FreeBSD 5.1 Review and BSD Roundup 385
securitas writes "Both eWEEK's review of FreeBSD 5.1 and ExtremeTech's BSD overview and roundup (single page) will be of interest to BSDers and anyone else who wants to explore their open source OS options. The review of FreeBSD 5.1 says it lacks the stability of v4.8 but adds features that some may find useful (for example, more processor architectures are supported) so it shouldn't be considered for critical deployments yet. And the BSD round-up speaks for itself."
I tried it, I liked it (Score:4, Informative)
Also a lot more of the new stuff on by default.
Well duh.... (Score:5, Informative)
That's why it's 5.1-CURRENT and not 5.1-STABLE. That's like saying version 2.5.60 of the linux kernel lacks the stability of version 2.4.21.
Sorry, but YFI (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, but YFI. From the FreeBSD docs:
One detail that the lawsuit did clarify is the naming: in the 1980s, BSD was known as ``BSD UNIX''. With the elimination of the last vestige of AT&T code from BSD, it also lost the right to the name UNIX. Thus you will see references in book titles to ``the 4.3BSD UNIX operating system'' and ``the 4.4BSD operating system''. [freebsd.org]
So what is really the difference between, say, Debian Linux and FreeBSD? For the average user, the difference is surprisingly small: Both are UNIX-like operating systems. [freebsd.org] (Emphasis mine.)
-uso.
Re:Well duh.... (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.1R/announce.h
SMP & MT Progress (Score:5, Informative)
5.1 is not in the stable branch yet, but 5.2/3 show great promises.
Re:I tried it, I liked it (Score:5, Informative)
Basically it'll just keeeep sloooowiing doooown.
But you can fudge through the install easily enough by suspending/resuming the VM, which will bring it back to speed. You need to do it a few times mind you as it keeps slowing down.
Re:FreeBSD should support more NICs than ARCHes (Score:2, Informative)
Re:FreeBSD should support more NICs than ARCHes (Score:2, Informative)
Also, FreeBSD supports more then two ATM cards:
Efficient Networks, Inc. ENI-155p ATM PCI Adapters (hea driver)
FORE Systems, Inc. PCA-200E ATM PCI Adapters (hfa driver)
IDT 77201/211 NICStAR ATM Adapters (idt driver)
FORE Systems, Inc. LE155 ATM Adapter (idt driver)
--EG
Re:mac problems (Score:5, Informative)
Second, it's pretty well known the old finders were not multitasking. Or at least, not preemptive. I always wondered about formatting a floppy, copying a file while trying to do something as well. But a lot of people I've seen use Macs are happy doing one thing at a time.
Others have claimed Macs were/are superior because they tend to just work. For a long time they came with sound on board, networking, video, Scsi, and in GUI usability terms were far ahead of Windows pre-95.
Granted, Apple has a monopoly on their OS and hardware, but there's a reason for that; they believe that the whole computer should be package, not a bunch of parts. I was not much of a Mac fan until I bought my first Titanium Powerbook. After that, my Mac has replaced my Linux and Win desktops. I still love Linux and Intel hardware, but there is something to be said about plug and play that works - even for geeks.
So yah, you're right, you're using a shitty browser on a old slow Mac. But why does it have to get to the point of calling people fanatics all the time. I'm sure all the Windoze, BSD, etc.., people speak highly of Linux zealots complaining about any OS that doesn't have skinnable everything and doesn't run on the shittiest hardware invented.
I'd still buy a Mac for my parents in a hearbeat even though they 'like' Windoze. That said, my mom runs a online store off a Gentoo box I built her, so..
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lacking stability?! (Score:1, Informative)
One thing in the ET article... (Score:5, Informative)
There is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from selling GPL'ed software. In fact, the FSF says to go right ahead and do so if you want. [gnu.org] What the GPL of course DOES guarantee is that the software can't become proprietary at any point, whereas the BSDs can be.
Re:Well duh.... (Score:5, Informative)
The 5.x codebase will not be made -STABLE until at least 5.2 or 5.3.
-RELEASE is nothing more than a snapshot of *either* -CURRENT or -STABLE.
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Informative)
looks to me like the "FreeBSD Project" admitted it.
News? (Score:5, Informative)
I use FreeBSD, and upgraded to 5.1 from 4.7 about a week after 5.1 was released. Though I did have some issues with X and DRI, I got it working with not much effort. (About 20 minutes of searching the web turned up some instructions that directed me to set ForcePCIMode on in my drivers section of XF86Config.)
Though 5.1 is a new technology release and so not as stable or as fast as 4.8, it is still quite stable and quite fast at most everything I do. I've had no problems with doing my usual work, and some "weird" behavior in or two apps actually went away when recompiled on 5.1 versus 4.7.
That said, I haven't gotten YMessenger to work, and I've been too lazy to try fixing it myself. (It just appears to need to be relinked against a certain lib, and I haven't bothered to find out which one that is.)
Generally, I've not had any trouble running Linux apps under emulation, either.
All my Java 1.4 stuff works, too.
I know that anecdotal evidence proves nothing, but I just thought I'd weigh in with a mostly positive experience of someone who has been a FreeBSD user for quite some time.
Yes, I also use GNU/Linux, too. In fact, I have two machines running GNU/Linux at home, only 1 running FreeBSD, and one other running OpenBSD. Though I may switch one of the GNU/Linux machines to FreeBSD in the near future (maybe after 5-STABLE is branched).
