FreeBSD 5.2 Released 507
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.
FreeBSD on Opterons (Score:5, Interesting)
Gentoo, Mandrake and RedHat crashed. Couldn't test SuSE because you can't download their 64-bit Linux.
Re:FreeBSD 5 works fine in production, here (Score:1, Interesting)
Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, the documentation is fantastic. The FreeBSD handbook has everything you could possibly want to know about system administration, and all the man pages are well maintained and actually there.
As far as performance goes, I'm sure there's not much of a difference. The reason you'd want to switch is that you'd want a mature, complete system, rather than a hodgepodge of libraries and binaries. It makes it a lot easier and more enjoyable to get stuff done.
Curious (Score:3, Interesting)
Who uses it? How exactly is it licensed? How is it maintained and managed? Are there different distros as for Linux? Do any companies provide FreeBSD-based solutions, or is it just for hobbyists? What can it run on? Should *I* consider running it, and why?
I appreciate that I *could* go looking for all this information and piece the story together myself, but hell, it's easier this way.
Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)
OpenBSD (2.7) = More secure due to better code reviews - Good for firewalls and gateways
FreeBSD (4.8) = Better more efficient network stack - Good for webservers etc.
Linux (RH 6.2) = Good alrounder - Good choice for desktop and for a much wider choice of prebuilt applications. Also OS du jour at the time.
I would be very interested to see a good modern comparison of these OS'es, perhaps even with commercial *nix thrown into the analysis - HP/UX, AIX, Solaris and SCO for example.
I bet they still all have their strengths and weaknesses now, just like they did then.
Re:Not quite. (Score:1, Interesting)
Henning Brauer - Well, I, like the majority of our developers, am not interested in religious wars. Every time _I_ have to deal with linux I am pissed by the in my eyes poor quality of the manpages, the incosistency in the system, and the often insane defaults. When I read Linux code I am scared by its often bad style, use of magic numbers, questionable hacks and obfuscation, compared to the clean code we try to use in *BSD. And often enough I am scared by a very sloppy dealing with copyright.
I've been told KDE and GNOME run on *BSD, and I even saw that for KDE, and I bet there's not much visible difference for desktop users between linux and *BSD with one of those on top.
For servers, the reduced complexity, saner defaults and better documentation in *BSD pays out quickly IMHO.
A special case are firewalls - over the last, well, it's nearly 3 years, pf developed rapidly to a fairly impressive packet filter, with a lot of surrounding applications to turn it into bigger solutions. I don't see any comparable packet filter in the free world, and I dunno about commercial ones, bout I doubt there is any.
Well, iptables may be able to do most of what pf can do, but it does many things wrong IMHO. And the concept of formulating firewall rules in command line options to some tool is so obviously flawed that everybody is using some frontend, with makes this further confusing and complaictedm and the resulting ruelsets worse, and... well, just compare to the beauty of a well written pf.conf.
BSD packaging systems (Score:2, Interesting)
One thing I really like about Mac OS X is the increasing number of Unix-derived packages that are available through projects such as fink. Fink uses the venerable apt-get system, derived from Debian, to manage the installation, maintenance and upgrading of traditional Unix packages into the MacOS environment. A neat tool, no doubt.
I'm no BSD expert, but I believed that the *BSD systems came with their own packaging system, namely the 'ports' system. But therein lies the question: if Mac OS X is derived from a FreeBSD kernel, why is the premier system for managing open source software packages derived from Debian's apt-get? Would any regular BSD users care to comment? apt-get sure is convenient, but can these 'ports' make things even easier? Should BSD user mount a campaign on Apple's discussion boards to get these 'ports' included with the Developer's Package of the next release of Mac OS X? Apple is quite the innovator in ports after all, being a pioneer of both USB and FireWire. BSD ports could be another feather in their technical cap.
I look forward to the responses of the BSD community. Mac OS X, powered by FreeBSD, is a really rockin' platform!!
Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I like it from the point of the view that is is developed in the tradional way. There is good QA process, good community atmosphere which concerntrates on support users rather than giving a lecter on why their particular operating system "rocks their box".
I also like the ports system and the fact that you can sync things so easily and compile everything in a nice clean mannor. Depencies are resolved via ports, updating the core is really easy and the speed, it is great. There aren't 100s of services running when using Linux and 90% of the time I am as confused as a baby in a topless bar over which to disable, enable or what ever.
Also, the cool thing is, it isn't a cool thing. You don't have Red Hat screaming, 4 month using *NIX wantabees asking stupid questions. Sure, I used Linux for 5 years but now unfortunately, with the rise and perceived ease of use, we now have a whole new group of zealots and half witts.
Oh well, back to my quiet yet stable life of MacOS 10.3.2 and FreeBSD.
Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)
On FreeBSD the ports are kept up-to-date faster. There are SO many more ports [slashdot.org] ready-to-go. Really a surprising amount. Like anything you ever needed, just go to /usr/ports and there it is, ready to install.
No RPM hell. Just cd /usr/ports/multimedia/xmms ; make install clean. It downloads and compiles any dependencies from source. And a simple command can automatically upgrade ALL of your installs ports every night!
I find FreeBSD faster and simpler than any Linux distro I tried.
I still think OpenBSD is wonderful for making a bulletproof network-connected server or firewall, but if you haven't tried FreeBSD yet, I think it'll make a much better desktop.
Re:recommend using FreeBSD as a desktop (Score:2, Interesting)
PowerPC (Score:2, Interesting)
PCMCIA support (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically, if you need PCMCIA support during the install, you're SOL. For instance if you want to do a network install over a PCMCIA NIC. Like I said, since 5.x the installer doesn't even try to detect PCMCIA devices anymore.
FTP2 traffic (Score:2, Interesting)
here [freebsd.org]
Re:Question (Score:1, Interesting)
Overall consistency, completeness and attention to detail are important (consider the bootloader and kernel configuration, for example...).
The ability to run a stable bleeding-edge system with decent manual pages for everything and run up-to-date software versions built from source. The only Linux distribution that lets me to build and manage the latest software using a reasonable mechanism (Gentoo) is, IMHO, a bit of a mess.
It also "feels" different - e.g. compare the consistency and readability of dmesg output from kernel boot. The working devfs is nice, too.
Note that I also have reasons why I want to use Linux sometimes - ALSA, reiserfs, many games work better etc., but you were asking for reasons why you might want to use *BSD.
There is no single huge advantage for a regular user, but if you want to be able to track -current and rebuild your system often, like the ports collection, want to be able to set up IPv6 and IPsec easily out-of-the-box, value up-to-date documentation etc., it might well be worth considering.
I wonder what has "seemed" much faster in Linux compared to OpenBSD, since there are few things that result in user-visible performance differences. If this was pre-softupdates, probably the filesystem; but then it was probably ext2 on Linux, and you can't really compare that to any of the *BSDs, which have never used unsafe filesystem mounts by default (unlike Linux up until it got journaled filesystems).
Live CD (Score:4, Interesting)
Since I haven't seen this mentioned yet...
What's the possibilty of having a FreeBSD LiveCD? As far as I can tell, there is no technical restriction, since if I remember correctly, a lot of floppy-based routers use netBSD.
FreeBSD gets lots of praise from it's users, but my only real experience with it is that a couple of my friends tried it (about 3 years ago) and found it impossible to install. However, it seems like an it would be worth a try, but I don't really want to sacrifice my Linux partition. Plus, I'm not all that interested in going through another lengthy install process since I'm pretty happy with Slackware.
Of course, since supporters mostly seem to admire the ports system, there maybe little difference for the end-user between Linux and FreeBSD LiveCD's.
And please, no jokes about a "dead" operating system being distributed on a live CD.
Re:BSD packaging systems (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally, I find fink (and the wonderful FinkCommander) to be extremely easy to use, but the inclusion of any simple access to ports/apt-get/etc would be a boon to OS X users.
Re:FreeBSD 5 works fine in production, here (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeederoony, FreeBSD 5 is perfectly stable for production systems here, too. We use versions based on the Mach Microkernel, for Intel and for PPC. They're available here [apple.com] :-).
Seriously, as far as FreeBSD-derivatives go, Darwin is very nice, if only for the Mach task scheduling, IOKit, SystemStarter, NetInfo, Apple/NeXT dynamic loader, fat binary support.... Show me another system on which you can build a single version of XFree86 that works with both PowerPC and Intel systems and doesn't even need an XF86Config file :-D
Re:Question (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't have Red Hat screaming, 4 month using *NIX wantabees asking stupid questions.
I can tell you've never subscribed to questions@freebsd.org.
Sorry, but the only reason you don't see at much n00bieism around FreeBSD is only because it's not nearly as much in the public eye as Linux is.
Sure, I used Linux for 5 years but now unfortunately, with the rise and perceived ease of use, we now have a whole new group of zealots and half witts.
