigh ....

[dinivin]

FreeBSD code cannot be "stolen"


Completely untrue... Taking the code and not adhering to the license is stealing. This is what happened when FreeBSD code made it into the linux ATA driver and the copyright was dropped from the source code.

Dinivin

Re:Heh jsut in time :)

[Ziest]

RELENG_4_7 would get you the 4.7 security branch, which is probably what you want. RELENG_4_7_0 doesn't exist.

The CVS tag you want is

RELENG_4_7_0_RELEASE

See FreeBSD:CVS Tags [freebsd.org]

Re:gcc 3?

[ozzmosis]

Just the "stable" branch is sticking around with gcc2.95 the newer more cutting edge "current" branch has gcc3.2. And the reason behind this is gcc 3.2 isn't stable yet and gcc2.95 is and has been stable for quite some time.

ahze@ahze(~) gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.2.1 [FreeBSD] 20020901 (prerelease)

ahze@ahze(~) uname -v
FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #34: Sun Sep 22 20:30:11 EDT 2002

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Good Article on BSD

[snookerdoodle]

Appeared here recently:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,55618 8, 00.asp

Mark

Re:Upgrading?

[Brew Bird]

/stand/sysintall

Under the Options selection, change the
Release Name: to the appropriate version you want to install.

Then, perform an 'Upgrade' from the main manu.

This will do a binary replacement upgrade.
If you did a custom kernel, it will NOT install the new sources, so before you do this, copy your kernel config file somewhere else and nuke the src directory, or learn about cvsup.

Re:Upgrading?

[Inst1gator]

Update your source:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859- 1/books/h andbook/cvsup.html

Compile your source and kernel:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859- 1/books/h andbook/makeworld.html

Re:Upgrading?

[Anonymous Coward]

Run cvsup using stable-supfile and ports-supfile, edited as you like, from /usr/share/examples/cvsup. Then "make world." (Much more detail on both of these is available in the FreeBSD Handbook on the FreeBSD web site.) Depending on the capabilities of your box, you'll have a brand-new up-to-date 4.7 system in 30 minutes to 3 or so hours.

Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?

[rplacd]

I've set up a bunch of systems over the years using both Linux and FreeBSD (I've used both since 1993/1994). In general, you get user-related foo (eye candy like enlightenment, games like the id Quake series, drivers for webcams, etc) in Linux before FreeBSD. However, stuff you'd need to run servers end up in FreeBSD in way better shape (at least initially) than they do in Linux. A lot of this has to do with the users -- there are more Linux desktop users than there are FreeBSD desktop users (actually, I guess the same goes for server users).

FreeBSD has had better device support for certain types of devices (scsi controllers, usb equipment, etc) than Linux -- again, initially. The larger Linux userbase has made it so that now more devices work with Linux than they do with FreeBSD. It's simply a matter of scale -- more users, more device support. My webcam works with Linux and Windows, but doesn't work with FreeBSD (it doesn't have an equivalent project to V4L).

In terms of software, Linux can get really annoying. I mean, its proponents claim it's similar enought to Unix to replace Unix systems
(corp db servers, etc). However, you run into a lot of Linux apps that either use Linux-specific system calls or are a pain to compile on other platforms. A lot of people appear to code to Linuxisms, and don't care or don't test on other systems (like Solaris, FreeBSD, etc). Even stuff as simple as using #!/bin/bash in shell scripts and using bash syntax makes it hard to run stuff on (say) my AIX boxes at work. Annoyingly enough, I've even run into people who won't accept my patches to get stuff running on FreeBSD (a total of 10-20 lines in > 5k LOC code!) because they can't be bothered to try it out ("all our developers use Linux"). In general, apps written by people who use FreeBSD are more adaptable.

I usually set up Linux servers (using RedHat or Debian) and end up turning stuff off after the installation. With FreeBSD, I get pretty much all the same apps (ssh, samba, etc), but they're disabled by default. This is an important issue when you consider the number of named/apache/etc worms out there (and more are on the way). In that sense, FreeBSD's more security-friendly than many Linux distributions.

Some places have successfully used hundreds of FreeBSD boxes as web farms; I hope someone working at Yahoo or Hotmail posts explaining why they didn't use Linux. (Yes, I know Google uses Linux).

Faried.

Re:High UID support????

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeBSD had 32bit UIDs quite a while before Linux did.

Please refrain from discussing that which you obviously know nothing about.

Re:Yay!

[rplacd]

I'll never install 4.7. Know why? I have older FreeBSD systems, and I keep upgrading them to whatever the current stable release is. Even over a dialup link, it doesn't take more than 10-15 minutes to synchronize my /usr/src with the latest code out there.

Steps:

- cvsup the latest -stable sources
- cd /usr/src
- mergemaster -p (to merge /etc/{group,passwd} changes
- make buildworld && make buildkernel KERNCONF=mykernel
- make installkernel KERNCONF=mykernel && make installworld
- mergemaster (to merge /usr/src/etc with /etc).
- reboot

I've done this process for years. On the system I'm composing this message, I've done this irregularly for over two years, and hav gone from FreeBSD 3.3 to (now running) the 4.7 release candidate.

If you don't want to wait for 4.7's ISO images, just install 4.6.2 and do the update. It's described pretty well in the handbook.

Re:BSD ?

[rplacd]

FreeBSD boots fine with grub. FreeBSD also comes with its own bootloader; I believe that'll work with Linux (with root on ext2fs).

I have a dual-boot system with FreeBSD -current and Debian Sarge; I have to use grub because my Sarge installation is on XFS.

Me hopes for support for my controller

[Openadvocate]

Ah, I hope it will support my promise Supertrak SX6000 RAID controller.
hmm:
The pst driver, [freebsd.org] for supporting Promise SuperTrak ATA RAID controllers, has been added.
Sweet. There is hope, thank you Søren Schmidt.

