Forgot your password?
Operating Systems Software BSD

FreeBSD 5.2 Released 507

Posted by Hemos
from the and-lo-it-comes dept.
James writes "Freebsd 5.2 is released. FTP mirrors. Release notes This is another step towards 5-STABLE. Many improvements in this release, including ATA and networking enhancements." Patrick Jensen also points out that this is the first stable release with AMD64 support. You can also see the official announcement if you so desire.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD 5.2 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:56AM (#7951658)
    RedHat 8.0 on the Dual Opteron in 32 bit.

    Of course it works - I tried it too - but what is the point running a 32-bit OS?

    I've heard good things about SuSE's 64-bit enterprise server-distro as well as the RedHat Enterprise Linux, but you can't download them for a testdrive. Sorry. I won't buy something that I can't try first.

    AMD64 is a Tier 1 FreeBSD platform - not Beta like the Linux distros and it just worked.

  • Re: Mandrake (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Quantum-Sci (732727) on Monday January 12, 2004 @10:01AM (#7951695) Homepage

    Time is an important factor. I think the BSDs are great for internet servers, though I don't see how they're any more secure than a properly set up Mandrake system. Yes, I use Mandrake, not because I'm a n00b, but because Suse cost me at least a month of downtime over the past year. I need my systems, to get actual work done.

    Though I'm glad the BSDs are there, for my purposes Linux just works.

  • Re:Question (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2004 @10:01AM (#7951697)
    Well ... don't. If you are happy with what you have, stay where you are.

    I'm happily running FreeBSD on all my boxen. You are happily running Linux. Heck, there are even people happily running Windows.
  • by DA-MAN (17442) on Monday January 12, 2004 @10:23AM (#7951856) Homepage
    I stand corrected re: Fedora/64 Bit.

    I am not anti FreeBSD, in fact I use FreeBSD as my desktop. I have nothing but respect for FreeBSD. I just don't like people spreading bullshit about Linux neither.

    Your post, if true, is not a very typical experience. I installed over a hundred of these machines, and never once had an issue, using the same scsi card.
  • by Cthefuture (665326) on Monday January 12, 2004 @11:04AM (#7952146)
    If you're thinking of dabbling with FreeBSD as a desktop I can highly recommend it .. yeah but it depends on what you need. I mean, I use Linux as my primary OS so you would think it might be easy for me to go FreeBSD.

    Overall I really like FreeBSD's simple install and the ports system is pretty good although I'm not a believer in compiling everything. And the system feels very stable and nice.

    However, can I run VMware 4.x (I absolutely must have this)? How are the nVidia drivers? Does the nvidia-settings program work on FreeBSD? No V4L applications will work on FreeBSD. And so on...

    Those are the types of things that keep me from using FreeBSD. Unfortunately FreeBSD is to Linux as Linux is to Windows. There are some nice aspects to the underdog but there's just more support for more stuff in the other one. By that reasoning you'll probably say I should be using Windows. Fact is, I probably would be using Windows as my primary OS if I thought Microsoft was a company worth supporting in that way not to mention my security concerns.
  • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Florian (2471) <> on Monday January 12, 2004 @11:20AM (#7952259) Homepage
    > I'm happy with my Linux system right now. It supports all my hardware
    > and gives me a nice desktop.

    Then there's no reason for you to switch. If you would instead not be
    happy with your system and find that FreeBSD runs better on your
    hardware, than this would be a reason to go through the hassle of
    switching your OS.

    After all, the differences between a GNU/Linux and a *BSD system are
    practically user-invisible on the level of the desktop interface. Both
    are, as a matter of fact, state-of-the-art Unix, but may not be called
    so because of trademarks and expensive certifications (which, contrary
    to popular make-belief, are not owned by SCO, but by the Open Group,
    formerly X/Open).