I can remember the days when a person who owned a modem and dialed around to various bulletin boards was considered cool, mature, and intellectually superior to your garden variety computer geeks. But of course when the Internet started becoming more prevalent, bulletin boards started getting cast as low-tech and amateurish. Mid-90's: anything Linux was in, everything specifically non-Unix was out. Now it's the early 2000's and FreeBSD is the new geek fashion statement. Those who are just now jumping on the FreeBSD bandwagon are thumbing their noses down at Linux users and calling them names such as "zealots" and "half witts." (While we're here, I want the gentle reader to take a moment to ask who here is the real zealot?) New FreeBSD users are citing mostly the exact same reasons for using FreeBSD over Linux that Linux users cited for choosing Linux over Windows years ago, although they are now more subtle:
Trust me, it will take only a few years before the Next Big Geek Trend comes along and FreeBSD will not be the playground of the elite-wannabes. Instead, it will be relegated as a hunk of code that showed definite signs of promise but was ultimately hampered by too many "n00bs" joining the FreeBSD community thereby spoiling it for everyone. Or perhaps by an archaic, inflexible, development system or crochety old too-conservative developers. The particular excuse doesn't matter, only the fact that it will have gone out of style. The next new thing will be there to take FreeBSD's place.
Don't think for a second that I don't love FreeBSD. I use it on my computers at home and have several patches on my todo list that I'd like to work on and submit to the FreeBSD developers when time permits. But I also use Linux and Windows on a regular basis as well. And I'm not going to sit here and lie to myself and others by saying that I wasn't totally infatuated with Linux and other geek trends in the past. That, I think, is the primary difference between an advocate and a zealot.
Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)
1) PORTS. FreeBSD could win on this point alone. The ports system is AWESOME. I have never used Linux, but I hear a lot of people bitch about RPMs and "dependency hell". FreeBSD has dependencies but the ports system tracks all that. Every file, every version, every port is noted. I can just go to a directory and type "make clean install" and everything will be downloaded, built to my tastes, along with all dependencies and their dependencies and built in the proper order, then registered in the database. Daily I sync my ports tree and see what's new. If I want it, I can upgrade it (along with dependencies) safely with one command. It just doesn't get better than this. Recently, FreeBSD pass the 10,000 ports mark [freshports.org]. There's also a nice overview of the ports system at Arstechnica [arstechnica.com].
2) Stability. FreeBSD is notoriously stable. You can pick any Netcraft report (such as here [netcraft.com], here [netcraft.com], here [netcraft.com], here [netcraft.com], or here [netcraft.com]. ) for evidence of this.
3) Consolidation. There is only one "FreeBSD". If I have 5.2 and you have 5.2, we have the same OS. There is no one "Linux". In reality, Linux is a kernel, and when you add a userland then you have a distribution. FreeBSD is kernel + userland.
4) File organization. Linux seems to lay out its file hierarchy somewhat randomly, with no consistancy of where an installed executable binary might be placed or separation of base/user. FreeBSD has polished this and adheres rigidly to a formal structure. For example, I know my base system is under
5) Community. I find the FreeBSD community to be less fanatical and instead more disciplined and polite. I feel like I'm getting help from someone wearing a suit & tie (though I doubt they really are..:) ) instead of a "LINUX RULEZ!!!" kid.
6) Documentation. FreeBSD has EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION [freebsd.org], which is helped by Reason #3. There are also a number of excellent books on FreeBSD [vtbsd.net], all of which in this list I own. Sure, there are a bazillion books on Linux, but FreeBSD doesn't need so many because there's just one FreeBSD, and once you get beyond the OS, the rest is specific to the application/server and is not OS-specific.
7) Performance. FreeBSD is notorious for performing well. In fact, sometimes applications under Linux-emulation (see #8) run better than on a native Linux box. FreeBSD's TCP/IP implementation is also well-known for being very fast.
8) Linux-emulation. Most stuff for Linux is available as open-source and can be compiled natively for FreeBSD (and is probably in the ports tree), but for the few binary-only things that aren't, FreeBSD can still run them. Some of the Linux stuff I run myself include RealPlayer, Acrobat Reader (although gpdf works well too), the Flash plugin (running in a native Firebird, btw), and maybe some other things I ca
Why *NOT* to use FreeBSD: (Score:4, Interesting)
Of all the reasons listed, it is the simplicity and order and coherency of everything that works for me. It's very standardized, and things just seem to be done in a way that "makes sense".
So- why not use it?
There really is only one reason: bleeding-edge hardware support.
For server systems this is not an issue, but for desktops (particularly laptops) it raises its ugly head.
I will say that the 5.x series makes a lot of improvements in the "general laptop functionality" area, but even still- hardware support *does* lag behind Linux.
It is for that reason (and *only* that reason) that for my FOB P2040, FreeBSD (4.x at the time) just was not an option. Stuff like sound/tvout/suspend/spindown and IIRC even the particular USB controller wasn't supported. It's been a long time now but I remember installing it and just finding it unworkable at all on a machine that new at the time.
Anyway- food for thought.
Re:Question (Score:2, Interesting)