And ftp.freebsd.org is hosted by a local ISP, as well as the local mirror. Ah, I will have the disc in 40 minutes. yes.. Now if only I haven't drunk that bottle of wine for dinner, oh well. just makes installing that more fun.

Not so simple

[Anonymous Coward]

In particular because Java has pervasive threads support and FreeBSD does not support kernel threads.

linux_compat on FreeBSD has always been a bit of a guessing game, it certainly is not plug and play.

Re:gcc 3?

[Fweeky]

Generally large scale software upgrades are avoided in a -STABLE branch. That means prefering to backport patches than upgrade to the latest and greatest (OpenSSH was somewhat of an exception because patches were not available at the time). Those who need to version chase can use ports and have a much greater choice and level of control over how things are set up and which versions to go for (gcc3, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are in ports, perl 5.6 and 5.8 too, as are latest OpenSSH, OpenSSH, sendmail, etc).

This keeps cvs deltas down as imports are much more rare (hence making updates smaller) and helps keep only well tested and well known code in base.

Re:Er, no.

[Fweeky]

when you want a binary, you have to find the HTTP location of the package, and then feed it to pkg_add, versus typing 'apt-get install pkg.'

pkg_add -r pkg

No need to determine URL's yourself. portupgrade is also good for this sort of thing.

Re:Why people keep saying BSD is dead?

[The Bungi]

My god, man. They're trolls. From the "*BSD Is Dying" genus, specifically bsdterminatus trollus

Do you really want to use that as your reason for posting a defense of BSD?

In any case, I've heard *BSD is dying <g>

Re:Why people keep saying BSD is dead?

[m.dillon]

Yah, they are trolls. From just one or two people... probably just one guy, in fact. I don't know what his beef is and I don't really care, but he almost universally posts at least two or three (or more if he thinks he is being ignored) pieces of garbage in BSD related sections. We think the same bozo occassionally posts to our mailing lists via double-blind proxies. The poor guy needs help whoever he is.

-Matt

Re:FreeBSD rules!

[destiney]

I started using FreeBSD a few days ago myself. I've used Linux for several years previously.

The thing that amazed me most about FreeBSD was the speed and response time of the networking. FTP and Samba are near instantaneous in response time on my local network. I have all my mp3s and oggs on there and I play them in Winamp across the network. Previously it would take 5-7 seconds to start an mp3 up, but now since I switched to FreeBSD the startup time is 1-2 seconds.

I don't know about other OS's but I installed my FreeBSD satrting off with just two floppies, now that is cool! Two hours later I had a complete system and never burned the first CD.

Re:FreeBSD running behind linux?

[Traser]

Although it may seem to you that some versions of software used in FreeBSD are a few versions behind linux there is a very good reason for this. The FreeBSD ethic values stability before anything. If something works, and the 'newest' version is not stable enough for the Release Team, than the older version will be used. This is the first FreeBSD release to include XFree86 4.2.x as a default package - which you have all been using for a while. As of 4.6, it wasn't considered stable enough, so 3.3.x was used.

FreeBSD's concept of 'stable' it about 10 times more stable than that of most code in various linuxes. That is a conscious, conservative choice made by the core team. And I like that choice.

Re:no java? who cares

[MobyTurbo]

No native JDK 1.4

Yes, their native JDK is still 1.3. You can run Linux 1.4 in emulation though if there's something in 1.4 you must have... I assume that there will eventually be a JDK 1.4 for FreeBSD.

Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?

[Moridineas]

Well you can build only portions if you want--the kernel for instance, that's pretty easy. Another option is if you have multiple systems just build on one and then install on all your others from that system (assuming they are the same arch etc...cross-compiling doesn't always work I think). Also, buildworld USED to be an extremely time consuming thing, but now it's not so bad.

Wasting bandwidth? How do you figure? I imagine that downloading text diffs (cvs) to keep your soruce tree in line is quite a bit less impressive that downloading large binary packages for every update?

You have SOMEWHAT of a point with space, but otoh I don't know too many servers anymore that don't have 1GB to spare (for source and compiling--and that is more than needed!)

Overall even given your valid points, I prefer compiling updates--I can tweak options, only compile what is need, compiler optimizations, etc.

Re:gcc 3?

[Arandir]

gcc-3.2 was released less than two months ago. gcc-2.1 was released less than five months ago. And gcc-3.0 was released not much longer than one year ago.

How many -release- Linux distros can you name that were using gcc-3.2 even thirty days ago?

Face it, gcc-3.2 has not been around "for quite a bit of time now". It is in their -current (unstable) branches, and if you wish to live on the cutting edge, feel free to use them. But two months is nowhere near the amount of time required to properly test the inclusion of a new compiler in a system with a reputation for stability.

Linux emulation is busted

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been problems getting JDK1.4 (linux) working flawlessly under FreeBSD. So grow up when stating 'Ridiculous...'

If you're going to use a unix as a Java development environment, excluding Sun's, you're forced to use i386 Linux since it's the only other platform with a working 1.4.1 release. Why I won't be switching to OSX!

Latest info I saw was:

http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-may-20 02 -june-2002.html#FreeBSD-Java-Project

Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?

[benedict]

I don't think Linux qualifies as a System V,
though it has borrowed some concepts from System V.

There is a formal definition of what is and is not
a System V unix. Last I checked it was called the
SVID (System V Interface Definition), but that may
have changed by now.

Best Feature of FreeBSD...

[Anonymous Coward]

is the documentation. Yes there's some excellent linux docs on the ldp site but for FreeBSD you can just consult the Handbook [freebsd.org] for everthing.