    The differences mainly concern the kernel (partitioning schemes and
    filesystems, hardware drivers, module handling, packet filters, sound
    and multimedia subsystems). Userspace differences in the init system,
    package management and base OS/distribution tools are not bigger than
    those between two GNU/Linux distributions. Slackware or Gentoo users
    might even find Free/Net/OpenBSD more familiar than RedHat or SuSE.
    There are subtle, but sometimes crucial differences in the commandline
    userland between GNU/Linux and *BSD though, unless one installs the GNU
    file and text utilities on *BSD and uses them as default (which is easy
    and supported by the package management of all three free BSDs). The
    KDE/Gnome/XFCE desktops act in a completely transparent manner, with no
    visible differences, on top of GNU/Linux and *BSD.

    Generally, the Linux kernel is best suited for a desktop system because
    of its more advanced sound (ALSA) and video (video4linux) subsystems,
    support for a wide range of desktop hardware gadgets (Webcams, graphic
    tablets and the like), filesystems (including everything from Amiga to
    Acorn...) and hardware-accelerated video card drivers (DRI/DRM, although
    I read similar features are on the roadmap of FreeBSD and NetBSD), and,
    since kernel 2.6, kernel preemption and low-latency functions. However,
    FreeBSD should come close to Linux as it is optimized for the x86-PC
    architecture and is a very good performer. NetBSD is, from my own
    experience of running it as a secondary OS, not as fast, but still
    surprisingly good for an OS that is developed with portability (and
    hence abstraction/clean interfaces vs. optimization) as its prime
    objective. IMHO, it is (very) roughly comparable with Linux kernel v2.0
    in terms of performance and desktop computing friendliness. Installation
    of NetBSD is a bit difficult (more so than even Debian), and the
    necessity of creating classical BSD disklabels for every storage media
    to be mounted can be highly annoying on a desktop system (for example,
    if one wants to quickly mount someone else's USB stick). OpenBSD is,
    IMHO, a bad choice for a desktop system unless security and crypto
    features are the main requirements. It is not a good performer at all
    (and not being developed with performance as a main goal).

    Kernel-wise, FreeBSD's chief advantage over Linux used to be better
    responsiveness under high system load and better virtual memory
    management (which both gave/give FreeBSD an edge over Linux on servers
    rather than on desktops). This advantage has gradually decreased through
    substantial low-level improvements in Linux 2.0, 2.4 and now 2.6, which
    AFAIK has lifted quite a bit from FreeBSD's advanced VM management.
    Maybe Linux 2.6 is now on par, but still I wouldn't be surprised if
    FreeBSD (and also NetBSD) would be more mature in this field. (For
    example, I never succeeded in bringing down my two NetBSD boxes with a
    fork bomb.)

  • Re:Question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JDizzy (85499) on Monday January 12, 2004 @01:46PM (#7953889) Homepage Journal
    Actually, your incorrect in your assertion about the most secure one of the *BSD's. It is easy to belive what you read regarding what each of the BSD's does, and is. In reality NetBSD is by fare the *most* secure of all the BSD's, bar none. FreeBSD is the Linux of the BSD, with aqll its packages/ports, and support for peripherial hardware. OpenBSD is is secure, and has code audits, and produces other nice things that find their way into everything else, but is not the most secure by default BSD.

    I like to ask people like yourself, no offence intended, why OpenBSd is the most secure? Is it something you have read some place, or something you were told, or discovered yourself?

    In NetBSD, the default is nothing but a small bare minimal system, with nothing turned on. Nothing is more secure than this. OpenBSD on the other hand, has lots of things turned on by default, and has turned out to be the cause of most of their problems. Contrairy to what the OpenBSD website says, they have had about 7 or 8 default bugs in their installs in the past 3 years. They like to claim *one* root eplain since inception, or whatever... they are not all that!