Re:Actually... (Score:2, Informative)
I'm smart enough to infer from the term "Early Adopter" that this probably isn't quite ready for production use, but the less educated people can find sentences like "While suitable for testing and experimentation, these features may not be ready for production use." in the guide to help clue them in.
Re:FreeBSD = top quality (Score:3, Informative)
And, for completeness, Debian turns ten years old next month. [debconf.org]
Re:News? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, and just to be pedantic, it's not Linux emulation, it's Linux compatibility. There is a difference, although few people really care to know what it is.
Reports of BSD death are premature! (Score:2, Informative)
Geepers I've seen this lame troll post before! If freebsd is dead then it sure is making alot of noise. If you really are into coding then bsd is alot more fun than anything else around.
The kernel is rock solid and is easier to test virtual environments without hosing some core config. The core libraries are very easy to protect, and duplicate. The unfortunate thing that I have found about Linux is that the core libraries other than the Kernel make ./config on cross platforms a nightmare with some distros. Slackware is the only one thats still easy to figure out the path structure. With only one official Freebsd some people who are getting tired of having to find paths to ./config for the different Linux distros are switching to Slackware and FreeBSD, for the sake of their santity. To those who like to code for KDE Slackware runs about 30% faster with KDE 3
than Mandrake or RedHat. Bsd smokes if you set it up right. For the bunch that do shell scripts and code in Vi (and its variant) Bsd and Slackware are still the best dual boot and the closest to a real programmers tool. So what if you do not default boot directly into a window manager, unless you set it up. I still like to type startx and find that Mandrake and RedHat installs since version 8 have become geared to Windows users (which is fine) not the Gnu/Bsd/Linux community as a whole.
FreeBsd, Slackware, and Debian have an important place in the free software world they are and will remain the developement platforms of choice, because choice is what they deliver.
Re:X problems (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmm, I thought Inspiron's had ATI RAGE Mobility M4 graphics. Running X on mine at 640x480 was real easy, as was 800x600. I will admit that getting native resolution is a pain, but such issues are really down to the XFree86 Project, not the OS.
Slight errors in syntax when using ports
So the OS is at fault when you tell it to do something stoopid? You can only make such mistakes if you is root, and the world and his dog know that being root is DANGEROUS! I once fooked a Linux box when I accidentally did an rm-rf
The configuration system doesn't allow for small changes easily
Right. And the SysV rc[0-6].d system is intuitive is it? I've always found BSD OSs much easier to reconfigure. The new RC subsystem has made this even easier.
like getting rid of an IP
ifconfig fxp1 inet 192.168.9.1 delete
Then delete the relevant line from
Linux now has: autohardware detection, good drivers, sample configs for virtually every system
As does FreeBSD.
lots and lots and lots of documentation.
Yes. And most of it is out of date crap. I picked FreeBSD because finding useful Linux documentation proved so tiresome.
How is BSD "friendlier"?
Because the core team concentrate on doing things in a thoughtful, considered, and logical way; with major changes being implemented gradually and then only after a full peer review; and versioning system that makes sense.
Oh yes, we also don't spawn a new distro every time somebody decides they want to do stuff their own way.
Re:FreeBSD = top quality - FreeBSD is Lord (Score:4, Informative)
- cvsup the base system to latest CVS stable release
- configure
- reconfigure kernel config file to include SMP [options SMP; options APIC_IO], and a shorter timeout period for the SCSI driver [options SCSI_DELAY=4000], and I add a few things to support IDE-CD burning [device atapicam], etc.
- backup
- clean out
- in
make clean && make cleandepend && make cleandir && make clean && make cleandepend && make cleandir [anal retentive cleansing]
make buildworld ; make buildkernel KERNCONF=SMP
make installkernel KERNCONF=SMP
single user mode
fsck -p ; mount -u / ; mount -a -t ufs ; swapon -a ; adjkerntz -i
mergemaster -p ; make installworld ; mergemaster ; reboot
Now my whole system is custom made for my CPU and hardware. It lets me see the care taken in building the whole system and shows off a very clean build process.
The ports system has many meta-ports that make making an instant workstation quite easy to construct. If you don't want to build your ports with massive optimizations, a large cache of packages are available.
I would like to point out that I have never had an unbuildable world. I've heard of it on -CURRENT, but have never experienced it, but -STABLE is wonderfully - stable!
Ports could use a rollback feature such as the one found in Gentoo. Not that I long for Gentoo [I've used this system and deprecate it for a multitude of reasons, maybe later], I have supervised many systems and find that FreeBSD is the best in terms of stability and longevity. Of course uptime is more of a game, who can build a better mousetrap, but its certainly not a meaningless metric.
The biggest hole in FreeBSD at the moment is Sun's fault. Native Java 1.4 support is available with a bizarre license. Interestingly, IBM and Sun's Linux products actually run very well under the Linux emulation support.
I have never understood the hatred people have for FreeBSD. It bizarre and unfounded. Its a non-RedHat systems to Winux [Windows weenie Linux wannabees] admins, so they have a conniption that real UNIX is complex and detail oriented, and that reading mans, howtos and docs are par for the course - no admin wizards to "save the day." No, you must actually understand and configure something properly.
The documentation on FreeBSD is superior. There are many, many docs that cover basic to esoteric administration, with a lot of attention paid to performance enhancing things one can do.
Add Vinum and UFS2 to the stack of features, and you have yourself some fairly serious filesystem support. While I would like to see XFS in FreeBSD as well, it is a pipe dream, as it is still in "stable" Linux - the best file