    In reality it goes like this:
    FreeBSD is the most powerfull, and linux like of the BSD's.
    NetBSD is the most portable, and most secure by default.
    OpenBSD wrote OpenSSH, and has the best t-shirts, and posters.
    OSx is the prettiest, and the most widely deployed desktop unix.
  • by Prinz Madde (163647) on Monday January 12, 2004 @03:16PM (#7954815)
    I actually just recently tried out FreeBSD (5.1-RELEASE, to be exact), because I wanted to do something with my Sun ultrasparc 5 besides having it sit there and look sexy. OpenBSD was not an option, as I cannot boot the ultra5 from floppy (even says so in the README somewhere), and I was way too lazy to build a boot CD ala NetBSD's instructions, so FreeBSD it was - I wanted to use the box and see something new besides Linux and Win2k (and OS X in my dreams on the 12" PB).

    In hindsight, I have to say it's great, it simply *works*. I am running apache2 on it and soon will switch my internal IMAP server (just for home, two users, collecting from various accounts via fetchmail and providing the results to internal IMAP clients) to that box. Maybe nfs/samba file server will be next so I can retire the Mandrake 7.2 installation on my current file server. :/
    Of course, the machine is slow, a cd /usr/ports ; make distro clean takes about three days, but who is counting. :)

    However, to finally get to the point (yes, I am bored today), installation was a bitch, to say the least, none of the terminal emulations the installer suggests is usable on the sun console. Usenet searches suggested a serial terminal (yeah, didn't have that under the kitchen sink), or a nullmodem to another box. I decided to do a "blind" install, took a couple of attemots, but somehow it worked and the rest is history - did everything through ssh from my desktop linux box.

    I skimmed the release notes on 5.2, but could not find any mentioning of the sun console finally being a usuable install option, even though in my (previously mentioned) usenet archive search I came across mentionings of someone wanting to fix this. Does anyone know where it stands?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2004 @03:21PM (#7954876)
    As a FreeBSD user...

    It's worth noting that AMD64 support in FreeBSD began/appeared later than the initial Linux betas. I was still of the understanding it was "Beta"-grade (in the sense that even the Alpha port has always been a little 'experimental,' despite being stable), but perhaps they've stabilized it to mission-critical-and-then-some for 5.2.

    This is not to say that one is 'better' than the other, but to note a difference in approach - the Linux work would seem the product of many interested parties, probably building from someone's initial patchset, following the 'bazaar' model. FreeBSD is... well, more of a mall than an outright bazaar, so you might say the AMD64 work there heeled closer to the 'cathedral' model -- someone (or a relatively small group of interested/capable developers) decided it was time to support AMD64, and the development has probably been that little bit more centralized than you'd find in the Linux scene.

    Which can be good or bad; in this case, seems like we've got a nice, clean, working implementation, so it was good. In cases of religious/architectural disagreement, it does mean you have to fork (OpenBSD, DFBSD), rather than releasing a -yi (Your Initials) patchset and pretending you haven't.
  • Re:too bad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Brandybuck (704397) on Monday January 12, 2004 @06:15PM (#7956598) Homepage Journal
    Not to bash Perl or anything, but I think that these incompatibilities between minor version numbers is a Perl weakness. Having to use perl 6.x instead of 5.x I could understand. But having to use perl 5.8 instead of 5.6 is silly. The 5 means it's the same major version.

    But in any case, just update your perl through ports and you're done. Easy.
  • Viva le BSD. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mrplastik (722391) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @11:57AM (#7962945) Homepage Journal
    Current Uptimes []
    I see lots of trolls posting NetCraft stats, so here's yet some more to entertain their lonely lives.

    Dead you say? It must be so, look how long these machines have been up, it certainly time for something new.
    Gander at which OS's dominate the list. This certainly doesn't mean anything, now does it?

    For a dead guy, BSD sure has a lot of kick left in them. For those of you that're behind, plans are already being made for the 6.x branch of FreeBSD. That sure sounds like a dying OS, now doesn't it?

    I've got no beef with Linux. I run Linux, and multiple BSDs, and have for over a decade. I've got a beef with trolls making false statements and any moderators that bump their post to informative.


    We're far from through.


ASHes to ASHes, DOS to DOS.